rspec users - Feb 2008 - params are making my "should redirect_to" test fail - why??

I''m testing a controller action that redirects to a different
action/view,
sending through some params.  In my test, i''m only specifying the
controller
and action that it should redirect to, but the additional params are making
it fail!  Here''s my test:

  it "should redirect to batch_saved after completing batch_save" do
    post ''batch_save'', @params
    response.should redirect_to(:controller =>
''admin/users'', :action =>
''batch_saved'')
  end  

and here''s the failure report:

''Admin::UserController When logged in as an admin level user should
redirect
to batch_saved after batch_save'' FAILED
expected redirect to {:controller=>"admin/users",
:action=>"batch_saved"},
got redirect to
"http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved?music_service_id=1&new_users%5B%5D%5Bemail%5D=mark%40zadeup.com&new_users%5B%5D%5Bfirstname%5D=Mark&new_users%5B%5D%5Bmusic_service_id%5D=1&new_users%5B%5D%5Bschool%5D=&new_users%5B%5D%5Bsurname%5D=Madeup"

Now, i would expect that since i''m just specifying a controller and
action,
and we redirect to them, that the test would pass.  But the params are
breaking it (I know this because i changed the controller action to not send
params through at all and the test passed).  How do i do the test so that it
doesn''t care about the params?  


-- 
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/params-are-making-my-%22should-redirect_to%22-test-fail---why---tp15460582p15460582.html
Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On Feb 13, 2008 12:26 PM, Max Williams <toastkid.williams at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I''m testing a controller action that redirects to a different
action/view,
> sending through some params.  In my test, i''m only specifying the
controller
> and action that it should redirect to, but the additional params are making
> it fail!  Here''s my test:
>
>   it "should redirect to batch_saved after completing batch_save"
do
>     post ''batch_save'', @params
>     response.should redirect_to(:controller =>
''admin/users'', :action =>
> ''batch_saved'')
>   end
>
> and here''s the failure report:
>
> ''Admin::UserController When logged in as an admin level user
should redirect
> to batch_saved after batch_save'' FAILED
> expected redirect to {:controller=>"admin/users",
:action=>"batch_saved"},
> got redirect to
>
"http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved?music_service_id=1&new_users%5B%5D%5Bemail%5D=mark%40zadeup.com&new_users%5B%5D%5Bfirstname%5D=Mark&new_users%5B%5D%5Bmusic_service_id%5D=1&new_users%5B%5D%5Bschool%5D=&new_users%5B%5D%5Bsurname%5D=Madeup"
>
> Now, i would expect that since i''m just specifying a controller
and action,
> and we redirect to them, that the test would pass.  But the params are
> breaking it (I know this because i changed the controller action to not
send
> params through at all and the test passed).  How do i do the test so that
it
> doesn''t care about the params?
When you use a hash it checks the whole hash, so this is the expected behaviour.

You can either used a named route (if you''ve got one available) or a
String literal:

response.should redirect_to(admin_users_batch_saved)
response.should redirect_to(''/admin/users/batch_saved'')

Based on Jay Field''s latest advice
(http://blog.jayfields.com/2008/02/testing-expect-literals.html) you
may want to consider the literal.

HTH,
David

>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/params-are-making-my-%22should-redirect_to%22-test-fail---why---tp15460582p15460582.html
> Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

Hi David - thanks for replying.  The literal doesn''t work either,
because of
all the params at the end, and i don''t have named routes in this old,
non-restful app.  I see your point about the hash...is there any way to get
the redirected-to url from ''response'' and test against that? 
Then i could
split it at "?" to ignore the params.  (I''d rather not
include the specific
params in this test since i really just want to know about where it''s
redirected to).

So, ideally i could do something like this -

response.url.split("?").first.should eql("
http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved")

I''ve been looking for documentation for methods for the response
object, to
get the url, but i can''t find any in the api docs (i''m
probably just looking
in the wrong place).  I can see the url data in the object but it''s
private.

