Refactor test cases of AnnotateRoutes - completed version #760
Conversation
…es not receive 'puts'
| @@ -307,6 +307,8 @@ | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| it 'should skip annotations if file does already contain annotation' do | |||
| expect(File).not_to receive(:open).with(ROUTE_FILE, 'wb').and_yield(mock_file) | |||
| expect(mock_file).not_to receive(:puts) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just wondering - would it ever get to this expectation? I thought it would fail on L310 before it ever hits L311.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@drwl
Oh, I am not cofident in whether L311 makes sence.
But L310 is an expectation for confirming that the File does not receive openmethod, so it should not cause any failure, I think.
| context 'with older Rake versions' do | ||
| let :rake_routes_result do | ||
| <<~EOS.chomp | ||
| (in /bad/line) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's supposed to be going on here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@drwl
The variable defined by let :rake_routes_result is just cut-and-pasted.
This variable has been existed before I begin to refactor the test cases.
It seems to be since 69cd69c (spec/annotate/annotate_routes_spec.rb).
I can't figure out what this commit means because this commit is not recorded as GitHub PR.
Maybe this test does not make sense for result of rake routes by recent Rails version, so I'd like to rewrite test cases around this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Gotcha, I'll merge it in for now and feel free to remove in future work.
This is the final completed version of refactoring AnnotateRoutes.
This is the final completed version of refactoring AnnotateRoutes.