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 call
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 be
David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Nick Hoffman
> wrote:
>
>> > Yes - route_to checks both sides of the translation.
>>
>> Great, thanks for that, David!
>
>
> Thank Randy Harmon for this one. It was he who recognized and solved
> the
> problems with params_from by ad
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Nick Hoffman wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Nick Hoffman
> > wrote:
> >
> >> By the way, does this spec:
> >>{:get => '/path'}.should route_to(...)
> >> make this spec redundant?:
> >>params_from(:get, '/path').shou
David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Nick Hoffman
> 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 translatio
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Nick Hoffman 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.
> They read the same, but it feels
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.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
___
Randy Harmon wrote:
> On 1/11/10 9:22 PM, Nick Hoffman wrote:
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>>
>> Thanks for that, David. I updated my spec (http://codepad.org/F828X7Fg).
>> For some reason though, it's still failing: http://codepad.org/s65Ckubc
>>
>> Just in case, this is what I have in routes.rb:
On 1/11/10 9:22 PM, Nick Hoffman wrote:
> David Chelimsky 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#M29
>>
>> It's more reliable,
David Chelimsky 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#M29
>
> It's more reliable, and aligns better with the rspec matchers API.
>
>
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Nick Hoffman 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, t
Amit Kulkarni wrote:
> Nick Hoffman 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
Nick Hoffman 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: http://codepad.org/lck4
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: http://codepad.org/lck4r1S0
After reading the rspec-rail
14 matches
Mail list logo
