On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Brandon Olivares <programmer2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rspec-users-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:rspec-users- >> boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of David Chelimsky >> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:10 AM >> To: rspec-users >> Subject: Re: [rspec-users] Eliminating duplication from tests >> >> Can you please post specific examples of the use of these so we don't >> have to talk in generalities? > > Sure, here is something I just wrote. > > def assert_route_recognition path, controller, methods > describe "route recognition" do > [:get, :post, :put, :delete].each do |method| > if methods.include? method > it "should generate the params" + > " {:controller => '#{controller}', :action => > '#{methods[method]}'}" + > " when the request method is #{method.to_s.upcase}" do > params_from(method, path).should == { > :controller => controller, > :action => methods[method] > } > end > else > it "should not accept the #{method} method" do > lambda { > params_from(method, path) > }.should raise_error(ActionController::MethodNotAllowed) > end > end > end > end > end # assert_route_recognition
I meant where it's used, not how it works :) But now that you've shown the implementation, I can see that this is a macro that generates examples. So when you're using it it probably looks like this: describe WidgetsController do assert_route_recognition "/widgets/", :widgets, [:get, :post] end In this case, I'd change the name to something like recognizes_routes_for: describe WidgetsController do recognizes_routes_for "/widgets/", :widgets, [:get, :post] end But even that is a bit of a challenge to understand what all the arguments mean. Another option might be: describe WidgetsController do recognizes_routes_for :get, :post, "/widgets/" end The controller can be inferred from WidgetsController in the macro, which you can access from the described_class method: :controller => described_class.to_s.sub(/Controller/,'').underscore.to_sym >> Of course your "testing" is progressing towards something more >> "test-like." You're calling it "testing" so you're probably thinking >> of it as "testing." You're using words like "ensure" instead of >> "specify" and you've even named your expectations "assert_xxx" instead >> of "expect_xxx." > > Interesting. I'm just used to thinking that way I guess. What is wrong with > ensure instead of specify? > > And I've never seen that convention with the expect prefix. Can you provide > an example? I don't have any examples :) I was just making a suggestion because part of the BDD nomenclature is "expectation" instead of "assertion." An expectation is about something in the future. An assertion is about something that already exists. In this case, since it's a macro, I'd go with what I suggested above (recognizes_routes_for). HTH, David > Thank you very much for the help. > > Brandon > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
