rspec users - Oct 2008 - How to Spec a Module to be used in a Controller

I want to be able to factor out bits of a controller''s behaviour into  
modules, and spec them independently. E.g. modules like Authentication  
and ExceptionHandling that are mixed into ApplicationController.

In my spec, I create a FakeController class which inherits from  
ActionController::Base, and mix in the module.

This is working OK, but I''m struggling with the routing so that I can  
use the integration session #get method to spin up my FakeController.  
I have to set up the routing for this FakeController in a  
before(:all), then reload the default routing in after(:all) so as not  
to pollute the other specs.

Is this how other people do this? Is there a trick that I''m missing?

cheers,
Matt

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net>
wrote:
>
> This is working OK, but I''m struggling with the routing so that I
can use
> the integration session #get method to spin up my FakeController.
Is that strictly necessary?  Your fake controller''s never going to get
routed to in real life, so testing that isn''t important.  Why not just
put things in the params[] array that matter to your module and call
the controller method directly?  (I.e., don''t call "get
:index" --
just call "index.")

Another option would be to skip the fake controller, put the tests for
your module into a shared behavior spec, and include that shared
behavior in the spec for every controller that uses the module with
it_should_behave_like.  You''d be testing the module''s behavior
a few
times over, but you''d be doing it in the real controllers that really
use it.


-- 
Have Fun,
   Steve Eley (sfeley at gmail.com)
   ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
   http://www.escapepod.org

Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net> writes:
> I want to be able to factor out bits of a controller''s behaviour
into
> modules, and spec them independently. E.g. modules like Authentication
> and ExceptionHandling that are mixed into ApplicationController.
>
> In my spec, I create a FakeController class which inherits from
> ActionController::Base, and mix in the module.
>
> This is working OK, but I''m struggling with the routing so that I
can
> use the integration session #get method to spin up my FakeController.
> I have to set up the routing for this FakeController in a
> before(:all), then reload the default routing in after(:all) so as not
> to pollute the other specs.
>
> Is this how other people do this? Is there a trick that I''m
missing?
Yeah, it''s kind of a bummer, just something you have to deal with cause
of Rails.  What I do is set up a default route, you know the old-school
'':controller/:action/:id'' kind.

Pat

On 23 Oct 2008, at 13:51, Stephen Eley wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net>  
> wrote:
>>
>> This is working OK, but I''m struggling with the routing so
that I
>> can use
>> the integration session #get method to spin up my FakeController.
>
> Is that strictly necessary?  Your fake controller''s never going to
get
> routed to in real life, so testing that isn''t important.  Why not
just
> put things in the params[] array that matter to your module and call
> the controller method directly?  (I.e., don''t call "get
:index" --
> just call "index.")
I guess not, but when I''m doing things that work with the  
ActionController lifecycle, like listening for callbacks etc, I''d  
prefer my specs to to depend too much on the interaction with  
ActionController''s internals.
> Another option would be to skip the fake controller, put the tests for
> your module into a shared behavior spec, and include that shared
> behavior in the spec for every controller that uses the module with
> it_should_behave_like.  You''d be testing the module''s
behavior a few
> times over, but you''d be doing it in the real controllers that
really
> use it.
Yeah, I have been doing this, but it''s starting to feel like a  
headache to debug - the specs feel like they are a long way away from  
the code. Do you know what I mean?

On 23 Oct 2008, at 14:49, Pat Maddox wrote:
> Matt Wynne <matt at mattwynne.net> writes:
>>
>> Is this how other people do this? Is there a trick that I''m
missing?
>
> Yeah, it''s kind of a bummer, just something you have to deal with
> cause
> of Rails.  What I do is set up a default route, you know the old- 
> school
> '':controller/:action/:id'' kind.
>
> Pat
>
Ok, so here''s my best attempt at this:

         # Briefly enables the old-fashioned wide-open routing for the  
block, allowing you to run code that spins up a random controller
         def with_basic_routing
           ActionController::Routing::Routes.clear!
           ActionController::Routing::Routes.draw do |map|
             map.connect '':controller/:action''
           end

           yield

           SK::Routing::DefaultRoutes.load_routes
         end

Any advance?