rspec users - Oct 2006 - actual.should != not_expected

All,

In dealing with the changes to should in the
should_be_working_like_ruby branch, I am reminded that while we got
the following to work ...

actual.should_be < value
actual.should_be <= value
actual.should == value
actual.should =~ value
actual.should_be >= value
actual.should_be > value

... we were not able to get this to work:

actual.should != value

Here''s what the test looked like:

context "should[_be] <arbitrary operator>:" do

  specify "should pass when != operator returns true" do
    (2+2).should != 3
  end

end

and the result.

$ bin/spec spec/spec/expectations/helper/ \
 -s "should pass when != operator returns true"

F

1)
Spec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError in ''should[_be]
<arbitrary
operator>: should pass when != operator returns true''
4 should == 3
./spec/spec/expectations/helper//should_be_arbitrary_operator_spec.rb:14:in
`should pass when != operator returns true''

Finished in 0.000647 seconds

1 specification, 1 failure

NOTE that the error reads "4 should == 3". It looks as though ruby is
actually delivering the == operator instead of !=. Now if you do this:

irb(main):003:0> Object.methods.sort
=> ["<", "<=", "<=>",
"==", "===", "=~", ">",
">=",...]

... you''ll note that != is not an actual operator. So I''m not
convinced that we can get this to work without a big change to rspec''s
internals.

So the challenge is on. If any one is interested in making this work,
please check out the should_be_working_like_ruby branch or the trunk,
give it a shot, and submit a patch (with specs!) if you succeed. If
you do submit a patch, please make sure that the spec above and all
other specs are passing.

Also - I view this as a bell (or whistle, if you prefer). Specifying
something as vague as != seems almost useless to me to begin with, but
if you really do need to specify inequality you''ll be ableto do it
with should_not_eql or should_not_equal. That said, we will reserve
the right to not incorporate a working solution if we feel that it is
not cleanly aligned with the rest of RSpec''s internals, or makes us
all go "wow, that''s cool, but what a hack!". So please do not
submit
anything unless the sheer satisfaction of having gotten it to work
will be enough for you to feel that the effort was worthwhile.

Thanks,
David