[LRUG] Expected response to be a <:redirect>, but was <200> when using should_redirect_to

Tue Jul 27 05:21:38 PDT 2010

On 27 July 2010 10:17, Riccardo Tacconi <rtacconi at gmail.com> wrote:

> I do not get any output with this code
>
>
>   context "should destroy participation" do
>     setup do
>       @configuration = Factory.create :configuration, :status => 'LIVE'
>       @p = Factory.create :participation, :configuration => @configuration
>       @admin = Factory.create :participant, :admin => true
>       login_as @admin
>     end
>
>     should "delete :destroy participations" do
>       assert_difference('Participation.count', -1) do
>         delete :destroy, :id => @p.to_param
>       end
>     end
>
>     app = ApplicationController.new
>     puts app.response.body
>
>     should_redirect_to("redirect to edit configuration") {
> edit_configuration_path @configuration }
>     # should_set_the_flash_to "The host has been unassociated."
>   end
>
> I think the problem is the shoulda context. I am realizing that Shoulda is
> not so magic and it is complicating my tests instead of helping. Probably I
> should try Rspec
>
>
You've got that puts in the wrong place.  You need to put it inside a should
block, for example:

    should "delete :destroy participations" do
      app = ApplicationController.new
      puts app.response.body
      assert_difference('Participation.count', -1) do
        delete :destroy, :id => @p.to_param
      end
    end

In terms of complicating your tests or magic, I'd say that Shoulda and Rspec
are about equivalent, so switching from one to the other probably won't
help.

It may clear things up to know that, basically, those should blocks are
defining a test method and setup blocks are defining a setup method and
everything not in a should block or setup block is at class-scope for your
test case.

Murray

On 27 July 2010 09:14, Glenn Gillen <glenn at rubypond.com> wrote:
>
>> Just a "puts response.body" or the equivalent for webrat should be
>> sufficient in your test (before the assertion).
>>
>> I suspect Matthews diagnosis is correct, I've been caught by it myself in
>> the past.
>>
>> Glenn
>>
>> - Mistyped in a rush on my mobile
>>
>> On 27 Jul 2010, at 10:09, Riccardo Tacconi <rtacconi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Matthew,
>>
>> I have not used a debugger with Ruby yet.
>>
>> On 26 July 2010 18:21, Matthew Rudy Jacobs <<matthewrudyjacobs at gmail.com>
>> matthewrudyjacobs at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> have you used debugger?
>>> I suggest you see what the content actually looks like
>>>
>>> in particular response.body
>>>
>>> perhaps its actually some error page that is being displayed
>>> and erroneously returning a 200
>>>
>>
>> I think that is the case
>>
>>>
>>> ie.
>>> check what your output is exactly
>>> before saying the assertion is broken.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, I am wondering how to intercept the output to have more info
>>
>>
>>> most likely its the code thats broken.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 July 2010 18:17, Riccardo Tacconi < <rtacconi at gmail.com>
>>> rtacconi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do not know if the test sends Accept text/html but I removed
>>>> respond_to .html and left only the redirect, so it should redirect for every
>>>> type of content, but I get the same message.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Riccardo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26 July 2010 18:08, Tim Cowlishaw < <tim at timcowlishaw.co.uk>
>>>> tim at timcowlishaw.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26 Jul 2010, at 18:05, Riccardo Tacconi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Expected response to be a <:redirect>, but was <200>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > But why? That method really return a 302 (redirrect) method. Do I
>>>>> miss something?
>>>>>
>>>>> does the request that your test sends have an Accepts header of
>>>>> text/html? Since the redirect is within the respond_to html block, I think
>>>>> it would return 200 for any other content types.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Chat mailing list
>>>>>  <Chat at lists.lrug.org>Chat at lists.lrug.org
>>>>>  <http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org>
>>>>> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Riccardo Tacconi
>>>> Web developer at Wolseley UK
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardotacconi>
>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardotacconi
>>>>  <http://riccardotacconi.blogspot.com/>
>>>> http://riccardotacconi.blogspot.com/
>>>>  <http://twitter.com/rtacconi>http://twitter.com/rtacconi
>>>> Linux user: #400461
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Chat mailing list
>>>>  <Chat at lists.lrug.org>Chat at lists.lrug.org
>>>>  <http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org>
>>>> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chat mailing list
>>>  <Chat at lists.lrug.org>Chat at lists.lrug.org
>>>  <http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org>
>>> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Riccardo Tacconi
>> Web developer at Wolseley UK
>>
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardotacconi>
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardotacconi
>>  <http://riccardotacconi.blogspot.com/>
>> http://riccardotacconi.blogspot.com/
>>  <http://twitter.com/rtacconi>http://twitter.com/rtacconi
>> Linux user: #400461
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chat mailing list
>> Chat at lists.lrug.org
>> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chat mailing list
>> Chat at lists.lrug.org
>> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Riccardo Tacconi
> Web developer at Wolseley UK
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardotacconi
> http://riccardotacconi.blogspot.com/
> http://twitter.com/rtacconi
> Linux user: #400461
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org
> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20100727/d56074c9/attachment-0003.html>