How to include shared examples without subject - ruby

Question

I am using RSpec and Capybara. I want to test navigation panel with click_link with shared examples for concrete pages. But I can't use it_should_behave_like because I don't want to change subject after clicking links. Is there any way to include a shared example with expect(page).to?
EDIT:
Here is my code:
require 'spec_helper'
describe "SomeController" do
subject { page }
content_list = {
home: 'Some text on the home page',
about: 'Some text on the about page',
order: 'Some text on the order page'
}
shared_examples_for 'with layout' do
it { should have_content 'Some text on the layout' }
it { should have_title 'Title' }
end
describe 'Home page' do
before { visit root_path }
it_should_behave_like 'with layout'
it { should have_content content_list[:home] }
end
describe 'About page' do
before { visit about_path }
it_should_behave_like 'with layout'
it { should have_content content_list[:about] }
end
describe 'Order page' do
before { visit order_path }
it_should_behave_like 'with layout'
it { should have_content content_list[:order] }
end
it 'should have correct links on the layout' do
visit root_path
click_link 'Some link text'
expect(page).to have_content content_list[:about]
find('.logoLink').click
expect(page).to have_content content_list[:home]
click_link 'Another link text'
expect(page).to have_content content_list[:about]
click_link 'One more link text'
expect(page).to have_content content_list[:order]
end
end
I am checking the same things when visiting pages with route names and when visiting them clicking. I wanted to refactor it.

Answer 1

it_should_behave_like doesn't implicitly change the subject, so you shouldn't have a problem per se.
For example, the following passes:
shared_examples "so" do
it "should have access to variables from calling rspec scope" do
expect(subject).to eql("foo")
expect(page).to eql("bar")
end
end
describe "so test" do
let(:subject) {"foo"}
let(:page) {"bar"}
it_should_behave_like "so"
end
Given the code you shared, it's possible to reduce some duplication by passing a parameter to the shared example you have and introducing variables for each page's content. You can also make use of a lambda function to reduce duplication in the big, sequential example you have at the end. These techniques are shown below (not tested):
require 'spec_helper'
describe "SomeController" do
subject { page }
content_list = {
home: 'Some text on the home page',
about: 'Some text on the about page',
order: 'Some text on the order page'
}
home_content = content_list[:home]
about_content = content_list[:about]
order_content = content_list[:order]
shared_examples_for 'with layout' do |content|
it { should have_content 'Some text on the layout' }
it { should have_title 'Title' }
it { should have_content content }
end
describe 'Home page' do
before { visit root_path }
it_should_behave_like 'with layout', home_content
end
describe 'About page' do
before { visit about_path }
it_should_behave_like 'with layout', about_content
end
describe 'Order page' do
before { visit order_path }
it_should_behave_like 'with layout', order_content
end
it 'should have correct links on the layout' do
click_and_expect = lambda do |link_text, content|
click_link link_text
expect(page).to have_content content
end
visit root_path
click_and_expect['Some link text', about_content]
find('.logoLink').click
expect(page).to have_content home_content
click_and_expect['Another link text', about_content]
click_and_expect['One more link text', order_content]
end
end
However, to respond to one of your comments, I don't know how to easily eliminate the conceptual duplication between the should have_content content in the shared example and the expect(page).to have_content content in the final example. You can replace the former code with the latter code, since page is defined in both cases, but that still leaves you with the duplication of that string.
If you're willing to break up the sequential example at the end into a series of independent examples, then you can use a shared example across both. As is, though, the only way I know to share that code is through an eval of the same string.