rspec users - Jan 2007 - Bug in should_not_be - What else to use?

Hi!

I just stumbled over a possible bug in 0.7.5.1:

`1.should_not_be == 1` does not fail.

I took a look into the code and figured out, that this is caused by
Not.be() using :no_arg instead of :___no_arg. The expected argument of
the method be() in Not is passed from should_not_be() with :___no_arg.

Not.be() is marked with "Gone for 0.9", so I assume that
"should_not_be
==" shouldn''t be used at all, right? So what else to use, when
testing
of "==" is required?

1.should_not == 1

...gives a "not so nice" failure message: "1 should not == 1
nil" - this
would read nicer as "1 should not be == 1"

Where is the "nil" in the failure message coming from anyway? I digged
a
little bit deeper into the sources and figured that out too:

In the Not class, instead of passing the not expected value as the
second argument to default_message, it gets appended to the message text,
so the missing argument will then be added by default_message() as nil.
I''ve already added a bug report.

bye,

Tobias

On 1/28/07, Tobi <listaccount at e-tobi.net>
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I just stumbled over a possible bug in 0.7.5.1:
>
> `1.should_not_be == 1` does not fail.
Try should_not == 1
>
> I took a look into the code and figured out, that this is caused by
> Not.be() using :no_arg instead of :___no_arg. The expected argument of
> the method be() in Not is passed from should_not_be() with :___no_arg.
>
> Not.be() is marked with "Gone for 0.9", so I assume that
"should_not_be
> ==" shouldn''t be used at all, right? So what else to use,
when testing
> of "==" is required?
>
> 1.should_not == 1
>
> ...gives a "not so nice" failure message: "1 should not == 1
nil" - this
> would read nicer as "1 should not be == 1"
>
> Where is the "nil" in the failure message coming from anyway? I
digged a
> little bit deeper into the sources and figured that out too:
>
> In the Not class, instead of passing the not expected value as the
> second argument to default_message, it gets appended to the message text,
> so the missing argument will then be added by default_message() as nil.
> I''ve already added a bug report.
>
> bye,
>
> Tobias
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>

David Chelimsky wrote:
> Try should_not == 1
>   
Ok. It just gives me a not so nice to read failure message:

"1 should not == 1"  compared to  "1 should not be == 1"

Maybe the "Gone for 0.9"-methods should print a deprecation warning in
one of the next releases.

Tobias

On 1/29/07, Tobi <listaccount at e-tobi.net>
wrote:
> David Chelimsky wrote:
> > Try should_not == 1
> >
>
> Ok. It just gives me a not so nice to read failure message:
>
> "1 should not == 1"  compared to  "1 should not be ==
1"
>
> Maybe the "Gone for 0.9"-methods should print a deprecation
warning in
> one of the next releases.
Already in the plan. It won''t print warnings in 0.8.0, but it will be
shortly thereafter, and well before the deprecated methods are
removed.
>
> Tobias
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>