Specifying a few valid values

I have a Rails spec where I want to check that the action_name is either
“create” or “update”. I can think of a couple of ways to do it, but none
of them reads fantastically well:

  1. [“create”, “update”].should include(controller.action_name)

Problem: The error message, should it fail, is: expected [“create”,
“update”] to include “foo”

  1. controller.action_name.should match(/^create|update$/)

Problem: Not brilliantly readable, but the error message would be
better.

Is there a better way to do it? Something like this would be cool:

controller.action_name.should == any_of(“create”, “update”)

Jon

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Jonathan L.
[email protected] wrote:

Problem: Not brilliantly readable, but the error message would be
better.

Is there a better way to do it? Something like this would be cool:

controller.action_name.should == any_of(“create”, “update”)

Hi Jon -

There’s not really anything more clear supported, but you could always
write a custom matcher for this.

I’m wondering why the examples aren’t more specific though. Why is it
OK that the action could be one of two possibilities given a specific
set of givens?

David

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 07:28 -0500, David C. wrote:

I’m wondering why the examples aren’t more specific though. Why is it
OK that the action could be one of two possibilities given a specific
set of givens?

Ok well I lied a little bit :slight_smile:

I am using it in a story step, specifically the step is “Then the form
should be shown”. I guess I could split them into “Then the new/edit
form should be shown” but it doesn’t seem a huge issue…


Jonathan L.
http://jonathanleighton.com/

On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Jonathan L. wrote:

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 07:28 -0500, David C. wrote:

I’m wondering why the examples aren’t more specific though. Why is it
OK that the action could be one of two possibilities given a specific
set of givens?

Ok well I lied a little bit :slight_smile:

I am using it in a story step, specifically the step is “Then the form
should be shown”. I guess I could split them into “Then the new/edit
form should be shown” but it doesn’t seem a huge issue…

Aha. Now that’s a horse of a different color. I tend to avoid details
like that in story steps. I prefer to expect what’s visible, submit
forms (whatever the action is) and expect to end up in the right place.

Are you familiar with Webrat? It’s a tool that allows you to describe
things at a much higher level and takes care of the low level detail
for you. So rather than expecting specific form elements in the story
steps, you just do things like this:

Given I am registered as David with password Secret
And am and Administrator
When I log in with David/Secret
Then I should see Manage Schedules in a list of Things To Do

The interesting step here is “When I sign in with David/Secret”:

When /I log in with (.)/(.)/ do |login, password|
visits “/login”
fills_in “Login”, :with => login
fills_in “Password”, :with => password
clicks_button “Log In”
end

The fills_in method does two things at once: expects to find an item
with either an id of “Login” or with a related form label that has the
text “Login”. Then it manipulates the DOM, setting the value of that
element to “David” (in this example). Then #clicks_button finds a
button with the text “Log In”, builds a POST from the related DOM
elements and submits the POST.

I use this 100% of the time for Rails stories these days and am
overall very happy with the resulting code.

FWIW,
Cheers,
David

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 08:50 -0500, David C. wrote:

Are you familiar with Webrat?

Yep, we are using it. However, I want to test what happens when invalid
data is entered - that’s the reason to specify that the form gets shown.
What would you consider a better approach to verify the user sees the
form again, instead of moving on through the application? I guess I
could test that they don’t get redirected?

Cheers,
Jon


Jonathan L.
http://jonathanleighton.com/

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Zach D. [email protected]
wrote:

Perhaps…

When “I login with invalid credentials”
Then “I see that I have not been logged in”

Or …

When I login with invalid credentials
Then I should see the login form
And I should see a message saying “Something went wrong.”

Perhaps…

When “I login with invalid credentials”
Then “I see that I have not been logged in”

And in your implementation of the Then you could make sure they are at
the login form still.

Zach

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Jonathan L.
[email protected] wrote:

Jon


Jonathan L.
http://jonathanleighton.com/


rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


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

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan L.
[email protected] wrote:

Then I should see the login form
And I should see a message saying “Something went wrong.”

What would be the implementation of “Then I should see the login form”?
We are already testing for an error message :slight_smile:

As with all things, context is everything.

If I were going to have such a step, I’d do it based on things in the
form:

Then “should see the login form” do
response.should have_tag(‘input#login’)
response.should have_tag(‘input#password’)
end

That’s more granular than I generally like, but that’s what probably
what I’d do in this scenario.

HTH,
David

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 09:40 -0500, David C. wrote:

And I should see a message saying “Something went wrong.”
What would be the implementation of “Then I should see the login form”?
We are already testing for an error message :slight_smile:

Jon

On 18-jul-2008, at 1:22, David C. wrote:

Or …

When I login with invalid credentials
Then I should see the login form
And I should see a message saying “Something went wrong.”

What would be the implementation of “Then I should see the login
form”?
We are already testing for an error message :slight_smile:

As with all things, context is everything.

Definately. For what it’s worth, my approach:
I use the “should see the form | page” construct a lot when
implementing new functionality. I expect a form with just
response.should have_tag(‘form[action=?]’, blogposts_path), and spec
the form fields in my view specs. This ensures that my integration
tests won’t necessarily break when I change a form field, but it does
get picked up by the view specs. After I’m done prototyping, I write
higher level stories dealing with the flow of the functionality.

gr,
bartz

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs