rspec users - Mar 2009 - custom, nested HTML matchers in RSpec

Zach Dennis wrote:

 >> response.body.should be_xml_with do
 >>  form :action => ''/users'' do
 >>    fieldset do
 >>      legend "Personal Information"
 >>      label "First name"
 >>      input :type => ''text'', :name =>
''user[first_name]''
 >>    end
 >>  end
 >> end

 > I like this a lot.

Boom: http://gist.github.com/76136

   it ''should have a form with a fieldset'' do
     render ''/users/new''

     response.body.should be_html_with{
       form :action => ''/users'' do
         fieldset do
           legend ''Personal Information''
           label ''First name''
           input :type => ''text'', :name =>
''user[first_name]''
         end
       end
     }
   end

I think I never got around to writing that because I just always assumed someone
already had. I have to watch that about myself!

Only one feature is missing: At fault time, the matcher naturally prints out a 
diagnostic containing two snips of HTML - the specification''s
reference, and
your page''s sample. (Both, of course, are restricted to the
fault''s context -
not the whole page.) But...

The samples are not indented! The specification''s reference is all run
together,
and your page''s sample is (unfortunately!) exactly the way your View
system
generated it. I have a question out to Nokogiri about this...

-- 
   Phlip
   http://www.zeroplayer.com/

> http://gist.github.com/76136
>     response.body.should be_html_with{
>       form :action => ''/users'' do
>         fieldset do
>           legend ''Personal Information''
>           label ''First name''
>           input :type => ''text'', :name =>
''user[first_name]''
>         end
>       end
>     }
Has anyone tried this? is it useful?

>
> Has anyone tried this? is it useful?
>
It looks interesting, though it could be confused for trying to exactly
mimic the actual markup, not just specify interesting parts.

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Phlip <phlip2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://gist.github.com/76136
>>
>
>     response.body.should be_html_with{
>>      form :action => ''/users'' do
>>        fieldset do
>>          legend ''Personal Information''
>>          label ''First name''
>>          input :type => ''text'', :name =>
''user[first_name]''
>>        end
>>      end
>>    }
>>
>
> Has anyone tried this? is it useful?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090309/bab690f4/attachment.html>

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Phlip <phlip2005 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> http://gist.github.com/76136
>
>> ? ?response.body.should be_html_with{
>> ? ? ?form :action => ''/users'' do
>> ? ? ? ?fieldset do
>> ? ? ? ? ?legend ''Personal Information''
>> ? ? ? ? ?label ''First name''
>> ? ? ? ? ?input :type => ''text'', :name =>
''user[first_name]''
>> ? ? ? ?end
>> ? ? ?end
>> ? ?}
>
> Has anyone tried this? is it useful?
I haven''t tried it yet, but it does seem very useful. The project
I''m
focused on right now is all json all the time, so I don''t personally
have a real world case for this at the moment. Anybody doing an app w/
html views willing to try this out?

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Pat Nakajima <patnakajima at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Has anyone tried this? is it useful?
>
> It looks interesting, though it could be confused for trying to exactly
> mimic the actual markup, not just specify?interesting?parts.
What is the method name was be_html_including instead of be_html_with???
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Phlip <phlip2005 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://gist.github.com/76136
>>
>>> ? ?response.body.should be_html_with{
>>> ? ? ?form :action => ''/users'' do
>>> ? ? ? ?fieldset do
>>> ? ? ? ? ?legend ''Personal Information''
>>> ? ? ? ? ?label ''First name''
>>> ? ? ? ? ?input :type => ''text'', :name =>
''user[first_name]''
>>> ? ? ? ?end
>>> ? ? ?end
>>> ? ?}
>>
>> Has anyone tried this? is it useful?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

Pat Nakajima wrote:
>     Has anyone tried this? is it useful?
> It looks interesting, though it could be confused for trying to exactly 
> mimic the actual markup, not just specify interesting parts.
It only specifies interesting parts. The gist writeup explained that, for 
example, it skipped over intermediate <ol><li> tags. And it
naturally skips
blanks in contents, and unlisted attributes.

It is exactly the same as the XPath version I posted before. That used explicit 
XPath queries to skip over uninteresting parts.

