rspec users - Nov 2006 - [PLUGIN] rspec_resource_generator - RESTful scaffold generator with RSpec specifications

rspec_resource_generator
=======================
By Pat Maddox

Use this generator to generate RESTful scaffolding with RSpec specifications.

Syntax is exactly the same as the scaffold_resource generator:
./script/generate rspec_resource ModelName [field:type field:type]

When you run this generator, it will create a migration, model, and
model spec file.  In addition, it gives you a RESTful controller with
all the actions filled in, and a complete specification for the
controller.  Views are all hooked up too.

Generate the code, run the migration, and you''ve got 26 passing
RESTful controller specifications.  Salt and hot sauce to taste.

http://svn.flpr.org/public/plugins/rspec_resource_generator/

Most code shamelessly jacked from the scaffold_resource plugin.  I
did, however, write all the specs.  This code released under the
DoWhatYouWantWithIt license.

Ah Pat...so is this why you were quizzing me on speccing controllers  
today huh? ;)

Looks good mate. I''ll give it a bash when I''m next in the
office.

Cheers,
Luke Redpath
contact at lukeredpath.co.uk



On 3 Nov 2006, at 23:38, Pat Maddox wrote:
> rspec_resource_generator
> =======================>
> By Pat Maddox
>
> Use this generator to generate RESTful scaffolding with RSpec  
> specifications.
>
> Syntax is exactly the same as the scaffold_resource generator:
> ./script/generate rspec_resource ModelName [field:type field:type]
>
> When you run this generator, it will create a migration, model, and
> model spec file.  In addition, it gives you a RESTful controller with
> all the actions filled in, and a complete specification for the
> controller.  Views are all hooked up too.
>
> Generate the code, run the migration, and you''ve got 26 passing
> RESTful controller specifications.  Salt and hot sauce to taste.
>
> http://svn.flpr.org/public/plugins/rspec_resource_generator/
>
> Most code shamelessly jacked from the scaffold_resource plugin.  I
> did, however, write all the specs.  This code released under the
> DoWhatYouWantWithIt license.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

On 11/4/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com>
wrote:
> rspec_resource_generator
> =======================>
> By Pat Maddox
>
> Use this generator to generate RESTful scaffolding with RSpec
specifications.
>
> Syntax is exactly the same as the scaffold_resource generator:
> ./script/generate rspec_resource ModelName [field:type field:type]
>
> When you run this generator, it will create a migration, model, and
> model spec file.  In addition, it gives you a RESTful controller with
> all the actions filled in, and a complete specification for the
> controller.  Views are all hooked up too.
>
> Generate the code, run the migration, and you''ve got 26 passing
> RESTful controller specifications.  Salt and hot sauce to taste.
>
That is awesome!
> http://svn.flpr.org/public/plugins/rspec_resource_generator/
>
> Most code shamelessly jacked from the scaffold_resource plugin.  I
The generators in Rails *will* evolve and copying/forking its code
will inevitably result in a maintenance nightmare (or obsoletion).

That''s why the existing RSpec generators (rspec_model and
rspec_controller) _reuse_ the templates from Rails instead of forking
them. The only templates we wrote ourselves are the ones that generate
the specs. Maintaining that is easy - it''s *our* code.

Would you consider refactoring your code according to this principle
and delete all the duplicated (copied) code? In that case we''ll
include your contribution into RSpec on Rails.

There is already an RFE for it here:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=6098&group_id=797&atid=9464

Cheers,
Aslak
> did, however, write all the specs.  This code released under the
> DoWhatYouWantWithIt license.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

Posted at http://www.agilewebdevelopment.com/plugins/ 
rspec_resource_generator :)
--
Building an e-commerce site with Rails?
http://www.agilewebdevelopment.com/rails-ecommerce


