It really depends on how you have setup your code for checking the authorization and how you test for it in actions. I can tell you what we do as an example. We have roles like you do, and some pages that require login, some that require a role, and some that have different output based on role. We test each type a little differently.

First, we test authorization and login separately.

Also, we created filters for actions that require the user has logged in, and then others for requiring a certain role. For example check_admin, check_account_owner, etc. We can then test that those filters work on their own.

We then add checks in the controller tests that the correct filters are being called. We use shoulda and wrote some easy extensions so we can add checks like:

should_filter_before_with :check_admin, :new

That way we are testing what needs to be tested and no more.

Now, for more complex actions that do different logic depending on role, we do test those actions for each role that contains special logic. We don t write tests for roles on that action that will be filtered, or are supersets of other roles. For example if the action adds more fields to a form if you are an admin, we test non-admins and admin. We don t test admin and super admin since our code for role checking understands that super-admins are admins.

Also, for templates that contain logic to only display certain items for certain roles, we try and move that code into helpers, or if common like an admin toolbar, into partials. Then we can test those on their own and not on every action that includes them.

To sum up, test only what you need to for a given action. Just like you wouldn t test Rails internals in your Unit tests, if you write common code for your role checks and test that, you don t need to test it again on every action.

In some situations you may be required to test ALL possible roles and authorization levels against different actions - like, when working for a bank, for instance :) In this case it makes sense to take a more dynamic approach to testing. Instead of defining each test case, you would generate all the combinations.

A few years ago Ryan Davis did a presentation about the "functional test matrix" which is part of ZenTest. Dr. Nic did a writeup, and at the end of the post you ll find updated links in the comments. This solution was designed for exactly the problem you describe. You could also roll your own solution, by running tests inside nested loops, for example - the idea is basically the same.

Consider an application which is having 2 roles admin and read only Perform below tests:

1. login with read only mode perform some action and logout. Now from same system and same browser login with admin role and see the behaviour of the system. And vice versa.
2. login with admin role and copy the cookie value and log out. Now login with normal role and edit the cookie value by using cookimanager+ or editthiscookie tool. And if application is working as expected then it is an issue. Repeat above test case 2 from same machine same browser, same machine different browser, from different machine
3. if it is thick client application then perform reverse engineering and analyse the code. Try to change the logic of authorization management (someone needs to have coding experience for this) recompile the code and repeat test 2-3.
4. using proxy interruption tool like burp suite analyze get/post request for both the roles.

Now based on type of role available for your application decide test cases.