I''m heading out of town, but had a quick thought I wanted to share.
Rather then using ambiguous named request helpers in controller specs
like "do_request", I''ve been using more readable helpers like
"post_create".
For example...
describe ProjectController do
def post_create
post :create, ...
end
before do
end
it "creates a new project" do
Project.should_receive(:create).with(....)
post_create
end
end
IMO is adds a little more readability when looking at an individual
"it" behavior on a controller spec. We''ve been keeping the
request
helpers as the first things immediately following a controller
specification, ie: "describe SomeController do".
Thoughts?
--
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com
I''ve always used do_post/do_put etc. But your way is perfectly acceptable :) Pat On 3/8/08, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote:> I''m heading out of town, but had a quick thought I wanted to share. > Rather then using ambiguous named request helpers in controller specs > like "do_request", I''ve been using more readable helpers like > "post_create". > > For example... > > describe ProjectController do > def post_create > post :create, ... > end > > before do > end > > it "creates a new project" do > Project.should_receive(:create).with(....) > post_create > end > > end > > IMO is adds a little more readability when looking at an individual > "it" behavior on a controller spec. We''ve been keeping the request > helpers as the first things immediately following a controller > specification, ie: "describe SomeController do". > > Thoughts? > > -- > Zach Dennis > http://www.continuousthinking.com > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:51:01 -0500, Zach Dennis wrote:> I''m heading out of town, but had a quick thought I wanted to share. > Rather then using ambiguous named request helpers in controller specs > like "do_request", I''ve been using more readable helpers like > "post_create".snip> IMO is adds a little more readability when looking at an individual "it" > behavior on a controller spec. We''ve been keeping the request helpers as > the first things immediately following a controller specification, ie: > "describe SomeController do". > > Thoughts?I would agree on the readability. The reason I stay with it though is that I have some shared behaviors that need to make the call on their own. It seems like it would be somewhat less convenient to wrap up or alias whatever method was performing a given HTTP verb.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote:> I''m heading out of town, but had a quick thought I wanted to share. > Rather then using ambiguous named request helpers in controller specs > like "do_request", I''ve been using more readable helpers like > "post_create". > > For example... > > describe ProjectController do > def post_create > post :create, ... > end > > before do > end > > it "creates a new project" do > Project.should_receive(:create).with(....) > post_create > end > > end > > IMO is adds a little more readability when looking at an individual > "it" behavior on a controller spec. We''ve been keeping the request > helpers as the first things immediately following a controller > specification, ie: "describe SomeController do". > > Thoughts?Seems reasonable to me.> > -- > Zach Dennis > http://www.continuousthinking.com > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote:> I''ve always used do_post/do_put etc. But your way is perfectly acceptable :)That''s what I do too - but I like Zach''s idea here. Do you guys think the generated examples should use this? David> > Pat > > > > On 3/8/08, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote: > > I''m heading out of town, but had a quick thought I wanted to share. > > Rather then using ambiguous named request helpers in controller specs > > like "do_request", I''ve been using more readable helpers like > > "post_create". > > > > For example... > > > > describe ProjectController do > > def post_create > > post :create, ... > > end > > > > before do > > end > > > > it "creates a new project" do > > Project.should_receive(:create).with(....) > > post_create > > end > > > > end > > > > IMO is adds a little more readability when looking at an individual > > "it" behavior on a controller spec. We''ve been keeping the request > > helpers as the first things immediately following a controller > > specification, ie: "describe SomeController do". > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -- > > Zach Dennis > > http://www.continuousthinking.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 >
