# Perplexing functional test results **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [May 27, 2008, 1:03am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/perplexing-functional-test-results/138705 "2008-05-27T01:03:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![craigrails](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@craigrails](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/craigrails)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2008, 1:03am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/perplexing-functional-test-results/138705/1 "2008-05-27T01:03:40Z")
I’m getting pretty far with functional testing and have run into a situation where I’m checking a method that ‘stamps’ db data into form fields on a PDF file. I have 6 such methods in my ‘ClientsController’ and half the tests fail… def test\_rhba\_signoff\_form login\_with\_administrator get :rhba\_signoff\_form, :id =\> 3 assert\_response 302 end the failure is I get response 200 (which is a failure). test.log also clearly shows a 200 result. so I fired up ‘webrick -p 7000 -e test’ and used a browser and was able to get these stamped PDF’s without a problem. (obviously not a 200) 3 of these same methods test without error but 3 methods test consistently with this error and there’s very little difference between them except the data fields so I made sure that when I tested against webrick, I used the same ‘id =\> 3’ record and there’s no problem. I would really like to include this in my testing…is there some better/more reliable way to test for a response which isn’t a template response but rather a send\_file “tmp/SOME.pdf”, :type =\> “application/pdf”, :disposition =\> ‘inline’ That clearly delivers except in testing? Craig ---
**Author:** ![craigrails](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@craigrails](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/craigrails)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2008, 1:21am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/perplexing-functional-test-results/138705/2 "2008-05-27T01:21:15Z")
On 27 May 2008, at 00:02, Craig W. wrote: > between > them except the data fields so I made sure that when I tested against > webrick, I used the same ‘id =\> 3’ record and there’s no problem. > > I would really like to include this in my testing…is there some > better/more reliable way to test for a response which isn’t a template > response but rather a > > send\_file “tmp/SOME.pdf”, :type =\> “application/pdf”, :disposition =\> > ‘inline’ send\_file will result in 200, not a 302 (which only happens with a redirect - not what you are doing here). You could check the content type or the response body Fred ---
**Author:** ![craigrails](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@craigrails](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/craigrails)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2008, 1:41am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/perplexing-functional-test-results/138705/3 "2008-05-27T01:41:44Z")
Hi Craig, ----- Original Message ----- Craig W. wrote: > the failure is I get response 200 (which is a failure). i don’t mean to “butt in” to your conversation with Fredrick, but what do you mean by “response 200 (which is a failure)”. If you mean that you were expecting a 302 and your test failed because you got a 200 which is ‘successful’, OK. Otherwise… > so I fired up ‘webrick -p 7000 -e test’ and used > a browser and was able to get these stamped PDF’s > without a problem. Exactly. A 200 means the action succeeded. As you saw in the browser. > I would really like to include this in my testing…is there > some better/more reliable way to test for a response > which isn’t a template response but rather a Are you using fixture\_file\_upload ? If not, check it out at [http://snipplr.com/view/1716/fixturefileupload-example/](http://snipplr.com/view/1716/fixturefileupload-example/) HTH, Bill