thanks
max

On 13/02/2008, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 12:26 PM, Max Williams <toastkid.williams at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I''m testing a controller action that redirects to a different
> action/view,
> > sending through some params.  In my test, i''m only specifying
the
> controller
> > and action that it should redirect to, but the additional params are
> making
> > it fail!  Here''s my test:
> >
> >   it "should redirect to batch_saved after completing
batch_save" do
> >     post ''batch_save'', @params
> >     response.should redirect_to(:controller =>
''admin/users'', :action =>
> > ''batch_saved'')
> >   end
> >
> > and here''s the failure report:
> >
> > ''Admin::UserController When logged in as an admin level user
should
> redirect
> > to batch_saved after batch_save'' FAILED
> > expected redirect to {:controller=>"admin/users",
> :action=>"batch_saved"},
> > got redirect to
> > "
>
http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved?music_service_id=1&new_users%5B%5D%5Bemail%5D=mark%40zadeup.com&new_users%5B%5D%5Bfirstname%5D=Mark&new_users%5B%5D%5Bmusic_service_id%5D=1&new_users%5B%5D%5Bschool%5D=&new_users%5B%5D%5Bsurname%5D=Madeup
> "
> >
> > Now, i would expect that since i''m just specifying a
controller and
> action,
> > and we redirect to them, that the test would pass.  But the params are
> > breaking it (I know this because i changed the controller action to
not
> send
> > params through at all and the test passed).  How do i do the test so
> that it
> > doesn''t care about the params?
>
>
> When you use a hash it checks the whole hash, so this is the expected
> behaviour.
>
> You can either used a named route (if you''ve got one available) or
a
> String literal:
>
> response.should redirect_to(admin_users_batch_saved)
> response.should redirect_to(''/admin/users/batch_saved'')
>
> Based on Jay Field''s latest advice
> (http://blog.jayfields.com/2008/02/testing-expect-literals.html) you
> may want to consider the literal.
>
> HTH,
> David
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
>
> > View this message in context:
>
http://www.nabble.com/params-are-making-my-%22should-redirect_to%22-test-fail---why---tp15460582p15460582.html
> > Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080214/e7c74d8e/attachment.html

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 5:15 AM, Max Williams
<toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi David - thanks for replying.  The literal doesn''t work either,
because of
> all the params at the end, and i don''t have named routes in this
old,
> non-restful app.  I see your point about the hash...is there any way to get
> the redirected-to url from ''response'' and test against
that?  Then i could
> split it at "?" to ignore the params.  (I''d rather not
include the specific
> params in this test since i really just want to know about where
it''s
> redirected to).
>
> So, ideally i could do something like this -
>
> response.url.split("?").first.should
> eql("http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved")
Try response.redirect_url.
>
>  I''ve been looking for documentation for methods for the response
object, to
> get the url, but i can''t find any in the api docs (i''m
probably just looking
> in the wrong place).  I can see the url data in the object but
it''s private.
>
> thanks
> max
>
>
>
> On 13/02/2008, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 2008 12:26 PM, Max Williams <toastkid.williams at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I''m testing a controller action that redirects to a
different
> action/view,
> > > sending through some params.  In my test, i''m only
specifying the
> controller
> > > and action that it should redirect to, but the additional params
are
> making
> > > it fail!  Here''s my test:
> > >
> > >   it "should redirect to batch_saved after completing
batch_save" do
> > >     post ''batch_save'', @params
> > >     response.should redirect_to(:controller =>
''admin/users'', :action =>
> > > ''batch_saved'')
> > >   end
> > >
> > > and here''s the failure report:
> > >
> > > ''Admin::UserController When logged in as an admin level
user should
> redirect
> > > to batch_saved after batch_save'' FAILED
> > > expected redirect to {:controller=>"admin/users",
> :action=>"batch_saved"},
> > > got redirect to
> > >
>
"http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved?music_service_id=1&new_users%5B%5D%5Bemail%5D=mark%40zadeup.com&new_users%5B%5D%5Bfirstname%5D=Mark&new_users%5B%5D%5Bmusic_service_id%5D=1&new_users%5B%5D%5Bschool%5D=&new_users%5B%5D%5Bsurname%5D=Madeup"
> > >
> > > Now, i would expect that since i''m just specifying a
controller and
> action,
> > > and we redirect to them, that the test would pass.  But the
params are
> > > breaking it (I know this because i changed the controller action
to not
> send
> > > params through at all and the test passed).  How do i do the test
so
> that it
> > > doesn''t care about the params?
> >
> >
> > When you use a hash it checks the whole hash, so this is the expected
> behaviour.
> >
> > You can either used a named route (if you''ve got one
available) or a
> > String literal:
> >
> > response.should redirect_to(admin_users_batch_saved)
> > response.should
redirect_to(''/admin/users/batch_saved'')
> >
> > Based on Jay Field''s latest advice
> > (http://blog.jayfields.com/2008/02/testing-expect-literals.html) you
> > may want to consider the literal.
> >
> > HTH,
> > David
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > > View this message in context:
>
http://www.nabble.com/params-are-making-my-%22should-redirect_to%22-test-fail---why---tp15460582p15460582.html
> > > Sent from the rspec-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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 2/14/08, Max Williams <toastkid.williams at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi David - thanks for replying.  The literal doesn''t work either,
because of
> all the params at the end, and i don''t have named routes in this
old,
> non-restful app.  I see your point about the hash...is there any way to get
> the redirected-to url from ''response'' and test against
that?  Then i could
> split it at "?" to ignore the params.  (I''d rather not
include the specific
> params in this test since i really just want to know about where
it''s
> redirected to).
>
> So, ideally i could do something like this -
>
> response.url.split("?").first.should
> eql("http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved")
>
>  I''ve been looking for documentation for methods for the response
object, to
> get the url, but i can''t find any in the api docs (i''m
probably just looking
> in the wrong place).  I can see the url data in the object but
it''s private.
Well the RedirectTo matcher gets it using

