Not seeing an RJS change

I’m writing specs for an XHR, and am having troubles getting my specs
to see that a

is being hidden.

=== map_filter.rjs
19 else
20 puts “map_filter.rjs> else!”
21 # Display the filter errors.
22 page[‘map-filter-errors’].hide
23 page[‘map-filter-errors’].replace_html @map_filter_errors.join
24 page[‘map-filter-errors’].visual_effect :blind_down
25 end

When the spec runs, line 20 above spits out “…else!” on the CLI, so
I know that the RJS file is being processed.

=== neighbourhoods_controller_spec.rb
428 describe ‘with views integrated’ do
429 integrate_views
430
431 it 'should hide the map filter errors

’ do
432 do_xhr @xhr_params
433 response.should have_rjs
434 # response.should have_rjs(:hide, ‘map-filter-errors’)
435 end
436 end

Why might line 433 above fail?:

===
$ script/spec -e 'should hide the map filter errors

’ spec/
controllers/neighbourhoods_controller_spec.rb
map_filter.rjs> else!
F

'NeighbourhoodsController handling POST /neighbourhoods/map_filter if
a filter error occured with views integrated should hide the map
filter errors

’ FAILED
No RJS statement that replaces or inserts HTML content.
./spec/controllers/neighbourhoods_controller_spec.rb:433:
script/spec:4:

Finished in 0.489336 seconds

1 example, 1 failure

Any hints?
-Nick

On 2008-09-28, at 17:20, Nick H. wrote:

431 it 'should hide the map filter errors

’ do
432 do_xhr @xhr_params
433 response.should have_rjs
434 # response.should have_rjs(:hide, ‘map-filter-errors’)
435 end

I just discovered that I need to pass :chained_replace_html to
#have_rjs , like so:
response.should have_rjs(:chained_replace_html, :hide, ‘map-filter-
errors’)

However, after googling around and looking through the source for
#assert_select_rjs , I have no idea what :chained_replace_html does,
nor why :hide is insufficient. Would someone mind enlightening me?

Thanks!
-Nick

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Nick H. [email protected]
wrote:

response.should have_rjs(:chained_replace_html, :hide, ‘map-filter-errors’)

However, after googling around and looking through the source for
#assert_select_rjs , I have no idea what :chained_replace_html does, nor why
:hide is insufficient. Would someone mind enlightening me?

I’m not sure why that is offhand, still waking up this fine Monday
morning, but I’d recommend throwing this question to the rails mailing
list if nobody responds here.

Cheers,
David

On 2008-09-29, at 07:58, David C. wrote:

I just discovered that I need to pass :chained_replace_html to
I’m not sure why that is offhand, still waking up this fine Monday
morning, but I’d recommend throwing this question to the rails mailing
list if nobody responds here.

Cheers,
David

Hi David. I’ve taken your advice and posted to the ror-talk list:
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/f7fc3f63660a7f33

I’m not sure what you meant by “why that is offhand”…

Cheers,
Nick

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:34:34 -0500, you wrote:

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Nick H. [email protected] wrote:

On 2008-09-29, at 07:58, David C. wrote:

I’m not sure why that is offhand, still waking up this fine Monday
morning, but I’d recommend throwing this question to the rails mailing
list if nobody responds here.

Cheers,
David

I’m not sure what you meant by “why that is offhand”…

That’s a common US expression meaning “without looking into it” or
“off the top of my head”.

I think it’s a parsing problem, rather than an idiom problem. I think he
read it as if “offhand” were the object of “that is offhand,” which
doesn’t make much sense.

How about this:

“Offhand, I’m not sure why that is true (still waking up this fine
Monday morning), but I’d recommend throwing this question to the rails
mailing list if nobody responds here.”

-Steve

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Nick H. [email protected]
wrote:

434 # response.should have_rjs(:hide, ‘map-filter-errors’)
why
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/f7fc3f63660a7f33

I’m not sure what you meant by “why that is offhand”…

That’s a common US expression meaning “without looking into it” or
“off the top of my head”.

:slight_smile:

On 2008-09-29, at 13:19, Steve Schafer wrote:

I think it’s a parsing problem, rather than an idiom problem. I
think he
read it as if “offhand” were the object of “that is offhand,” which
doesn’t make much sense.

Hah, you’re right, Steve =)

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Nick H. [email protected]
wrote:

response.should have_rjs(:chained_replace_html, :hide, ‘map-filter-errors’)

However, after googling around and looking through the source for
#assert_select_rjs , I have no idea what :chained_replace_html does, nor why
:hide is insufficient. Would someone mind enlightening me?

The problem has to do with the javascript that is produced by Rails.
You can do things in RJS in one of two ways.

Way #1:
page[:some_id].hide

Way #2
page.hide :some_id

Based on which way you go Rails will generate Element.hide(‘some_id’)
or $(‘some_id’).hide() IIRC. assert_rjs uses regular expressions to
match against the generated javascript. The fugliness that are these
regular expressions require that two different patterns exist to match
against the generated javascript correctly.

Having chained_replace_html is a hack to separate the regular
expressions based on if you used Way #1 or Way #2.

I have stopped relying on using RJS selectors to test against
generated JavaScript. I have also stopped relying on RJS for the most
part, and instead am doing a lot of UJS and JSON (thx Mark VanHolstyn
for enlightening me on this). I’m not saying that you shouldn’t do
this, but that I’ve hit the problem you’re facing, and I don’t think
using regular expressions from the bowels of Rails for asserting
against generated javascript is the way to go,


Zach D.
http://www.continuousthinking.com

On 2008-09-29, at 19:33, Zach D. wrote:

Having chained_replace_html is a hack to separate the regular
expressions based on if you used Way #1 or Way #2.

Interesting. Thanks for that explanation.

I have stopped relying on using RJS selectors to test against
generated JavaScript. I have also stopped relying on RJS for the most
part, and instead am doing a lot of UJS and JSON (thx Mark VanHolstyn
for enlightening me on this). I’m not saying that you shouldn’t do
this, but that I’ve hit the problem you’re facing, and I don’t think
using regular expressions from the bowels of Rails for asserting
against generated javascript is the way to go,

I’ll take a look into UJS and JSON. Were there any articles, blog
posts, etc that you found particularly helpful?

Cheers,
Nick