What about overriding method_missing in the shared example group that will make conversions: post_XXXX -> post :XXXX put_XXXX -> put :XXXX etc. David posted thoughts on the before/after stuff, which is similar to what I do : http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2007/11/06/before_action-after_action I do like having the before/after part, too, as it is nice to pass a block in occasionally. -Corey On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 6:46 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote: > > I''ve always used do_post/do_put etc. But your way is perfectly > acceptable :) > > That''s what I do too - but I like Zach''s idea here. Do you guys think > the generated examples should use this? > > David > > > > > Pat > > > > > > > > On 3/8/08, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I''m heading out of town, but had a quick thought I wanted to share. > > > Rather then using ambiguous named request helpers in controller specs > > > like "do_request", I''ve been using more readable helpers like > > > "post_create". > > > > > > For example... > > > > > > describe ProjectController do > > > def post_create > > > post :create, ... > > > end > > > > > > before do > > > end > > > > > > it "creates a new project" do > > > Project.should_receive(:create).with(....) > > > post_create > > > end > > > > > > end > > > > > > IMO is adds a little more readability when looking at an individual > > > "it" behavior on a controller spec. We''ve been keeping the request > > > helpers as the first things immediately following a controller > > > specification, ie: "describe SomeController do". > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > -- > > > Zach Dennis > > > http://www.continuousthinking.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 >-- http://www.coreyhaines.com The Internet''s Premiere source of information about Corey Haines -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20080309/bd287277/attachment.html
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Corey Haines <coreyhaines at gmail.com> wrote:> What about overriding method_missing in the shared example group that will > make conversions: > > post_XXXX -> post :XXXX > put_XXXX -> put :XXXXThat''s fine until you start adding parameters, at which point you''d end up calling this: put_update :id => 3 I don''t see much point in that :) Cheers, David> > etc. > > David posted thoughts on the before/after stuff, which is similar to what I > do : > http://blog.davidchelimsky.net/articles/2007/11/06/before_action-after_action > > I do like having the before/after part, too, as it is nice to pass a block > in occasionally. > > -Corey > > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 6:46 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I''ve always used do_post/do_put etc. But your way is perfectly > acceptable :) > > > > That''s what I do too - but I like Zach''s idea here. Do you guys think > > the generated examples should use this? > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pat > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/8/08, Zach Dennis <zach.dennis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I''m heading out of town, but had a quick thought I wanted to share. > > > > Rather then using ambiguous named request helpers in controller specs > > > > like "do_request", I''ve been using more readable helpers like > > > > "post_create". > > > > > > > > For example... > > > > > > > > describe ProjectController do > > > > def post_create > > > > post :create, ... > > > > end > > > > > > > > before do > > > > end > > > > > > > > it "creates a new project" do > > > > Project.should_receive(:create).with(....) > > > > post_create > > > > end > > > > > > > > end > > > > > > > > IMO is adds a little more readability when looking at an individual > > > > "it" behavior on a controller spec. We''ve been keeping the request > > > > helpers as the first things immediately following a controller > > > > specification, ie: "describe SomeController do". > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Zach Dennis > > > > http://www.continuousthinking.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 > > > > > > -- > http://www.coreyhaines.com > The Internet''s Premiere source of information about Corey Haines > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 4:46 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Pat Maddox <pergesu at gmail.com> wrote: > > I''ve always used do_post/do_put etc. But your way is perfectly acceptable :) > > That''s what I do too - but I like Zach''s idea here. Do you guys think > the generated examples should use this?I''m indifferent to it. The reason I use do_put instead of put_update is because when dealing with resources, the interface is PUT /resource. The fact that it maps to the #update method is a Rails implementation detail. So I find it useful to name that little helper method in a way that reflects the external API. That''s just the way I think of it though. I''d be pissed off if someone did a global search and replace on my code, but for RSpec generated code I don''t have a strong opinion. I think it raises an interesting philosophical issue though. We care about naming a great deal, so do_request->post_create is certainly an improvement. And for me, do_post is better than post_create, because my apps are all RESTful. So the question in my mind is whether our suggestion ends at better naming, or if we ought to subtly encourage more RESTful apps, which seems to be a widespread good practice in the Rails community. I''m also afraid that this is a bike shed scenario and I''m thinking way too deeply into it. Someone please show me the light :) Pat