rspec users - Oct 2009 - route_to for ambiguous generation?

I like the new route_to matcher, but I can''t use it for my root route,
since the route that is generated isn''t the route that I pass in.
Specifically, my routes.rb has:

  ...
  map.resources :skills, :only => [:index, :show]
  ...
  map.root :controller => :skills, :action => :index, :conditions => {
:method => :get }
  ...

So, ''/'' routes to SkillsController#index,
but { :controller => :skills, :action => :index }
generates ''/skills'', an acceptable synonym.

So instead of being able to write:

  { :get, ''/'' }.should route_to(:controller =>
''skills'', :action => ''index'')

I had to write the old style

  params_from(:get, ''/'').should == { :controller =>
''skills'', :action => ''index'' }

That works, but is inelegant.

I think I can code things up so that I could write:

  { :get, ''/'' }.should route_to(:controller =>
''skills'', :action =>
''index'').which_generates(''/skills'')

If I understand how things work, I''d just need to add a
#which_generates method Spec::Rails::Matchers::RouteTo, and have it
set up an ivar that is used in the @example.assert_routing invocation.
I''m having some trouble accessing GitHub right now.  Once it''s
back, I''ll
try doing what I''ve described.

Anyone see a better solution that I''m overlooking?
-- 
Cliff Matthews <ctm at devctm.com>

Hi Cliff,

Hey, that''s a good use case - one I hadn''t considered.  Just
goes to
show you, the real world has a way of intruding on happy theories.  :) 
It''s nice to hear feedback about the matcher.

which_generates() as a method on the route_to() matcher seems like it
should work to me, once it''s written.  I don''t generally wish
to have
two separate paths to the same content for publicly-accessible sites,
because it''s not as good for SEO, but there are certainly cases I can
think of where that''s irrelevant.

I''ve had difficulty with my rspec-rails testing environment lately so
it''d be difficult for me to quickly make the adjustment, but it does
seem like it would be a simple change for someone who had strong
motivation or easy access.

Randy


On 10/13/09 7:27 AM, Clifford T. Matthews wrote:
> I like the new route_to matcher, but I can''t use it for my root
route,
> since the route that is generated isn''t the route that I pass in.
> Specifically, my routes.rb has:
>
>   ...
>   map.resources :skills, :only => [:index, :show]
>   ...
>   map.root :controller => :skills, :action => :index, :conditions
=> { :method => :get }
>   ...
>
> So, ''/'' routes to SkillsController#index,
> but { :controller => :skills, :action => :index }
> generates ''/skills'', an acceptable synonym.
>
> So instead of being able to write:
>
>   { :get, ''/'' }.should route_to(:controller =>
''skills'', :action => ''index'')
>
> I had to write the old style
>
>   params_from(:get, ''/'').should == { :controller =>
''skills'', :action => ''index'' }
>
> That works, but is inelegant.
>
> I think I can code things up so that I could write:
>
>   { :get, ''/'' }.should route_to(:controller =>
''skills'', :action =>
''index'').which_generates(''/skills'')
>
> If I understand how things work, I''d just need to add a
> #which_generates method Spec::Rails::Matchers::RouteTo, and have it
> set up an ivar that is used in the @example.assert_routing invocation.
> I''m having some trouble accessing GitHub right now.  Once
it''s back, I''ll
> try doing what I''ve described.
>
> Anyone see a better solution that I''m overlooking?
>

Hi Cliff,

Hey, that''s a good use case - one I hadn''t considered.  Just
goes to
show you, the real world has a way of intruding on happy theories.  :) 
It''s nice to hear feedback about the matcher.

which_generates() as a method on the route_to() matcher seems like it
should work to me, once it''s written.  I don''t generally wish
to have
two separate paths to the same content for publicly-accessible sites,
because it''s not as good for SEO, but there are certainly cases I can
think of where that''s irrelevant.

I''ve had difficulty with my rspec-rails testing environment lately so
it''d be difficult for me to quickly make the adjustment, but it does
seem like it would be a simple change for someone who had strong
motivation or easy access.

Randy



On 10/13/09 7:27 AM, Clifford T. Matthews wrote:
> I like the new route_to matcher, but I can''t use it for my root
route,
> since the route that is generated isn''t the route that I pass in.
> Specifically, my routes.rb has:
>
>   ...
>   map.resources :skills, :only => [:index, :show]
>   ...
>   map.root :controller => :skills, :action => :index, :conditions
=> { :method => :get }
>   ...
>
> So, ''/'' routes to SkillsController#index,
> but { :controller => :skills, :action => :index }
> generates ''/skills'', an acceptable synonym.
>
> So instead of being able to write:
>
>   { :get, ''/'' }.should route_to(:controller =>
''skills'', :action => ''index'')
>
> I had to write the old style
>
>   params_from(:get, ''/'').should == { :controller =>
''skills'', :action => ''index'' }
>
> That works, but is inelegant.
>
> I think I can code things up so that I could write:
>
>   { :get, ''/'' }.should route_to(:controller =>
''skills'', :action =>
''index'').which_generates(''/skills'')
>
> If I understand how things work, I''d just need to add a
> #which_generates method Spec::Rails::Matchers::RouteTo, and have it
> set up an ivar that is used in the @example.assert_routing invocation.
> I''m having some trouble accessing GitHub right now.  Once
it''s back, I''ll
> try doing what I''ve described.
>
> Anyone see a better solution that I''m overlooking?
>

>>>>> "Randy" == Randy Harmon <r_j_h_box-sf at
yahoo.com> writes:
    Randy> Hi Cliff, Hey, that''s a good use case - one I
hadn''t
    Randy> considered.  Just goes to show you, the real world has a
    Randy> way of intruding on happy theories.  :) It''s nice to hear
    Randy> feedback about the matcher.

It''s so good that it makes my params_from hack too ugly!

    Randy> which_generates() as a method on the route_to() matcher
    Randy> seems like it should work to me, once it''s written.  I
    Randy> don''t generally wish to have two separate paths to the
same
    Randy> content for publicly-accessible sites, because it''s not
as
    Randy> good for SEO, but there are certainly cases I can think of
    Randy> where that''s irrelevant.

I thought about making it so that the only path to
SkillsController#index was through my root path, but that just struck
me as a bad compromise.  As for SEO, I try to do things the way I
think they should be done architecturally and then I just cross my
fingers and hope the search engine folks agree with me (eventually).

    Randy> I''ve had difficulty with my rspec-rails testing
environment
    Randy> lately so it''d be difficult for me to quickly make the
    Randy> adjustment, but it does seem like it would be a simple
    Randy> change for someone who had strong motivation or easy
    Randy> access.

I added a which_generates call to my current test, cloned Rspec-rails,
added support for which_generates and pushed my results as a
proof-of-concept.  Unfortunately, the RSpec-rails testing isn''t
working for me either right now and I have a huge queue of other
things to do before I can look at it.  I don''t mind coming back and
making sure that I have a test for my new code, but it won''t be for a
several hours at minimum and maybe a couple of days.
-- 
Cliff Matthews <ctm at devctm.com>