Troubles with route_for

nickh · January 11, 2010, 5:58am

Hey guys. I’m having some trouble with a route spec. In routes.rb , I
have:
map.connect ‘foods/search/:name’, :controller => :foods, :action =>
:search

foods_controller_spec.rb has: Plain Text code by nickh - 5 lines - codepad
Unfortunately, that fails: Plain Text code by nickh - 12 lines - codepad

After reading the rspec-rails 1.2.0 upgrade notes (http://tr.im/K1zx), I
haven’t been able to figure out what I’m doing wrong. Any hints?

Thanks!
Nick

PS: I’m using 1.2.9 and Rails 2.3.4 .

nickh · January 11, 2010, 7:40am

Nick H. wrote:

Hey guys. I’m having some trouble with a route spec. In routes.rb , I
have:
map.connect ‘foods/search/:name’, :controller => :foods, :action =>
:search

foods_controller_spec.rb has: http://codepad.org/dg3FERKw
Unfortunately, that fails: Plain Text code by nickh - 12 lines - codepad

After reading the rspec-rails 1.2.0 upgrade notes (http://tr.im/K1zx), I
haven’t been able to figure out what I’m doing wrong. Any hints?

Thanks!
Nick

PS: I’m using 1.2.9 and Rails 2.3.4 .
Hi Nick,
You need to add quotes while writing in routs.rb file.
So your route will be define as :
map.connect ‘foods/search/:name’, :controller => ‘foods’, :action =>
‘search’
Now try running the code again.You will see it pass.

nickh · January 11, 2010, 7:56am

Amit K. wrote:

Nick H. wrote:

Hey guys. I’m having some trouble with a route spec. In routes.rb , I
have:
map.connect ‘foods/search/:name’, :controller => :foods, :action =>
:search

foods_controller_spec.rb has: Plain Text code by nickh - 5 lines - codepad
Unfortunately, that fails: Plain Text code by nickh - 12 lines - codepad

After reading the rspec-rails 1.2.0 upgrade notes (http://tr.im/K1zx), I
haven’t been able to figure out what I’m doing wrong. Any hints?

Thanks!
Nick

PS: I’m using 1.2.9 and Rails 2.3.4 .

Hi Nick,
You need to add quotes while writing in routs.rb file.
So your route will be define as :
map.connect ‘foods/search/:name’, :controller => ‘foods’, :action =>
‘search’
Now try running the code again.You will see it pass.

Thanks for the suggestion, Amit. I changed the symbols to strings.
Unfortunately, the same error is still occurring:
http://codepad.org/lck4r1S0

nickh · January 12, 2010, 6:22am

David C. wrote:

I’d recommend using the route_to matcher that was added in 1.2.9
instead.

Plain Text code - 7 lines - codepad
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec-rails/1.2.9/classes/Spec/Rails/Matchers.html#M000029

It’s more reliable, and aligns better with the rspec matchers API.

Cheers,
David

Thanks for that, David. I updated my spec (Plain Text code by nickh - 4 lines - codepad).
For some reason though, it’s still failing: Plain Text code by nickh - 13 lines - codepad

Just in case, this is what I have in routes.rb:
http://codepad.org/rJfIhbM6

There must be some tiny detail that I’m missing here…

nickh · January 12, 2010, 8:07am

On 1/11/10 9:22 PM, Nick H. wrote:

Cheers,
David

Thanks for that, David. I updated my spec (Plain Text code by nickh - 4 lines - codepad).
For some reason though, it’s still failing: Plain Text code by nickh - 13 lines - codepad

Just in case, this is what I have in routes.rb:
Plain Text code by nickh - 4 lines - codepad

There must be some tiny detail that I’m missing here…

Yes, there must. I think you’ve tried to twice define the route, and
the test shows you which one actually is being used. I’ll suggest
commenting out one of those routes at a time, and see whether the new
test results are illuminating.