    response.redirect_url

I''d probably write the check as

   response.should be_redirect
   response.redirect_url.should
match(%r{^http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved(\?|$)})

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

perfect - that''s the method i was looking for.  Thanks!

On 14/02/2008, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 2/14/08, Max Williams <toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi David - thanks for replying.  The literal doesn''t work
either,
> because of
> > all the params at the end, and i don''t have named routes in
this old,
> > non-restful app.  I see your point about the hash...is there any way
to
> get
> > the redirected-to url from ''response'' and test
against that?  Then i
> could
> > split it at "?" to ignore the params.  (I''d rather
not include the
> specific
> > params in this test since i really just want to know about where
it''s
> > redirected to).
> >
> > So, ideally i could do something like this -
> >
> > response.url.split("?").first.should
> > eql("http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved")
> >
> >  I''ve been looking for documentation for methods for the
response
> object, to
> > get the url, but i can''t find any in the api docs
(i''m probably just
> looking
> > in the wrong place).  I can see the url data in the object but
it''s
> private.
>
>
> Well the RedirectTo matcher gets it using
>
>     response.redirect_url
>
> I''d probably write the check as
>
>    response.should be_redirect
>    response.redirect_url.should
> match(%r{^http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved(\?|$)})
>
>
> --
> Rick DeNatale
>
> My blog on Ruby
> http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080214/01f70526/attachment-0001.html

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at
gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/14/08, Max Williams <toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > Hi David - thanks for replying.  The literal doesn''t work
either, because of
>  > all the params at the end, and i don''t have named routes in
this old,
>  > non-restful app.  I see your point about the hash...is there any way
to get
>  > the redirected-to url from ''response'' and test
against that?  Then i could
>  > split it at "?" to ignore the params.  (I''d rather
not include the specific
>  > params in this test since i really just want to know about where
it''s
>  > redirected to).
>  >
>  > So, ideally i could do something like this -
>  >
>  > response.url.split("?").first.should
>  > eql("http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved")
>  >
>  >  I''ve been looking for documentation for methods for the
response object, to
>  > get the url, but i can''t find any in the api docs
(i''m probably just looking
>  > in the wrong place).  I can see the url data in the object but
it''s private.
>
>  Well the RedirectTo matcher gets it using
>
>     response.redirect_url
>
>  I''d probably write the check as
>
>    response.should be_redirect
>    response.redirect_url.should
>  match(%r{^http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved(\?|$)})
That seems reasonable given what is offered.

What do you guys think of a new matcher named redirect_with:

response.should redirect_with(:controller => ''admin/users'',
:action =>
''batch_saved'')

This would let you express exactly what you want and only accept a
Hash and only match those present in the expectation, ignoring
anything else in the Hash.

I don''t have the cycles to add this anytime soon, so if you like the
idea, feel free to submit a patch to the tracker.

