Refactorized action rack implementation #78
Conversation
|
Looks good 👍 |
|
I need to create want test for rack builder in a couple of hours. Yesterday I forgot it |
test/integration/use_test.rb
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is this correct?
UseAction::Index.rack_builder == UseAction::Show.rack_builder # => trueUseAction::Index.rack_builder.must_equal UseAction::Show.rack_builder
# => Fail
# No visible difference in the Rack::Builder#inspect output.
# You should look at the implementation of #== on Rack::Builder or its members.UseAction::Index.rack_builder.object_id.must_equal UseAction::Show.rack_builder.object_id # => false
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this would add a value. We're testing a detail, instead of a behavior. Also, if Rack Team customizes Rack::Builder#== this test will fail in the future.
The behavior that we want to describe is: given two actions with separated middleware stacks, those shall not to interfers each other.
What if we introduce YMiddleware and let UseAction::Show to use it? Then we could introspect the response and headers returned from /show.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok, then I'll rewrite the test ;)
test/integration/use_test.rb
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a low level detail that we can safely remove from here. The test already covers it. 🐱
|
@AlfonsoUceda This looks good! ✨ 👍 for me. |
|
@jodosha thanks for your help ;) |
|
@AlfonsoUceda ❇️ 👍 great work |
Refactorized action rack implementation
4 participants
reference #72
Be careful before merging because the lotus-router is pointing to my fork and an especific branch related with this hanami/hanami-router#36 (later this will be restored to lotus/router github)
Thanks you @jodosha for the work