Favor request specs over controller specs when generating a controller

[klyonrad]

Closes #2056

Open questions in my mind (and why I consider this a work in progress):

1. Should I take care of the scaffolding generators as well?
2. Should the request spec templates have more content?

EDIT:

Regarding 2: Yes, they should
Regarding 1: I created a separate issue for this. See #2230

[klyonrad]

Copied over from lib/generators/rspec/integration/templates/request_spec.rb

I didn't try "very hard" to use the same template file because I am not sure if that is even wished for

[JonRowe]

I'd recommend writing a spec for get name etc that returns success or something similarly basic.

[klyonrad]

Yeah, figuring the details for the templates out was/is a bit difficult for me. I am sure, I would figure it out - but can you clarify the specs a bit maybe? I mean, what does the rspec-rails team think should be the convention for request specs that test a controller

[benoittgt]

Does the request spec guide help you? https://relishapp.com/rspec/rspec-rails/docs/request-specs/request-spec

[JonRowe]

I mean, what does the rspec-rails team think should be the convention for request specs that test a controller

I don't use generators myself as I find that the similar lines tend to just be the naming only. There isn't that much of a semantic difference between a controller spec and a request spec, its the level of stack integration that differs. Personally I would be happy with:

describe "GET /<%= name.underscore.pluralize %>" do
  it "works! (now write some real specs)" do
    get "/<%= name.underscore.pluralize %>"
    expect(response).to be_success
  end
end

However finesse wise I think that name.underscore.pluralize is wrong here, because it needs to be name spaced (or not) appropriately.

[JonRowe]

Let me know if you want any more feedback

[klyonrad]

I went with doing the same thing like the existing controller spec templates

---

If I understand the rails controller generator code correctly
it does note generate any routes unless we gave actions as a parameter. So the lib/generators/rspec/controller/templates/controller_spec.rb template makes a very empty controller spec

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe Admin::CustomersController, type: :controller do

end

So when the generator is generated without action names it should not have a test. Otherwise that test would not be green

[JonRowe]

Not sure if you wanted feedback on a draft but this is a good start!

[JonRowe]

I'd recommend writing a spec for get name etc that returns success or something similarly basic.

[pirj]

Up for discussion, should we omit generation of controller specs altogether? Brought up here.

generators.test_framework :rspec, controller_specs: false

Related code.

[JonRowe]

Up for discussion, should we omit generation of controller specs altogether? Brought up here.

No changing the default is sufficient

[klyonrad]

• branch is rebased
• rails version checks are removed
• I tried to make the template similar to the controller spec templates

travis is also failing on the master branch. Do not understand why. I tried to use the method that the deprecation warning in the sanity check recommends (See klyonrad@cfcbd27) but this then breaks in another way

Therefore consider this not a draft anymore, when the sanity check thing is fixed, I will rebase and maybe squash the commits

[klyonrad]

I went with doing the same thing like the existing controller spec templates

---

If I understand the rails controller generator code correctly
it does note generate any routes unless we gave actions as a parameter. So the lib/generators/rspec/controller/templates/controller_spec.rb template makes a very empty controller spec

require 'rails_helper'

RSpec.describe Admin::CustomersController, type: :controller do

end

So when the generator is generated without action names it should not have a test. Otherwise that test would not be green

[benoittgt]

For the issue on master branch. I will try to fix it with. #2231

[JonRowe]

Thanks for your patience here!