Cheers,
David
>
>  --
>  Rick DeNatale
>
>  My blog on Ruby
>  http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  rspec-users mailing list
>  rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>  http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at
gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On 2/14/08, Max Williams <toastkid.williams at gmail.com>
wrote:
>  >  >  I''ve been looking for documentation for methods for
the response object, to
>  >  > get the url, but i can''t find any in the api docs
(i''m probably just looking
>  >  > in the wrong place).  I can see the url data in the object but
it''s private.
>  >
>  >  Well the RedirectTo matcher gets it using
>  >
>  >     response.redirect_url
>  >
>  >  I''d probably write the check as
>  >
>  >    response.should be_redirect
>  >    response.redirect_url.should
>  >  match(%r{^http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved(\?|$)})
>
>
> That seems reasonable given what is offered.
>
>  What do you guys think of a new matcher named redirect_with:
>
>  response.should redirect_with(:controller =>
''admin/users'', :action =>
>  ''batch_saved'')
>
>  This would let you express exactly what you want and only accept a
>  Hash and only match those present in the expectation, ignoring
>  anything else in the Hash.
>
>  I don''t have the cycles to add this anytime soon, so if you like
the
>  idea, feel free to submit a patch to the tracker.
I''d be happy to do that, although I''m not entirely convinced
that
redirect_with is the right name, not that I''ve got a better
alternative.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at
gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at
gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  > On 2/14/08, Max Williams <toastkid.williams at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> >  >  >  I''ve been looking for documentation for methods
for the response object, to
>  >  >  > get the url, but i can''t find any in the api
docs (i''m probably just looking
>  >  >  > in the wrong place).  I can see the url data in the
object but it''s private.
>  >  >
>  >  >  Well the RedirectTo matcher gets it using
>  >  >
>  >  >     response.redirect_url
>  >  >
>  >  >  I''d probably write the check as
>  >  >
>  >  >    response.should be_redirect
>  >  >    response.redirect_url.should
>  >  >  match(%r{^http://test.host/admin/users/batch_saved(\?|$)})
>  >
>  >
>  > That seems reasonable given what is offered.
>  >
>  >  What do you guys think of a new matcher named redirect_with:
>  >
>  >  response.should redirect_with(:controller =>
''admin/users'', :action =>
>  >  ''batch_saved'')
>  >
>  >  This would let you express exactly what you want and only accept a
>  >  Hash and only match those present in the expectation, ignoring
>  >  anything else in the Hash.
>  >
>  >  I don''t have the cycles to add this anytime soon, so if you
like the
>  >  idea, feel free to submit a patch to the tracker.
>
>  I''d be happy to do that, although I''m not entirely
convinced that
>  redirect_with is the right name, not that I''ve got a better
>  alternative.
redirect_with_options?

How about something added to the existing call?

response.should redirect_to(:controller => ''foo'', :action
=>
''bar'').ignoring_other_options

Or something like that?
>
>  --
>
>
> Rick DeNatale
>
>  My blog on Ruby
>  http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
>  _______________________________________________
>  rspec-users mailing list
>  rspec-users at rubyforge.org
>  http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at
gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Rick DeNatale
<rick.denatale at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >  I don''t have the cycles to add this anytime soon, so
if you like the
>  >  >  idea, feel free to submit a patch to the tracker.
>  >
>  >  I''d be happy to do that, although I''m not entirely
convinced that
>  >  redirect_with is the right name, not that I''ve got a better
>  >  alternative.
>
>
> redirect_with_options?
I think I like that.

>  How about something added to the existing call?
>
>  response.should redirect_to(:controller => ''foo'',
:action =>
>  ''bar'').ignoring_other_options
This seems too wordy.


-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

I''m new to rspec (and coding in general) but would it break a lot of
people''s tests if redirect_to was changed to do this by default? 
It''s what
i expected it to do, personally, that is to pass if the given :action and
:controller match up.  If i pass a url string, and it''s missing the
params,
then it seems fair that it should fail, but if for example i just specify a
controller, and that controller is called (with any action) i''d expect
it to
pass as well.

