On Sep 15, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Michael Kintzer wrote: > rspec (2.0.0.beta.19) > rails (3.0.0) > authlogic (2.1.6) > bartt-ssl_requirement (1.2.3) > RUBYGEMS VERSION: 1.3.7 > RUBY VERSION: 1.8.7 (2009-06-12 patchlevel 174) [i686-darwin10.4.0] > > Hi, > > I'm getting different results when running a Rails 3 scaffold generated > controller example depending on whether or not I run 'rspec spec' or 'rspec > spec/controllers'. The difference occurs when evaluating the dynamic route > methods with for '_url', e.g. my_model_url I'm using Authlogic and > SslRequirement as well. The issue may be in either of those libraries, but > the only difference is how I run the spec suite. I disable the Ssl > requirement check in the test.rb environment file. > > Assume I generated the scaffold code with: "rails g scaffold scaffold" to > create a "Scaffold" model. > > See relevant code here: http://gist.github.com/581130 > > When I run 'rspec spec/controllers', the example in question passes. I > placed debug code in url_for.rb (bartt-ssl_requirement-1.2.3) to parse the > options passed to url_for and they include the :host and :protocol > parameters, :host => "test.host", :protocol => "http://";. > > When I run 'rspec spec', the example in question fails. The url_for options > are missing both the :host and :protocol parameters. If I manully pass > those into the my_model_url method, the example will pass. If I use the > _path version of the route method, the example passes. > > The stack trace in the failing case is (path to gems directory omitted): > 1) ScaffoldsController POST create with valid params redirects to the created > scaffold > Failure/Error: response.should redirect_to(scaffold_url(mock_scaffold)) > Missing host to link to! Please provide :host parameter or set > default_url_options[:host] > # .../actionpack-3.0.0/lib/action_dispatch/routing/route_set.rb:473:in > `url_for_without_non_ssl_host' > # .../bartt-ssl_requirement-1.2.3/lib/url_for.rb:44:in > `url_for_without_secure_option' > # .../gems/bartt-ssl_requirement-1.2.3/lib/url_for.rb:32:in `url_for' > # .../actionpack-3.0.0/lib/action_dispatch/routing/url_for.rb:132:in > `url_for' > # .../actionpack-3.0.0/lib/action_dispatch/routing/route_set.rb:195:in > `factor_library_url' > # ./spec/controllers/scaffolds_controller_spec.rb:70 > # .../activesupport-3.0.0/lib/active_support/dependencies.rb:239:in > `inject' > > So, I'm stumped as to why 'rspec spec' is behaving differently from 'rspec > spec/controllers' with respect to generating the appropriate url_for options.
This sort of problem usually boils down to something interacting with global state - something that is only getting loaded when you run the full suite. To narrow it down, try running subsets of the directories: rspec spec/controllers spec/requests rspec spec/controllers spec/views rspec spec/controllers spec/models etc HTH, David
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
