rspec users - Oct 2009 - be_none and be_any don't seem to work properly

Hi all!

I''m testing some named scopes. I use be_all(&:some_predicate) to
test
if all the elements in the collection are valid, which works, but when
I try to test the inverse, it fails.

You can see the complete code at: http://gist.github.com/213636

But in short:

subject = User.active
subject.should be_all(&:active) # works

inverse = User.all - subject
inverse.none?(&:active).should be_true # works
inverse.should be_none(&:active) # doesn''t work

And also "inverse.should_not be_any(&:active)" doesn''t
work either

And I cannot figure out why. The RDoc of rspec or rspec-rails don''t
mention be_none or be_any, so I would think that this would be
straightforward. Anyone any ideas?

Thanks in advance,
Iain - iain.nl

On Oct 19, 2009, at 2:12 PM, iain wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I''m testing some named scopes. I use be_all(&:some_predicate)
to test
> if all the elements in the collection are valid, which works, but when
> I try to test the inverse, it fails.
>
> You can see the complete code at: http://gist.github.com/213636
>
> But in short:
>
> subject = User.active
> subject.should be_all(&:active) # works
>
> inverse = User.all - subject
> inverse.none?(&:active).should be_true # works
> inverse.should be_none(&:active) # doesn''t work
>
> And also "inverse.should_not be_any(&:active)"
doesn''t work either
>
> And I cannot figure out why. The RDoc of rspec or rspec-rails
don''t
> mention be_none or be_any, so I would think that this would be
> straightforward. Anyone any ideas?
I''m not certain, but I _think_ that the problem is the way
you''re
setting up the factories. Try just creating the objects directly and  
see what happens:

http://gist.github.com/215201

HTH,
David


>
> Thanks in advance,
> Iain - iain.nl
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Cheers,
David

On Oct 21, 5:45?pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2009, at 2:12 PM, iain wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi all!
>
> > I''m testing some named scopes. I use
be_all(&:some_predicate) to test
> > if all the elements in the collection are valid, which works, but when
> > I try to test the inverse, it fails.
>
> > You can see the complete code at:http://gist.github.com/213636
>
> > But in short:
>
> > subject = User.active
> > subject.should be_all(&:active) # works
>
> > inverse = User.all - subject
> > inverse.none?(&:active).should be_true # works
> > inverse.should be_none(&:active) # doesn''t work
>
> > And also "inverse.should_not be_any(&:active)"
doesn''t work either
>
> > And I cannot figure out why. The RDoc of rspec or rspec-rails
don''t
> > mention be_none or be_any, so I would think that this would be
> > straightforward. Anyone any ideas?
>
> I''m not certain, but I _think_ that the problem is the way
you''re ?
> setting up the factories. Try just creating the objects directly and ?
> see what happens:
>
> http://gist.github.com/215201
>
> HTH,
> David
>
>
>
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Iain - iain.nl
> > _______________________________________________
> > rspec-users mailing list
> > rspec-us... at rubyforge.org
> >http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us... at
rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Nope, no difference.
The arrays with records are all fine when I inspect them, just as I
would expect.
The message "expected any? to return false" looks okay, so the only
thing I can imagine is that it doesn''t send it to the right receiver.

I''ve made an inverse selection too, where I match be_any on subject,
but to no avail.

I''ve also tried it without named_scopes, again not changing the
situation.

But then again, why should "all?" work, but "any?" or
"none?" not?

On 21 Oct 2009, at 16:45, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2009, at 2:12 PM, iain wrote:
>> I use be_all(&:some_predicate) to test if all the elements in the  
>> collection are valid, which works, but when I try to test the  
>> inverse, it fails.
> I''m not certain, but I _think_ that the problem is the way
you''re
> setting up the factories.
I don''t think be_all(&:some_predicate) actually works at all,
except
in the accidental sense that Enumerable#all indiscriminately returns  
true as long as all of the entries in the collection are truthy.

At the moment it looks like dynamic predicate matchers like be_all  
completely ignore their block argument (&:some_predicate doesn''t
get
rolled into *args) so you just get the default blockless behaviour of  
the underlying predicate.

I''ve reported and patched this on Lighthouse:
https://rspec.lighthouseapp.com/projects/5645-rspec/tickets/905

Cheers,
-Tom