On Oct 27, 2009, at 6:48 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <lboc...@yahoo.com.br
> wrote:
Em 27-10-2009 15:17, David Chelimsky escreveu:
On Oct 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
Hi David, I'm giving a try to RSpec after we meet each other on
Rails Summit Latin America and I must admit I'm enjoying using
rspec/machinist/faker.
Since I have not written any controllers yet, I hadn't taken a
chance to try webrat.
But there is a situation that I would like some feedback on how to
deal with it.
When registering new users, they will input their e-mail and a
message will be sent for them to confirm their addresses and
continue registering.
I use something like:
MailNotifier.deliver_email_confirmation_message :confirmation_url
=> url_for(:controllers => 'users', :action =>
'continue_register', :user => @user.id, :token =>
@user.confirmation_token)
And the routes are set to ':controller/:action', so that the url
would translate to '/users/continue_register?
user=2&confirmation_token=asdf987asf'.
The problem is that Ruby 1.8 will not maintain any specific order
for the parameters. (The application is hosted in a shared server
at hostingrails.com, which hosts Ruby 1.8)
I know that I could add a route to generate '/users/
continue_register/2/asdf987asf' instead, but I would still like to
know what would be the alternatives.
Oi Rodrigo,
There's no great alternative that I know of. I've always just
grabbed the URL using a regexp and then broken it up. Something
like this:
text.should =~ /http:\/\/test\.host\/users\/continue_register\?([^
\s]*)/
query_string = $1
query_string.should =~ /user=2/
query_string.should =~ /confirmation_token=asdf987asf/
You could also use Rack::Utils.parse_query to convert the
query_string to hash, or capture the entire url and use the
route_to matcher:
text.should =~ /(http:\/\/test\.host\/users\/continue_register\?[^
\s]*)/
{:get => $1}.should route_to(
:controllers => 'users',
:action => 'continue_register',
:user => @user.id,
:token => @user.confirmation_token
)
I don't love either of those - I'd sooner change the implementation
to something deterministic, but that's me :)
David, thank you very much for your feedback, although not ideal
they are good approaches.
I understand your point of view in changing to something
deterministic and I was thinking in doing that, at first. But I
would like to know if there was a gotcha that I couldn't figure it
out. I need to choose between clean code in the implementation or in
the test...
Using a deterministic approach would make the test clearer, while
using url_for with Ruby 1.8 would make the implementation clearer...
That is why I was thinking in creating a route to achieve both, but
it would exist only to make both clearer and could cause some
confusion while reading routes.rb...
The first approach you presented is clearer, but wouldn't detect a
problem that I noticed when testing my mailer. I was using
RedCloth's textilize, thinking that it would generate a link (which
actually auto_link does) and I was testing if the link was contained
in the body. The first approach wouldn't detect that the url was
wrong, like "?user=1&token=abc".
The second approach goes against Ruby way, in my opinion... :) Too
many code to test a single statement...
Another approach would be something like:
Regexp.new('http://test.host/users/continue_register\?'+(['([^\s]+)']
*2).join('\&')).
match(email.body).to_a[1..-1].to_set.should ==
["user...@user.id}", "token...@user.activation_token}"].to_set
where the first line could be replaced, in this case, with:
Regexp.new('http://test.host/users/continue_register\?([^\s]+)\&([^\s]+)'
).
although I would prefer another matcher to exist:
match(email.body).to_a[1..-1].should have_same_elements(["user=#
{...@user.id}", "token...@user.activation_token}"])
But the problem with this approach is that I would probably need to
write another test for testing this test ;)
How could I verify that the delivered message contains a correct
url? I know that I should follow the url in an acceptance test,
but I'm just trying to test that the message is been correct
generated, in a unit test.
Please, let me know if I missed something conceptually while
testing this situation.
Thanks for RSpec and the tips about machinist, faker and webrat.
Just one more doubt. When using machinist, is it possible to
ignore the blueprint while calling 'make' on an ActiveRecord
class? I had to create a named blueprint reseting all fields set
by the blueprint.
I don't know of a way of to do this, but why do you need to?
Usually, for most tests, I need to create active users.
Only for testing the registering process, I need another structure.
Active users must have login, name, email and password.
Inactive users would only have email.
You may want to look at a couple of other libraries like Fixjour,
Fixture Replacement and Factory Girl - they serve the same function
as Machinist, but don't (afaik) add methods to ActiveRecord::Base.
Actually, I've taken a look at Factory Girl, but prefered Machinist,
which is awesome. I'll take a look at Fixjour and Fixture
Replacement. Do they have a blueprint-like feature?
I have no problem in creating methods in ActiveRecord::Base. I just
wanted to call something like:
User.make_without_blueprint(:email => 't...@test.com', :active =>
'false')
How about make_inactive and put it directly on User?
Also, there may be some sort of named blueprint feature. I'm not in a
position to look that up right now, but I think I remember that being
supported. If not, we should make it so :)
Thank you for your feedback,
Rodrigo.
__________________________________________________
Faça ligações para outros computadores com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.beta.messenger.yahoo.c
om/ _______________________________________________
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
