rspec users - Dec 2006 - rspec tutorial - "one item" should equal "one item"

Apologies in advance if this is a Ruby-ignorant question.

I''m working my way through the tutorial, and I made it to page 3,
where I found a discrepancy.   In the 5th code block, preceded by
"What''s the simplest thing we can add to meet all of the current
expectations?" I add the trivial return value to the top method as
shown.   Now the stack is supposed to be returning "one item", but
instead of passing the test as show in the tutorial, I get:

1)
''A stack with one item should return top when you send it
''top'''' FAILED
"one item" should equal "one item"
./stack_spec.rb:28:

Finished in 0.0 seconds

3 specifications, 1 failure



I would guess this is some sort of issue about equivalence of two
instances versus having the same instance in Ruby.   Am I right?   At
any rate, is this behavior that''s changed since the tutorial, or do I
need to look harder in my tutorial code to make sure I didn''t
implement anything wrong?

I can post a snapshot of the code if needed.

Regards,

Philip
-- 
Philip Reed, Web developer

http://philipreedtech.com

Web.  Made simple.

On 12/4/06, philip reed <philipreedtech at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Apologies in advance if this is a Ruby-ignorant question.
>
> I''m working my way through the tutorial, and I made it to page 3,
> where I found a discrepancy.   In the 5th code block, preceded by
> "What''s the simplest thing we can add to meet all of the
current
> expectations?" I add the trivial return value to the top method as
> shown.   Now the stack is supposed to be returning "one item",
but
> instead of passing the test as show in the tutorial, I get:
>
> 1)
> ''A stack with one item should return top when you send it
''top'''' FAILED
> "one item" should equal "one item"
> ./stack_spec.rb:28:
>
> Finished in 0.0 seconds
>
> 3 specifications, 1 failure
>
>
>
> I would guess this is some sort of issue about equivalence of two
> instances versus having the same instance in Ruby.   Am I right?

Yep - the tutorial is outdated. Use should == instead. I''ll update the
tutorial.

Thanks,
David
> At
> any rate, is this behavior that''s changed since the tutorial, or
do I
> need to look harder in my tutorial code to make sure I didn''t
> implement anything wrong?
>
> I can post a snapshot of the code if needed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Philip
> --
> Philip Reed, Web developer
>
> http://philipreedtech.com
>
> Web.  Made simple.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>