David Chelimsky wrote:

 > What is the method name was be_html_including instead of be_html_with???

(''be_html_including''.length -
''be_html_with''.length) / 17 =~ 30%.

So 30% fewer people would bother to type it!

> I haven''t tried it yet, but it does seem very useful. The project
I''m
> focused on right now is all json all the time, so I don''t
personally
> have a real world case for this at the moment. Anybody doing an app w/
> html views willing to try this out?
I put it into my current project today (as a >cough< TestCase assertion), 
replaced a couple of xpath assertions with it, and showed it to my colleagues.

I injected a fault, and show the diagnostic with the two batches of HTML in it -
the reference and sample.

One of them was like, "Nice, but where''s the syntax
highlighting?"

This refers to eyes rolling --> @-/

>>    response.body.should be_html_with{
>>      form :action => ''/users'' do
>>        fieldset do
>>          legend ''Personal Information''
>>          label ''First name''
>>          input :type => ''text'', :name =>
''user[first_name]''
>>        end
>>      end
>>    }
> Has anyone tried this? is it useful?
That assertion sucks! The actual sample HTML sez:

   <fieldset>
     <legend>Personal Information</legend>
     <ol>
       <li id="control_user_first_name">
         <label for="user_first_name">First name</label>
         <input type="text" name="user[first_name]"
id="user_first_name" />
       </li>
     </ol>
   </fieldset>

The <legend> and <label> live in different containers, so they are
not peers of
each other. But the assertion specifies they are!

I think the assertion should fault until you specify at least this:

     response.body.should be_html_with{
       form :action => ''/users'' do
         fieldset do
           legend ''Personal Information''
           li do
             label ''First name''
             input :type => ''text'', :name =>
''user[first_name]''
           end
         end
       end
     }

Notice we have some conflicting requirements:

  - you can skip any tag
  - the reference should "look like" the sample (except it''s
in Ruby)

But you should not be able to skip a tag if its absence makes the reference 
"look different" from the sample. Hence, the test should require at
least one of
the <ol><li> tags that separate the two contexts...

(BTW the common verbiage for chemical tests of analytes here is
"sample" for the
substance submitted for analysis, and "reference" for the known sample
used to
calibrate the test.)

-- 
   Phlip

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Phlip <phlip2005 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> ? response.body.should be_html_with{
>>> ? ? form :action => ''/users'' do
>>> ? ? ? fieldset do
>>> ? ? ? ? legend ''Personal Information''
>>> ? ? ? ? label ''First name''
>>> ? ? ? ? input :type => ''text'', :name =>
''user[first_name]''
>>> ? ? ? end
>>> ? ? end
>>> ? }
>
>> Has anyone tried this? is it useful?
>
> That assertion sucks! The actual sample HTML sez:
>
> ?<fieldset>
> ? ?<legend>Personal Information</legend>
> ? ?<ol>
> ? ? ?<li id="control_user_first_name">
> ? ? ? ?<label for="user_first_name">First
name</label>
> ? ? ? ?<input type="text" name="user[first_name]"
id="user_first_name" />
> ? ? ?</li>
> ? ?</ol>
> ?</fieldset>
>
> The <legend> and <label> live in different containers, so they
are not peers
> of each other. But the assertion specifies they are!
I didn''t have the expectation that they were peers of each other, just
that they both existed somewhere in a fieldset tag. Any helper or
matchers used for spec''ing views should be as liberal as possible
while still communicating enough about the semantics of the page for
the example to be meaningful.

I would not expect nor want a matcher to default to verifying direct
descendant, sibling, or adjacent nodes. Those are best verified by a
person looking at the page. What I do care about is that fields in are
within a fieldset (but not necessarily immediately next to each
other).
>
> I think the assertion should fault until you specify at least this:
>
> ? ?response.body.should be_html_with{
> ? ? ?form :action => ''/users'' do
> ? ? ? ?fieldset do
> ? ? ? ? ?legend ''Personal Information''
> ? ? ? ? ?li do
> ? ? ? ? ? ?label ''First name''
> ? ? ? ? ? ?input :type => ''text'', :name =>
''user[first_name]''
> ? ? ? ? ?end
> ? ? ? ?end
> ? ? ?end
> ? ?}
>
I don''t like this, we are specifying the "li" but that
provides no
meaning of the page, it''s strictly markup for presentation.
> Notice we have some conflicting requirements:
>
> ?- you can skip any tag
> ?- the reference should "look like" the sample (except
it''s in Ruby)
>
> But you should not be able to skip a tag if its absence makes the reference
> "look different" from the sample. Hence, the test should require
at least
> one of the <ol><li> tags that separate the two contexts...
>
> (BTW the common verbiage for chemical tests of analytes here is
"sample" for
> the substance submitted for analysis, and "reference" for the
known sample
> used to calibrate the test.)
>
> --
> ?Phlip
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


