Remove unnecessary routing assertions require #2732
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ActionDispatch::Assertions has an autoload defined: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v7.1.3/actionpack/lib/action_dispatch.rb#L130 That file requires action_dispatch/testing/assertions/routing.rb: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v7.1.3/actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/testing/assertions.rb#L5 So ActionDispatch::Assertions::RoutingAssertions can be referenced without being explicitly required. rspec/rails/example/controller_example_group.rb, which is loaded before this file, already references it and triggers the autoload, which means this require never has any effect: https://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/blob/v6.1.1/lib/rspec/rails/example/controller_example_group.rb#L5 Requiring action_dispatch/testing/assertions/routing.rb on its own doesn't actually work, because it autoloads ActionDispatch::Assertions which then fails to find ActionDispatch::Assertions::RoutingAssertions since it hasn't been defined yet: $ ruby -r action_dispatch -e "p ActionDispatch::Assertions::RoutingAssertions" ActionDispatch::Assertions::RoutingAssertions $ ruby -r action_dispatch -r action_dispatch/testing/assertions/routing -e "p ActionDispatch::Assertions::RoutingAssertions" /Users/eugene/.rbenv/versions/3.2.2/lib/ruby/gems/3.2.0/gems/actionpack-7.1.3/lib/action_dispatch/testing/assertions.rb:12:in `<module:Assertions>': uninitialized constant ActionDispatch::Assertions::RoutingAssertions (NameError)
|
Nice, I see something bigger is coming. Can you please confirm that Rails 6.1 would autoload it the same way, @eugeneius ? The current version of rspec-rails supports Rails 6.1 and 7.x. |
|
Yep, the autoload was there already in 6.1.0: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v6.1.0/actionpack/lib/action_dispatch.rb#L101 |
JonRowe
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2024
…uting Remove unnecessary routing assertions require
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
ActionDispatch::Assertionshas an autoload defined: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v7.1.3/actionpack/lib/action_dispatch.rb#L130That file requires
action_dispatch/testing/assertions/routing.rb:https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/v7.1.3/actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/testing/assertions.rb#L5
So
ActionDispatch::Assertions::RoutingAssertionscan be referenced without being explicitly required.rspec/rails/example/controller_example_group.rb, which is loaded before this file, already references it and triggers the autoload, which means this require never has any effect:https://github.com/rspec/rspec-rails/blob/v6.1.1/lib/rspec/rails/example/controller_example_group.rb#L5
Requiring
action_dispatch/testing/assertions/routing.rbon its own doesn't actually work, because it autoloadsActionDispatch::Assertionswhich then fails to findActionDispatch::Assertions::RoutingAssertionssince it hasn't been defined yet:(This is a prerequisite to a larger change, but I wanted to propose it first since it requires a fair bit of explanation.)