Andy Delcambre

Rails cookies are weird. In the controller you interact with them like they are a hash, but in fact it is not nearly that simple. The rdocs gives some hints to the fact that weird things are going on but it wasn’t enough for me to figure it out. The hash abstraction works pretty well when you are setting the cookies, but when trying to test them things become more complicated.

Lets take this simple example of setting an auth_token cookie.

cookies[ :auth_token ] = { :value => user.token , :expires => user.expires }

This might happen in the login method of an authentication controller. So now you want to test that the cookie is actually getting set. So you think, ok this is a hash, I can just do something like:

cookies[ :auth_token ].should_not be_nil

This in fact doesn’t work but, (and here is the nasty part), there is still a cookies object defined. What happens as far as I can tell (and correct me if I am wrong) is that once the post request is made, the cookies object is gone. Then you can access the cookies that were set using the response object. But the response.cookies object isn’t the same as the cookies object you were dealing with earlier. It is the cookies as they are seen from the browser. Therefore it is no longer a ruby hash, but an array of values, and the expiration time no longer exists (that is internal to the browser). It is also no longer keyed by symbols, but is now keyed by strings. So the correct way to spec that cookies are set looks like:

response.cookies[ "auth_token" ].should_not be_nil

But, because of the cookies alias alias in the ActionController test suite, you can also use the response.cookies object as just cookies.

Hopefully this will save you the hour I just spent beating my head against this.

Started work at Planet Argon today. I have been chatting with them for about 6 weeks, and I am extremely excited to start working with them. Today was pretty slow to start (as I expected), getting accounts going, getting mysql working properly on my laptop, getting subversion checkouts, etc, etc. Then I got started working on some actual coding.

I am starting out writing some specs for the project I am working on. I have used rspec for a few different projects but I hadn’t had a chance to play with the new syntax yet. It is basically exactly the same as when I used it just with different method names, but it really makes a huge difference in the style it forces you into.

With the old method, how to describe the specs was always a bit weird to me. For example:

context "a new group with no users" do
   specify "group should not be valid" do
        #...
   end
end

With the new style everything seems to flow naturally. For example:

describe Group, " with no users" do
   it "should not be valid" do
        @group.should_not be_valid
   end
end

Interesting is that I often feel like I write the same thing twice, once in english, then again in the DSL of rspec. But if you read them out loud, they are basically the same:

it "should have four elements" 
@thing.should have(4).elements

I also often find that I can guess the right syntax which is HUGE for rapid development times. I really like rspec, and I think I am really going to like working for Planet Argon.

P.S. Backspace has awesome sandwiches.