On Nov 3, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
> rspec_resource_generator
> =======================>
> By Pat Maddox
>
> Use this generator to generate RESTful scaffolding with RSpec  
> specifications.
>
> Syntax is exactly the same as the scaffold_resource generator:
> ./script/generate rspec_resource ModelName [field:type field:type]
>
> When you run this generator, it will create a migration, model, and
> model spec file.  In addition, it gives you a RESTful controller with
> all the actions filled in, and a complete specification for the
> controller.  Views are all hooked up too.
>
> Generate the code, run the migration, and you''ve got 26 passing
> RESTful controller specifications.  Salt and hot sauce to taste.
>
> http://svn.flpr.org/public/plugins/rspec_resource_generator/
>
> Most code shamelessly jacked from the scaffold_resource plugin.  I
> did, however, write all the specs.  This code released under the
> DoWhatYouWantWithIt license.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Well I was just writing specs for one RESTful controller, then I
started writing nearly the exact same specs..obviously then it was
time for a plugin.

Sorry for not giving you credit earlier, I was at the end of a long
coding session and just wanted to get rid of it.  You''re in there now
:)

Pat

On 11/3/06, Luke Redpath <contact at lukeredpath.co.uk>
wrote:
> Ah Pat...so is this why you were quizzing me on speccing controllers
> today huh? ;)
>
> Looks good mate. I''ll give it a bash when I''m next in the
office.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke Redpath
> contact at lukeredpath.co.uk
>
>
>
> On 3 Nov 2006, at 23:38, Pat Maddox wrote:
>
> > rspec_resource_generator
> > =======================> >
> > By Pat Maddox
> >
> > Use this generator to generate RESTful scaffolding with RSpec
> > specifications.
> >
> > Syntax is exactly the same as the scaffold_resource generator:
> > ./script/generate rspec_resource ModelName [field:type field:type]
> >
> > When you run this generator, it will create a migration, model, and
> > model spec file.  In addition, it gives you a RESTful controller with
> > all the actions filled in, and a complete specification for the
> > controller.  Views are all hooked up too.
> >
> > Generate the code, run the migration, and you''ve got 26
passing
> > RESTful controller specifications.  Salt and hot sauce to taste.
> >
> > http://svn.flpr.org/public/plugins/rspec_resource_generator/
> >
> > Most code shamelessly jacked from the scaffold_resource plugin.  I
> > did, however, write all the specs.  This code released under the
> > DoWhatYouWantWithIt license.
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 11/4/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 11/4/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://svn.flpr.org/public/plugins/rspec_resource_generator/
> >
> > Most code shamelessly jacked from the scaffold_resource plugin.  I
>
> The generators in Rails *will* evolve and copying/forking its code
> will inevitably result in a maintenance nightmare (or obsoletion).
>
> That''s why the existing RSpec generators (rspec_model and
> rspec_controller) _reuse_ the templates from Rails instead of forking
> them. The only templates we wrote ourselves are the ones that generate
> the specs. Maintaining that is easy - it''s *our* code.
>
> Would you consider refactoring your code according to this principle
> and delete all the duplicated (copied) code? In that case we''ll
> include your contribution into RSpec on Rails.
>
> There is already an RFE for it here:
>
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=6098&group_id=797&atid=9464
All done.  The only template remaining is the controller_spec
template.  Everything else is pulled from the standard Rails
generators, and the rspec_model generator for the model spec.

Anything else that should be done with that?

Pat

On 11/4/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 11/4/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/4/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > http://svn.flpr.org/public/plugins/rspec_resource_generator/
> > >
> > > Most code shamelessly jacked from the scaffold_resource plugin. 
I
> >
> > The generators in Rails *will* evolve and copying/forking its code
> > will inevitably result in a maintenance nightmare (or obsoletion).
> >
> > That''s why the existing RSpec generators (rspec_model and
> > rspec_controller) _reuse_ the templates from Rails instead of forking
> > them. The only templates we wrote ourselves are the ones that generate
> > the specs. Maintaining that is easy - it''s *our* code.
> >
> > Would you consider refactoring your code according to this principle
> > and delete all the duplicated (copied) code? In that case
we''ll
> > include your contribution into RSpec on Rails.
> >
> > There is already an RFE for it here:
> >
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=6098&group_id=797&atid=9464
>
> All done.  The only template remaining is the controller_spec
> template.  Everything else is pulled from the standard Rails
> generators, and the rspec_model generator for the model spec.
>
> Anything else that should be done with that?
>
Not that I know of - sounds great! I''ll take a look at it tonight.