Like i say i''m a newb with no idea of the impact of this to existing
tests
:)

On 14/02/2008, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >  > On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
> >  >  > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Rick DeNatale <
> rick.denatale at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  >  >  I don''t have the cycles to add this anytime
soon, so if you like
> the
> >  >  >  idea, feel free to submit a patch to the tracker.
> >  >
> >  >  I''d be happy to do that, although I''m not
entirely convinced that
> >  >  redirect_with is the right name, not that I''ve got a
better
> >  >  alternative.
> >
> >
> > redirect_with_options?
>
>
> I think I like that.
>
>
>
> >  How about something added to the existing call?
> >
> >  response.should redirect_to(:controller =>
''foo'', :action =>
> >  ''bar'').ignoring_other_options
>
>
> This seems too wordy.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rick DeNatale
>
> My blog on Ruby
> http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080214/8ea4c5f4/attachment.html

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Max Williams
<toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> I''m new to rspec (and coding in general) but would it break a lot
of
> people''s tests if redirect_to was changed to do this by default? 
It''s what
> i expected it to do, personally, that is to pass if the given :action and
> :controller match up.  If i pass a url string, and it''s missing
the params,
> then it seems fair that it should fail, but if for example i just specify a
> controller, and that controller is called (with any action) i''d
expect it to
> pass as well.
>
> Like i say i''m a newb with no idea of the impact of this to
existing tests
> :)
It is conceivable that existing examples could break, but the docs do
set out the same expectation that you have.

Can you file a bug at http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com so we can get it
in the queue?

> On 14/02/2008, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale
at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >  > On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >  >  > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Rick DeNatale
> <rick.denatale at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >  >  >  I don''t have the cycles to add this anytime
soon, so if you like
> the
> > >  >  >  idea, feel free to submit a patch to the tracker.
> > >  >
> > >  >  I''d be happy to do that, although I''m
not entirely convinced that
> > >  >  redirect_with is the right name, not that I''ve
got a better
> > >  >  alternative.
> > >
> > >
> > > redirect_with_options?
> >
> >
> > I think I like that.
> >
> >
> >
> > >  How about something added to the existing call?
> > >
> > >  response.should redirect_to(:controller =>
''foo'', :action =>
> > >  ''bar'').ignoring_other_options
> >
> >
> > This seems too wordy.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Rick DeNatale
> >
> > My blog on Ruby
> > http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:32 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at
gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Max Williams
>
> <toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I''m new to rspec (and coding in general) but would it break a
lot of
>  > people''s tests if redirect_to was changed to do this by
default?  It''s what
>  > i expected it to do, personally, that is to pass if the given :action
and
>  > :controller match up.  If i pass a url string, and it''s
missing the params,
>  > then it seems fair that it should fail, but if for example i just
specify a
>  > controller, and that controller is called (with any action)
i''d expect it to
>  > pass as well.
>  >
>  > Like i say i''m a newb with no idea of the impact of this to
existing tests
>  > :)
>
>  It is conceivable that existing examples could break, but the docs do
>  set out the same expectation that you have.
>
>  Can you file a bug at http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com so we can get it
>  in the queue?
I guess I''ll hold off on the patch then.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

Done, thanks everyone.

On 14/02/2008, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Max Williams
>
> <toastkid.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I''m new to rspec (and coding in general) but would it break a
lot of
> > people''s tests if redirect_to was changed to do this by
default?  It''s
> what
> > i expected it to do, personally, that is to pass if the given :action
> and
> > :controller match up.  If i pass a url string, and it''s
missing the
> params,
> > then it seems fair that it should fail, but if for example i just
> specify a
> > controller, and that controller is called (with any action)
i''d expect
> it to
> > pass as well.
> >
> > Like i say i''m a newb with no idea of the impact of this to
existing
> tests
> > :)
>
>
> It is conceivable that existing examples could break, but the docs do
> set out the same expectation that you have.
>
> Can you file a bug at http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com so we can get it
> in the queue?
>
>
>
> > On 14/02/2008, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Rick DeNatale <
> rick.denatale at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >  > On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at
gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >  >  > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Rick DeNatale
> > <rick.denatale at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  >  >  I don''t have the cycles to add this
anytime soon, so if you
> like
> > the
> > > >  >  >  idea, feel free to submit a patch to the
tracker.
> > > >  >
> > > >  >  I''d be happy to do that, although
I''m not entirely convinced
> that
> > > >  >  redirect_with is the right name, not that
I''ve got a better
> > > >  >  alternative.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > redirect_with_options?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think I like that.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >  How about something added to the existing call?
> > > >
> > > >  response.should redirect_to(:controller =>
''foo'', :action =>
> > > >  ''bar'').ignoring_other_options
> > >
> > >
> > > This seems too wordy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Rick DeNatale
> > >
> > > My blog on Ruby
> > > http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080214/3979d301/attachment.html