I'm new to rspec (and coding in general) but would it break a lot of people's tests if redirect_to was changed to do this by default? It's what i expected it to do, personally, that is to pass if the given :action and :controller match up. If i pass a url string, and it's missing the params, then it seems fair that it should fail, but if for example i just specify a controller, and that controller is called (with any action) i'd expect it to pass as well.
Like i say i'm a newb with no idea of the impact of this to existing tests :)
On 14/02/2008, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...> wrote:
On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky@...> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...> wrote:
> > On 2/14/08, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky@...> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:22 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...> wrote:
> > > I don't have the cycles to add this anytime soon, so if you like the
> > > idea, feel free to submit a patch to the tracker.
> >
> > I'd be happy to do that, although I'm not entirely convinced that
> > redirect_with is the right name, not that I've got a better
> > alternative.
>
>
> redirect_with_options?
I think I like that.
> How about something added to the existing call?
>
> response.should redirect_to(:controller => 'foo', :action =>
> 'bar').ignoring_other_options
This seems too wordy.
--
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@...
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