-- 
Zach Dennis
http://www.continuousthinking.com
http://www.mutuallyhuman.com

Zach Dennis wrote:
> I didn''t have the expectation that they were peers of each other,
just
> that they both existed somewhere in a fieldset tag. Any helper or
> matchers used for spec''ing views should be as liberal as possible
> while still communicating enough about the semantics of the page for
> the example to be meaningful.
> 
> I would not expect nor want a matcher to default to verifying direct
> descendant, sibling, or adjacent nodes. Those are best verified by a
> person looking at the page. What I do care about is that fields in are
> within a fieldset (but not necessarily immediately next to each
> other).
However, I constantly must write extra test code just to check things are in the
right order. Specifically, I could not use my original assert_xhtml to replace 
tests that checked some <option> values appeared in collating order. (Yes,
tests
on the model also checked those fields appeared in collating order, AND tests on
the controller checked thru the "assigns" that those fields were in
collating
order...)

I am not going to target strict relationships, just the general order. But I 
have to draw the line somewhere!

On Mar 15, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Zach Dennis wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Phlip <phlip2005 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>   response.body.should be_html_with{
>>>>     form :action => ''/users'' do
>>>>       fieldset do
>>>>         legend ''Personal Information''
>>>>         label ''First name''
>>>>         input :type => ''text'', :name =>
''user[first_name]''
>>>>       end
>>>>     end
>>>>   }
>>
>>> Has anyone tried this? is it useful?
>>
>> That assertion sucks! The actual sample HTML sez:
>>
>>  <fieldset>
>>    <legend>Personal Information</legend>
>>    <ol>
>>      <li id="control_user_first_name">
>>        <label for="user_first_name">First
name</label>
>>        <input type="text"
name="user[first_name]"
>> id="user_first_name" />
>>      </li>
>>    </ol>
>>  </fieldset>
>>
>> The <legend> and <label> live in different containers, so
they are
>> not peers
>> of each other. But the assertion specifies they are!
>
> I didn''t have the expectation that they were peers of each other,
just
> that they both existed somewhere in a fieldset tag. Any helper or
> matchers used for spec''ing views should be as liberal as possible
> while still communicating enough about the semantics of the page for
> the example to be meaningful.
>
> I would not expect nor want a matcher to default to verifying direct
> descendant, sibling, or adjacent nodes. Those are best verified by a
> person looking at the page. What I do care about is that fields in are
> within a fieldset (but not necessarily immediately next to each
> other).
Both of those points make sense to me.  What about


  response.body.should be_html_with{
     form :action => ''/users'' do
       fieldset do
         legend ''Personal Information''

         anything do
           label ''First name''
           input :type => ''text'', :name =>
''user[first_name]''
	end
       end
     end
   }

I dunno.  Zach''s original attempt hardly "sucks".  But maybe
you want
to make the structure a bit more explicit?  Personally I think that it  
becomes too coupled to the HTML, and "anything {}" is added noise, but
maybe that gets you moving in the right direction.

Pat

Pat Maddox wrote:
> I dunno.  Zach''s original attempt hardly "sucks".
That was David Chelimsky''s attempt - Zach seconded it. But I was
replying to myself.

More important, the tie-breaker here is very simple:

     When the assertion fails, can it
     tell you exactly how to fix things?

That means if you must make the assertion less strict, you should get a clue 
_how_ to make it less strict!
> maybe that gets you moving in the right direction.
Don''t make me tell you under what circumstances I learned graph theory.
(-:

-- 
   Phlip