Consistent request spec file naming #2376
Conversation
Controller generators are using a different naming scheme for requests specs that are now generated by default. Use always `spec/requests/posts_spec.rb` by default. This
| # Generate controllers so that Rails generates routes | ||
| generate('controller logins index --no-request_specs --no-view_specs --no-helper_specs') | ||
| generate('controller #s index --no-request_specs --no-view_specs --no-helper_specs') | ||
| # The generated specs from IntegrationGenerator rely on index routes being present |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be addressed again in #2375
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You wouldn't have to do the above if you stick to wombats and widgets? Are these changes even necessary?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have you seen the test output for the commit before that 9f0bc1f?
The IntegrationSpecGenerator / RequestSpecGenerator generate a file with an index_path helper that does not exist when we have not generated the corresponding route yet, causing a failure of the smoke tests. So there was a hidden dependency between generating the controllers and testing the generated request specs. That I think you understood, right?
This was a very surprising dependency by the way. Dependencies in this generates_stuff file are quite the pain generally. And I assume that these test failures were what motived @eloyesp to change the behaviour in the previous PR.
When we stick to wombats and widgets, then we would try to overwrite the already generated request spec files from the earlier lines. generate('controller wombats index') generates spec/requests/wombats_spec.rb. Then generate('rspec:request wombats') was also trying to generate spec/requests/wombats_spec.rb, so a conflict. We could try using the --force option to just ignore that file conflict but I thought that then it would be pointless to even use the request spec generator here.
The usage of --no-request_specs is necessary so that generating the controller does not change the conflicting file name. The usage --no-view_specs --no-helper_specs options I just added to avoid unnecessary increase in testing time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are controllers generated above, if they are missing a route then ok add some more, but don't remove the old ones.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand what you mean.
Could you please checkout the commit locally, run rake smoke:app, see the failures and tell more detailed how you would solve them?
I did not remove anything. I changed the names for using the request spec generation and the integration_test generation.
generate('rspec:request wombats')fails becausegenerate('controller wombats index')already has generated the request spec file. This was not an issue before becausegenerate('rspec:request wombats')generatedspec/requests/wombats_request_specfile. And this file worked only becausegenerate('controller wombats index')created the correct route.generate('integration_test widgets')would work, but the filespec/requests/widgets_specwill later on be overwritten bygenerate('scaffold widget name:string category:string instock:boolean foo_id:integer bar_id:integer --force')
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, I pulled down your branch and ran it and the main issue is that the generator now overwrites itself due to the change in defaults, fixed in #2378
Closes #2355
Resolves #2356
Credit goes to @eloyesp.
I thought it would be good to move this topic along by simply splitting the two mentioned issues in his PR. I hope that @eloyesp is not offended 🥴
Test Plan
rake generate:appcd tmp/example_app/./bin/rails generate scaffold Post title:string author:string./bin/rails generate controller dashboard./bin/rails generate rspec:request workflowsls spec/requests/There should be three files in the
spec/requestsdirectory and they should not have a_request_specsuffix.