On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM, <r_j_h_box...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I finally figured this out.
>
> lambda { route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "create").should ==
> "anything" }.should raise_error( ActionController::RoutingError )
>
> The clue was that I wasn't getting a routing error until I tried to compare
> route_for() with something. route_for() seems to generate an object that
> overrides ==(), and at that time it does raise the exception. Now we wrap
> that comparison in a lambda and assert that the *comparison* should raise the
> expected routing error.
>
> So - great, we can actually test it. But the syntax does leave something to
> be desired. dchelimsky, can you recommend any alternatives that would be a
> bit cleaner for testing that a route doesn't exist?
>
You don't need the .should == "anything" in there. So this is a bit cleaner:
lambda { route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "create")
}.should raise_error( ActionController::RoutingError )
Also, since rspec-1.2.5 you can use expect/to:
expect { route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "create")
}.to raise_error( ActionController::RoutingError )
You could always kick it old-school:
e = nil
begin
route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "create")
rescue ActionController::RoutingError => e
ensure
e.should_not be_nil
end
And you could always wrap this in an new matcher:
def be_routable
Spec::Matchers.new :be_routable, self do |example|
match do |params|
e = nil
begin
example.route_for(params)
rescue ActionController::RoutingError => e
end
!!e
end
end
end
{:controller => "designs", :action => "create"}.should_not be_routable
In this case you need to wrap the matcher's construction in a method
in order to provide access to the scope of the example (which is where
route_for lives). Also, I just whipped that up off the top of my head
- no idea if it actually works :)
HTH,
David
> Thanks,
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Ben Mabey <b...@benmabey.com>
>> To: r_j_h_box...@yahoo.com; rspec-users <rspec-users@rubyforge.org>
>> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 10:25:03 AM
>> Subject: Re: [rspec-users] Problem verifying routing error
>>
>> Randy Harmon wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > When upgrading to rspec/rspec-rails 1.2.6 gem (from 1.1.12), I'm having
>> > a new problem verifying routes that should not exist.
>> >
>> > This is to support something like this in routes.rb:
>> >
>> > map.resources :orders do |orders|
>> > orders.resources :items, :except => [:index,:show]
>> > end
>> >
>> > I used to use lambda {}.should_raise( routing error ), but it stopped
>> > detecting any raised error. Requesting it through the browser produces
>> > ActionController::MethodNotAllowed (Only post requests are allowed). But
>> > that error wasn't detected.
>> >
>> > When I skip the lambda, and just ask it to verify that the route does
>> > exist (which *should* fail), I get the same result for those :except
>> > actions as for a made-up action name. Seems this must have something to
>> > do with the change in how route_for delegates back to ActionController's
>> > routing assertion (sez the backtrace :).
>> >
>> >
>> > NoMethodError in 'ItemsController route generation should NOT map
>> > #indewfefwex'
>> > You have a nil object when you didn't expect it!
>> > You might have expected an instance of Array.
>> > The error occurred while evaluating nil.first
>> >
>> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-2.2.2/lib/action_controller/assertions/routing_assertions.rb:134:in
>> > `recognized_request_for'
>> >
>> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-2.2.2/lib/action_controller/assertions/routing_assertions.rb:49:in
>> > `assert_recognizes'
>> >
>> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-2.2.2/lib/action_controller/assertions.rb:54:in
>> > `clean_backtrace'
>> >
>> /Library/Ruby/Gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-2.2.2/lib/action_controller/assertions/routing_assertions.rb:47:in
>> > `assert_recognizes'
>> > ./spec/controllers/thoughts_routing_spec.rb:9:
>> >
>> >
>> > I tried using bypass_rescue in my routing/items_routing_spec.rb file as
>> > mentioned by the upgrade doc, but it wasn't valid in the "routing" spec
>> > - worked fine when I moved the file back to spec/controllers/, though.
>> > Seems like that's not the issue, but I'm mentioning for more completeness.
>> >
>> > Any ideas what I should be doing instead, or how I can troubleshoot
>> > further?
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hmm.. yeah, it seems like it might have to do with how the exceptions
>> are being handled in the newer version of rspec-rials (see
>> https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645/tickets/85-11818-have-mode-for-rails-error-handling).
>>
>> I don't use RSpec to verify my routes very often and have never used it
>> to verify the non-existence of a route so I'm afraid I don't really have
>> any ideas...
>>
>> Does anyone else have an idea to do this?
>>
>> -Ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
