# Testing response for named routes in integration tests **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [February 4, 2010, 3:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/testing-response-for-named-routes-in-integration-tests/182902 "2010-02-04T15:25:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![asetzler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@asetzler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/asetzler)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 3:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/testing-response-for-named-routes-in-integration-tests/182902/1 "2010-02-04T15:25:45Z")
In integration tests, you can test the response of the server given a url\_for\_options hash, like so: get(:action, :param1 =\> “one”, :param2 =\> “two”, …) assert\_response :success However, this doesn’t work with a named route. # routes.rb map.thing\_download “things/:id/download” {:controller =\> :things, :action =\> :download} # things\_controller\_test.rb: get(:download, :id =\> @thing.id) #=\> ActionController::RoutingError, no route matches {:controller =\> :things, :action =\> :download, :id =\> 12} get(thing\_download\_path(@thing)) #=\> ActionController::RoutingError, no route matches {:controller =\> :things, :action =\> “/things/12/ download”} Is there a way to get a response from a named route in functional tests? For the time being I’ve resorted to misusing integration tests for this purpose, because inheriting from ActionController::IntegrationTest gives you a get() function that takes a string, so I can do get(thing\_download\_path(@thing)) ---
**Author:** ![asetzler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@asetzler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/asetzler)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/testing-response-for-named-routes-in-integration-tests/182902/2 "2010-02-04T16:12:08Z")
Adam S. wrote: > In integration tests, you can test the response of the server given a > url\_for\_options hash, like so: > get(:action, :param1 =\> “one”, :param2 =\> “two”, …) > assert\_response :success > > However, this doesn’t work with a named route. > > # routes.rb > > map.thing\_download “things/:id/download” {:controller > =\> :things, :action =\> :download} > > # things\_controller\_test.rb: > > get(:download, :id =\> @thing.id) #=\> ActionController::RoutingError, > no route matches {:controller =\> :things, :action =\> :download, :id =\> > 12} > get(thing\_download\_path(@thing)) #=\> ActionController::RoutingError, > no route matches {:controller =\> :things, :action =\> “/things/12/ > download”} > > Is there a way to get a response from a named route in functional > tests? Are you looking for assert\_recognizes ? More to the point, should you care? Routing is UI-facing stuff, so (even more than elsewhere) you should be testing behavior, not URL options. > For the time being I’ve resorted to misusing integration tests > for this purpose, because inheriting from > ActionController::IntegrationTest gives you a get() function that > takes a string, so I can do > get(thing\_download\_path(@thing)) Don’t bother with integration tests. Use Cucumber. (Also consider RSpec – it’s a lot nicer than Test::Unit.) Best, –Â Marnen Laibow-Koser [http://www.marnen.org](http://www.marnen.org) removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid ---
**Author:** ![asetzler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@asetzler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/asetzler)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/testing-response-for-named-routes-in-integration-tests/182902/3 "2010-02-04T18:16:06Z")
On Feb 4, 9:12 am, Marnen Laibow-Koser [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Are you looking for assert\_recognizes ? > > More to the point, should you care? Routing is UI-facing stuff, so > (even more than elsewhere) you should be testing behavior, not URL > options. > I’m not testing the URL, I’m testing the behavior of the application > when the user hits that URL, under different conditions. Under certain > conditions it should be 403 Forbidden, while under others it’s 200 OK. > Don’t bother with integration tests. Use Cucumber. > > (Also consider RSpec – it’s a lot nicer than Test::Unit.) > I’ll look into those, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![asetzler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@asetzler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/asetzler)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/testing-response-for-named-routes-in-integration-tests/182902/4 "2010-02-04T18:33:08Z")
Adam S. wrote: > On Feb 4, 9:12�am, Marnen Laibow-Koser [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > Are you looking for assert\_recognizes ? > > > > More to the point, should you care? �Routing is UI-facing stuff, so > > (even more than elsewhere) you should be testing behavior, not URL > > options. > > I’m not testing the URL, I’m testing the behavior of the application > > when the user hits that URL, under different conditions. Under certain > > conditions it should be 403 Forbidden, while under others it’s 200 OK. Right – so you don’t need to worry about the actual path or params. You just need to test the response. I know how to do that in Cucumber, but that uses Webrat’s visit method. I’m not sure about integration tests. > > Don’t bother with integration tests. �Use Cucumber. > > > > (Also consider RSpec – it’s a lot nicer than Test::Unit.) > > I’ll look into those, thanks. Best, – Marnen Laibow-Koser [http://www.marnen.org](http://www.marnen.org) removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid