If you’re new to Rails, or if you’ve been using Rails 2 for a long time, you might not be aware that Shoulda offers an allow_mass_assignment_of matcher that works just like it sounds. Here’s the example from the source code:
it { should_not allow_mass_assignment_of(:password) }
it { should allow_mass_assignment_of(:first_name) }
Having explicit tests for whether fields should be mass-assignable is probably safer than letting developers arbitrarily add or remove fields from the attr_accessible declarations — at least when they break a test they’ll have to think twice about it.
_Having explicit tests for whether fields should be mass-assignable is probably safer than letting developers arbitrarily add or remove fields from the attr_accessible declarations — at least when they break a test they’ll have to think twice about it._
I’m having a hard time digesting this. Shoulda matchers are basically the same thing as writing your implementation right in your test. Now, is this probably a good idea?
May 28, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Hi Bryan,
I think this helper shines most in the should *not* case. If I see some column `foo` that isn’t included in `attr_accessible`, it might not be immediately obvious for `foo` whether it was intentionally excluded. The test would clarify the intent.
On the other hand, I think I can agree with you about the positive assertion test not being very valuable. If you have a field as `attr_accessible`, you probably have *some* test that depends on it being accessible.
May 28, 2012 at 10:54 pm