Randy

nickh · January 11, 2010, 2:52pm

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Nick H. [email protected]
wrote:

I’d recommend using the route_to matcher that was added in 1.2.9
instead.

http://codepad.org/fLcxyA9N
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec-rails/1.2.9/classes/Spec/Rails/Matchers.html#M000029

It’s more reliable, and aligns better with the rspec matchers API.

Cheers,
David

nickh · January 12, 2010, 6:35pm

By the way, does this spec:
{:get => ‘/path’}.should route_to(…)
make this spec redundant?:
params_from(:get, ‘/path’).should == {…}

They read the same, but it feels like they each check one end of the
route’s translation.

nickh · January 13, 2010, 3:38pm

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Nick H. [email protected]
wrote:

By the way, does this spec:
{:get => ‘/path’}.should route_to(…)
make this spec redundant?:
params_from(:get, ‘/path’).should == {…}

Yes - route_to checks both sides of the translation.

nickh · January 12, 2010, 6:25pm

Randy H. wrote:

On 1/11/10 9:22 PM, Nick H. wrote:

Cheers,
David

Thanks for that, David. I updated my spec (Plain Text code by nickh - 4 lines - codepad).
For some reason though, it’s still failing: Plain Text code by nickh - 13 lines - codepad

Just in case, this is what I have in routes.rb:
Plain Text code by nickh - 4 lines - codepad

There must be some tiny detail that I’m missing here…

Yes, there must. I think you’ve tried to twice define the route, and
the test shows you which one actually is being used. I’ll suggest
commenting out one of those routes at a time, and see whether the new
test results are illuminating.

Randy

I swapped the order of the 2 lines in routes.rb to this:

map.connect   'foods/search/:name', :controller => 'foods', :action

=> ‘search’
map.resources :foods, :collection => {:search => :get}

and the spec passes now.

Thanks, guys!

nickh · January 13, 2010, 5:20pm

David C. wrote:

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Nick H. [email protected]
wrote:

By the way, does this spec:
{:get => ‘/path’}.should route_to(…)
make this spec redundant?:
params_from(:get, ‘/path’).should == {…}

Yes - route_to checks both sides of the translation.

Great, thanks for that, David! And thanks again for all of your sweat
and blood with RSpec and RSpec-Rails!

nickh · January 13, 2010, 5:30pm

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Nick H. [email protected]
wrote:

Yes - route_to checks both sides of the translation.

Great, thanks for that, David!

Thank Randy H. for this one. It was he who recognized and solved
the
problems with params_from by adding the route_to matcher.

And thanks again for all of your sweat
and blood with RSpec and RSpec-Rails!

It’s a labor of love, but you’re welcome

nickh · January 13, 2010, 6:57pm

David C. wrote:

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Nick H. [email protected]
wrote:

Yes - route_to checks both sides of the translation.

Great, thanks for that, David!

Thank Randy H. for this one. It was he who recognized and solved
the
problems with params_from by adding the route_to matcher.

Whoops, you’re right. Thanks, Randy!

nickh · January 24, 2010, 7:43pm

I guess the distinction is that you generate food_path()'s based on
existing food names, and search comes from users - but you don’t have a
distinct landing page for each food, hence no need for resource-based
routing for foods.

You could define a :show action in your controller, which simply calls
the ‘search’ action.

def show
search
end

Then they’ll have different controller-actions and different paths, yet
the implementations would be identical. And the specs can describe them
distinctly.

I’d be curious if there are other ways to do this.

Randy

nickh · January 24, 2010, 4:24am

Hey guys. I have two different paths that lead to the same controller
and action:
map.connect ‘foods/search/:name’, :controller => ‘foods’, :action =>
‘search’
map.food ‘:name’, :controller => ‘foods’, :action =>
‘search’

Unfortunately, the spec for the second route fails because #route_to
finds and uses the first route when generating the path for
:controller => ‘foods’, :action => ‘search’, :name => ‘almonds’

routes.rb: Ruby code by nickh - 14 lines - codepad
specs: Plain Text code by nickh - 26 lines - codepad

Is there a solution to this problem?

Thanks,
Nick