rspec users - Oct 2011 - Rails view spec expectations/matchers

>From looking at the RSpec Rails documentation 
(https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-rails/docs/view-specs/view-spec) it 
seems like rendered is just a string and you can''t really do any 
assert_select type stuff out of the box.

After Googling around, it seems that the RSpec authors decided that if you 
want that functionality, you should just use Capybara or some such... is 
that correct?

If that is the case, can you please look at how I''m writing my view
specs
and let me know if there is a better/cleaner way?

Here goes...

*spec/spec_helper.rb*
RSpec.configure do |config|
  config.include RSpec::ViewHelper, :type => :view
end

*spec/support/view_helper.rb*
module RSpec::ViewHelper
  def page
    @page ||= Capybara::Node::Simple.new(rendered)
  end
end

*spec/views/comments/index.html.haml_spec.rb*
require "spec_helper"

describe "comments/index.html.haml" do

  it "should show a proper breadcrumb" do
    # Assign instance vars
    # Mock helper methods

    render

    page.should have_selector("div.breadcrumb")
    page.find("div.breadcrumb").tap do |node|
      node.find_link("Home").should be
      node.find_link("Blah1").should be
      node.find_link("Blah1").should be
      node.find_link("Comments").should be
    end
  end

end

Is there a better way?  Including Capybara just for the finders/matchers 
seems kinda heavy.  Also it would be nice if I could write stuff like
node.should
have_link("Home"), to be more consistent with RSpec matchers (though I
guess
I could write custom matchers to wrap all the Capybara stuff... has anyone 
already done this?).

Thanks for the help.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20111008/4f1593d9/attachment-0001.html>

On Oct 8, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
> >From looking at the RSpec Rails documentation
(https://www.relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-rails/docs/view-specs/view-spec) it seems
like rendered is just a string and you can''t really do any
assert_select type stuff out of the box.
> 
> After Googling around, it seems that the RSpec authors decided that if you
want that functionality, you should just use Capybara or some such... is that
correct?
The `rendered` method is a wrapper around the `@rendered` instance variable,
which is provided by Rails:
https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/actionpack/lib/action_view/test_case.rb#L113

The fact that assert_select doesn''t work on a string is an issue you
can (and probably should) report to the rails project.
> If that is the case, can you please look at how I''m writing my
view specs and let me know if there is a better/cleaner way?
> 
> Here goes...
> 
> spec/spec_helper.rb
> RSpec.configure do |config|
>   config.include RSpec::ViewHelper, :type => :view
> end
> 
> spec/support/view_helper.rb
> module RSpec::ViewHelper
>   def page
>     @page ||= Capybara::Node::Simple.new(rendered)
>   end
> end
ViewHelper sounds like something to help your views, not your view specs.
I''d name this something like RSpec::CapybaraExtensions.

I''d also avoid the name "page", which carries different
implications in controller and request specs. Suggestions below ...
> spec/views/comments/index.html.haml_spec.rb
> require "spec_helper"
> 
> describe "comments/index.html.haml" do
> 
>   it "should show a proper breadcrumb" do
>     # Assign instance vars
>     # Mock helper methods
> 
>     render
> 
>     page.should have_selector("div.breadcrumb")
>     page.find("div.breadcrumb").tap do |node|
>       node.find_link("Home").should be
>       node.find_link("Blah1").should be
>       node.find_link("Blah1").should be
>       node.find_link("Comments").should be
>     end
>   end
> 
> end
> 
> Is there a better way?
Several! Here''s one:

  def rendered
    Capybara.string(@rendered)
  end

  it "displays a proper breadcrumb" do
    render
    rendered.find("div.breadcrumb a", :text => "Home")
    rendered.find("div.breadcrumb a", :text =>
"Comments")
  end

  it "displays a proper breadcrumb" do
    render
    rendered.find("div.breadcrumb").tap do |form|
      form.find("a", :text => "Home")
      form.find("a", :text => "Comments")
    end
  end

`find` doesn''t look like an expectation, but if the elements
aren''t there you get OK feedback:

  Capybara::ElementNotFound:
    Unable to find css "div.breadcrumb"

You could also make this more expressive like this:

  def rendered
    Capybara.string(@rendered)
  end

  def within(selector)
    yield rendered.find(selector)
  end

  it "displays a proper breadcrumb" do
    render
    within "div.breadcrumb" do |breadcrumb|
      breadcrumb.should have_selector("a", :text =>
"Home")
      breadcrumb.should have_selector("a", :text =>
"Comments")
    end
  end

Now you''d get the feedback above if there were no
"div.breadcrumb", but you''d get Capy''s matcher
feedback if there were no matching anchor tags within
"div.breadcrumb", which is not very good right now:

  expected css "a" with text "Home" to return something

There is a github issue to address this, but it''s no small matter to
get right (which is why it''s still open):
https://github.com/jnicklas/capybara/issues/331
> Including Capybara just for the finders/matchers seems kinda heavy.
Why? Just load up the parts you want.
> Also it would be nice if I could write stuff like node.should
have_link("Home"), to be more consistent with RSpec matchers (though I
guess I could write custom matchers to wrap all the Capybara stuff... has anyone
already done this?).
I''d prefer to stick to `have_selector("a", :text =>
"Home")`. That way it''s the same API for every tag. But
that''s me. If you prefer have_link, have_text_field, etc, etc, then you
should write them, and maybe even publish them in a gem.

HTH,
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20111011/d2cb7c20/attachment.html>