Here's another interesting symptom. After tracing through the code, I've come
to the understanding that the current implementation (delegated to outside
rspec, I understand) of route "generation" is not
testing generation at all, but rather is using backward-recognition as a proxy.
Further, that recognition doesn't correspond to what the real router does
recognize.
For clarity, here's the background: A resource that requires nesting for new,
create; requires
no nesting for edit, update, destroy, and has no index or show.
> map.resources :designs, :only => [:edit, :update, :destroy]
> map.resources :product, :member => { :redraw => :get } do |product|
> product.resources :designs, :member => { :set_default =>
:put }, :except => [ :edit, :update, :destroy, :index, :show ]
> end
Okay: when I go to /designs/new in the browser, it borks with a RoutingError.
That's the way I want it to behave, real-world. Yet, this fails:
> expect { route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "new") ==
> "/designs/new" }.to raise_error( ActionController::RoutingError )
There's no error raised at all here.
The following does gripe, but... what it's *really* griping about (in a hidden
way) is "bogus path", not about the route_for() params at all.
> expect { route_for(:controller => "designs", :action
=> "new") == "bogus path" }.to raise_error(
ActionController::RoutingError )
(so if we replace route_for([bad]) with route_for([good]) == "bogus path", then
we still get the routing error.
Furthermore, the first one really recognizes the route string (/designs/new),
without actually verifying that there is a route in the routing table for it.
So I fear that it's not actually testing what I'm asking it to test. Taking it
out of the expect {} *does* make it barf, but with evidence that something is
just plain confused, not that it's actually testing what we're asking it to
test:
[wrapping is mine]
> The recognized options <{"action"=>"1", "controller"=>"designs"}>
> did not match <{"action"=>"show", "id"=>"1", "controller"=>"designs"}>,
> difference: <{"action"=>"show", "id"=>"1"}>
At the end of the day, what I find is:
* Route generation tests are not testing generation at all, but recognition only
* They're only testing recognition of ideal cases
* Non-existence of routes is currently not testable with rspec
I hoped to just assert something on url_for() - that's the practical
application, here. Does, or does not, url_for() produce a useful result with
specific args? But I see from ActionController::Base how that's not super
practical.
I sincerely hope that my understanding is wildly mistaken.
Sorry if this is a sore spot; I know that this part has been a lot of painful
effort so far, far more for others than for myself. I'll end with an
expression of deep and sincere appreciation for this great software.
Randy
----- Original Message ----
> From: "r_j_h_box...@yahoo.com" <r_j_h_box...@yahoo.com>
> To: rspec-users <rspec-users@rubyforge.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:14:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [rspec-users] Problem verifying routing error
>
>
> David, thank you for your reply on this. I really dig the expect { }.to
> raise_error() syntax!!
>
> To clarify: All the things you're claiming match my expectation.
> Unfortunately,
> my expectation does not match reality according to my tests.
>
> The thing is, route_for([bad stuff]) does not in and of itself raise a
> routing
> error. It constructs an object that hasn't yet been compared with == to
> anything.
>
> 23 t = route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "create")
>
> (rdb:1) puts t
> #
>
> According to my tests, the routing error only occurs after route_for()'s
> result
> gets compared to something. So lambda { route_for(...) } does not raise
> error.
>
> The following code passes with flying colors, either in lambda or expect
> {}.to
> form:
>
> t = route_for(:controller => "designs", :action => "create")
> expect { t == "anything" }.to raise_error( ActionController::RoutingError
> )
> expect { t.should == "anything" }.to raise_error(
> ActionController::RoutingError )
>
> Any further ideas?
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: David Chelimsky
> > To: rspec-users
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:28:18 PM
> > Subject: Re: [rspec-users] Problem verifying routing error
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM, 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
> > >> To: r_j_h_box...@yahoo.com; rspec-users
> > >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
