Comments on: Using url_for in Ruby on Rails tests http://jotthought.com/articles/2007/05/04/using-url_for-in-ruby-on-rails-tests/ A place for me to speak my mind Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:56:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Ben http://jotthought.com/articles/2007/05/04/using-url_for-in-ruby-on-rails-tests/#comment-1844 Tue, 29 May 2007 17:46:29 +0000 http://jotthought.com/articles/2007/05/04/using-url_for-in-ruby-on-rails-tests/#comment-1844 Thanks Justin. We created the bare minimum here. If you want url_for to work exactly like ActionController::Base I suggest that you take a look at the ActionController::Base.url_for source code. There is a little more checking on whether the parameter is a String, Hash or Symbol. It also provides a way to provide default options. It is a shame that all of this behavior is not encapsulated. It may be a good patch to extract the url_for method into a helper class that ActionController::Base uses. We could then use the same helper class in our tests and ensure the functionality between ActionController::Base.url_for and the test_help.url_for remain identical. Maybe I'll bring that up on the Ruby on Rails Core team mailing list to see if it would be worth my time. Thanks Justin. We created the bare minimum here. If you want url_for to work exactly like ActionController::Base I suggest that you take a look at the ActionController::Base.url_for source code. There is a little more checking on whether the parameter is a String, Hash or Symbol. It also provides a way to provide default options.

It is a shame that all of this behavior is not encapsulated. It may be a good patch to extract the url_for method into a helper class that ActionController::Base uses. We could then use the same helper class in our tests and ensure the functionality between ActionController::Base.url_for and the test_help.url_for remain identical.

Maybe I’ll bring that up on the Ruby on Rails Core team mailing list to see if it would be worth my time.

]]> by: justin http://jotthought.com/articles/2007/05/04/using-url_for-in-ruby-on-rails-tests/#comment-1843 Tue, 29 May 2007 17:36:26 +0000 http://jotthought.com/articles/2007/05/04/using-url_for-in-ruby-on-rails-tests/#comment-1843 actually, merging in :only_path => true is a better solution than overwriting the protocol and host parts. actually, merging in :o nly_path => true is a better solution than overwriting the protocol and host parts.

]]> by: justin http://jotthought.com/articles/2007/05/04/using-url_for-in-ruby-on-rails-tests/#comment-1842 Tue, 29 May 2007 17:34:38 +0000 http://jotthought.com/articles/2007/05/04/using-url_for-in-ruby-on-rails-tests/#comment-1842 thanks a lot, very helpful. I added this to my test_helper def url_for options url = ActionController::UrlRewriter.new(@request, nil) # rewrite the url, but we don't want the protocol and host part, only the actual path url.rewrite(options.merge( :protocol => '', :host => '' )) end unless defined? url_for I erase the protocol and host so that the returned path does NOT have the http://example.com/ part, which gets in the way. May not be the best way to do it, but seems to fill me needs. thanks a lot, very helpful. I added this to my test_helper

def url_for options
url = ActionController::UrlRewriter.new(@request, nil)
# rewrite the url, but we don’t want the protocol and host part, only the actual path
url.rewrite(options.merge( :protocol => ‘’, :host => ‘’ ))
end unless defined? url_for

I erase the protocol and host so that the returned path does NOT have the http://example.com/ part, which gets in the way.

May not be the best way to do it, but seems to fill me needs.

]]>