Thanks a lot!

Aslak
> Pat
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 11/4/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 11/4/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/4/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/4/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > http://svn.flpr.org/public/plugins/rspec_resource_generator/
> > > >
> > > > Most code shamelessly jacked from the scaffold_resource
plugin.  I
> > >
> > > The generators in Rails *will* evolve and copying/forking its
code
> > > will inevitably result in a maintenance nightmare (or
obsoletion).
> > >
> > > That''s why the existing RSpec generators (rspec_model
and
> > > rspec_controller) _reuse_ the templates from Rails instead of
forking
> > > them. The only templates we wrote ourselves are the ones that
generate
> > > the specs. Maintaining that is easy - it''s *our* code.
> > >
> > > Would you consider refactoring your code according to this
principle
> > > and delete all the duplicated (copied) code? In that case
we''ll
> > > include your contribution into RSpec on Rails.
> > >
> > > There is already an RFE for it here:
> > >
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=6098&group_id=797&atid=9464
> >
> > All done.  The only template remaining is the controller_spec
> > template.  Everything else is pulled from the standard Rails
> > generators, and the rspec_model generator for the model spec.
> >
> > Anything else that should be done with that?
> >
>
> Not that I know of - sounds great! I''ll take a look at it tonight.
>
> Thanks a lot!
Agreed that this is great stuff.

We''re about to do a release that has changed some things about which
there seem to be some assumptions in the controller_spec template.

What I''d propose is that we wait until after the release for this. We
can tweak it to fit the newer approaches and then add it to rspec for
the next release.

David
>
> Aslak
>
> > Pat
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 11/5/06, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 11/4/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/4/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/4/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > On 11/4/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
http://svn.flpr.org/public/plugins/rspec_resource_generator/
> > > > >
> > > > > Most code shamelessly jacked from the scaffold_resource
plugin.  I
> > > >
> > > > The generators in Rails *will* evolve and copying/forking
its code
> > > > will inevitably result in a maintenance nightmare (or
obsoletion).
> > > >
> > > > That''s why the existing RSpec generators
(rspec_model and
> > > > rspec_controller) _reuse_ the templates from Rails instead
of forking
> > > > them. The only templates we wrote ourselves are the ones
that generate
> > > > the specs. Maintaining that is easy - it''s *our*
code.
> > > >
> > > > Would you consider refactoring your code according to this
principle
> > > > and delete all the duplicated (copied) code? In that case
we''ll
> > > > include your contribution into RSpec on Rails.
> > > >
> > > > There is already an RFE for it here:
> > > >
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=6098&group_id=797&atid=9464
> > >
> > > All done.  The only template remaining is the controller_spec
> > > template.  Everything else is pulled from the standard Rails
> > > generators, and the rspec_model generator for the model spec.
> > >
> > > Anything else that should be done with that?
> > >
> >
> > Not that I know of - sounds great! I''ll take a look at it
tonight.
> >
> > Thanks a lot!
>
> Agreed that this is great stuff.
>
> We''re about to do a release that has changed some things about
which
> there seem to be some assumptions in the controller_spec template.
>
> What I''d propose is that we wait until after the release for this.
We
> can tweak it to fit the newer approaches and then add it to rspec for
> the next release.
>
Agreed. Pat, is it ok for you if we steal your code and check it into
RSpec''s svn when time is ripe?

