Hi everyone.
I am totally confused by this... If I run rake spec, I get a bunch of failures
in a particular file, but if I run script/spec on that individual file, all
examples pass.
The error I am getting is with the pluralize method. I put a debugger
statement in my code to inspect what is happening:
(rdb:1) pluralize(5, ''foo'')
ArgumentError Exception: wrong number of arguments (2 for 0)
...
This is a situation where I am doing the "self-shunt" method, because
I don''t
know of a better way to accomplish this. In other words, I am doing:
class Foo
def initialize(template, number)
@template = template
@number = number
end
def bar
pluralize(@number, ''foo'')
end
def bar_link
link_to bar, foo_bar_path
end
def method_missing(*args, &block)
@template.send(*args, &block)
end
end
.........
Then in my spec I do:
Foo.new(self, 2).bar.should == "foos"
..........
And like I said, if I run this spec individually, it passes, but with rake
spec, it gives me that wrong number of arguments error.
I would love to structure this differently so that I don''t need to pass
self
into the class initializer, but I am at a total loss for how to do that.
If I do:
include ActionView::Helpers
include ActionController::UrlWriter
Then I get "can''t convert string into hash" errors when ever
I try to access a
named route with link_to.
This is a problem I have had to face over and over, and has proven to be quite
frustrating. The only solution I have found is to pass self into the method..
So if anyone has any other suggestions, I''d love to hear it.
Thank you.
Patrick J. Collins
http://collinatorstudios.com
On Jun 23, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Patrick J. Collins wrote:> Hi everyone. > > I am totally confused by this... If I run rake spec, I get a bunch of failures > in a particular file, but if I run script/spec on that individual file, all > examples pass. > > The error I am getting is with the pluralize method. I put a debugger > statement in my code to inspect what is happening: > > (rdb:1) pluralize(5, ''foo'') > ArgumentError Exception: wrong number of arguments (2 for 0) > > ... > > This is a situation where I am doing the "self-shunt" method, because I don''t > know of a better way to accomplish this. In other words, I am doing: > > class Foo > > def initialize(template, number) > @template = template > @number = number > end > > def bar > pluralize(@number, ''foo'') > end > > def bar_link > link_to bar, foo_bar_path > end > > def method_missing(*args, &block) > @template.send(*args, &block) > end > > end > > ......... > > Then in my spec I do: > > Foo.new(self, 2).bar.should == "foos" > > .......... > > And like I said, if I run this spec individually, it passes, but with rake > spec, it gives me that wrong number of arguments error. > > I would love to structure this differently so that I don''t need to pass self > into the class initializer, but I am at a total loss for how to do that. > > If I do: > > include ActionView::Helpers > include ActionController::UrlWriter > > Then I get "can''t convert string into hash" errors when ever I try to access a > named route with link_to. > > This is a problem I have had to face over and over, and has proven to be quite > frustrating. The only solution I have found is to pass self into the method.. > So if anyone has any other suggestions, I''d love to hear it.Is this a rails helper module? Is the spec in spec/helpers?
> Is this a rails helper module? Is the spec in spec/helpers?Well it''s not a module-- as in it''s not getting mixed into any other class. It''s just being instantiated from helpers (and inside the spec).. But since it utilizes helper methods, I did put it in the helpers folder-- It''s actually in: spec/helpers/renderers Patrick J. Collins http://collinatorstudios.com
On Jun 23, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Patrick J. Collins wrote:>> Is this a rails helper module? Is the spec in spec/helpers? > > Well it''s not a module-- as in it''s not getting mixed into any other class. > It''s just being instantiated from helpers (and inside the spec).. But > since it utilizes helper methods, I did put it in the helpers folder-- It''s > actually in: > > spec/helpers/renderersWhy not just use a rails helper? Then you get all the other helpers and environment for free.
> Why not just use a rails helper? Then you get all the other helpers and environment for free.Well, these are usually complex helpers that build a lot of html, and I utilize a lot of instance variables to share between methods... My practice has been to put these things in their own class so that I won''t have conflicts with other instance variables... I don''t understand though why rake spec would fail but script/spec wouldn''t... Is there something different about the environment when rake spec is called? Patrick J. Collins http://collinatorstudios.com
On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Patrick J. Collins wrote:>> Why not just use a rails helper? Then you get all the other helpers and environment for free. > > Well, these are usually complex helpers that build a lot of html, and I utilize > a lot of instance variables to share between methods... My practice has been > to put these things in their own class so that I won''t have conflicts with > other instance variables...I''d recommend slinging values around rather than storing them in instance variables. Passing values around makes each method much easier to test, and you don''t have to concern yourself with values persisting across requests, etc, etc.> I don''t understand though why rake spec would fail but script/spec wouldn''t... > Is there something different about the environment when rake spec is called?There can be. It depends on what else is going on in your app. For one thing, running rake loads all of the .rake files in the lib/tasks directories of your app and all installed plugins. Could also be a load order thing. The fact that you sometimes get an argument error on pluralize suggests that there is more than one definition of pluralize in your app or one of its dependencies, and they''re not getting loaded in the same order with both commands. Not sure if that helps solve your problem, but hopefully it sheds some light on it. Cheers, David