You''ll be credited here: http://rspec.rubyforge.org/team.html

Aslak
> David
>
> >
> > Aslak
> >
> > > Pat
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rspec-users mailing list
> > > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 11/5/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 11/5/06, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/4/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/4/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 11/4/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at
gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 11/4/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > >
http://svn.flpr.org/public/plugins/rspec_resource_generator/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most code shamelessly jacked from the
scaffold_resource plugin.  I
> > > > >
> > > > > The generators in Rails *will* evolve and
copying/forking its code
> > > > > will inevitably result in a maintenance nightmare (or
obsoletion).
> > > > >
> > > > > That''s why the existing RSpec generators
(rspec_model and
> > > > > rspec_controller) _reuse_ the templates from Rails
instead of forking
> > > > > them. The only templates we wrote ourselves are the
ones that generate
> > > > > the specs. Maintaining that is easy - it''s
*our* code.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you consider refactoring your code according to
this principle
> > > > > and delete all the duplicated (copied) code? In that
case we''ll
> > > > > include your contribution into RSpec on Rails.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is already an RFE for it here:
> > > > >
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=6098&group_id=797&atid=9464
> > > >
> > > > All done.  The only template remaining is the
controller_spec
> > > > template.  Everything else is pulled from the standard Rails
> > > > generators, and the rspec_model generator for the model
spec.
> > > >
> > > > Anything else that should be done with that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not that I know of - sounds great! I''ll take a look at
it tonight.
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot!
> >
> > Agreed that this is great stuff.
> >
> > We''re about to do a release that has changed some things
about which
> > there seem to be some assumptions in the controller_spec template.
> >
> > What I''d propose is that we wait until after the release for
this. We
> > can tweak it to fit the newer approaches and then add it to rspec for
> > the next release.
> >
>
> Agreed. Pat, is it ok for you if we steal your code and check it into
> RSpec''s svn when time is ripe?
>
> You''ll be credited here: http://rspec.rubyforge.org/team.html
>
> Aslak
I''m not sure...that DoWhatYouWantWithIt license is pretty stringent :)

Feel free to put it in whenever you think is good, and make whatever
changes you feel appropriate as David mentioned.

Pat

On 11/5/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 11/5/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/5/06, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/4/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > On 11/4/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 11/4/06, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at
gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 11/4/06, Pat Maddox <pergesu at
gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
http://svn.flpr.org/public/plugins/rspec_resource_generator/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Most code shamelessly jacked from the
scaffold_resource plugin.  I
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The generators in Rails *will* evolve and
copying/forking its code
> > > > > > will inevitably result in a maintenance nightmare
(or obsoletion).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That''s why the existing RSpec generators
(rspec_model and
> > > > > > rspec_controller) _reuse_ the templates from Rails
instead of forking
> > > > > > them. The only templates we wrote ourselves are
the ones that generate
> > > > > > the specs. Maintaining that is easy -
it''s *our* code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would you consider refactoring your code according
to this principle
> > > > > > and delete all the duplicated (copied) code? In
that case we''ll
> > > > > > include your contribution into RSpec on Rails.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is already an RFE for it here:
> > > > > >
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=6098&group_id=797&atid=9464
> > > > >
> > > > > All done.  The only template remaining is the
controller_spec
> > > > > template.  Everything else is pulled from the standard
Rails
> > > > > generators, and the rspec_model generator for the model
spec.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anything else that should be done with that?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not that I know of - sounds great! I''ll take a look
at it tonight.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot!
> > >
> > > Agreed that this is great stuff.
> > >
> > > We''re about to do a release that has changed some things
about which
> > > there seem to be some assumptions in the controller_spec
template.
> > >
> > > What I''d propose is that we wait until after the release
for this. We
> > > can tweak it to fit the newer approaches and then add it to rspec
for
> > > the next release.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed. Pat, is it ok for you if we steal your code and check it into
> > RSpec''s svn when time is ripe?
> >
> > You''ll be credited here: http://rspec.rubyforge.org/team.html
> >
> > Aslak
>
> I''m not sure...that DoWhatYouWantWithIt license is pretty
stringent :)
>
> Feel free to put it in whenever you think is good, and make whatever
> changes you feel appropriate as David mentioned.
Great! Thank you Pat. This will actually serve as a great example of
how we think these specs should look.

Cheers,
David
>
> Pat
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>