similar to: new handling of equality

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

There is an assert_difference helper for Test::Unit (you can read about it at http://blog.caboo.se/articles/2006/06/13/a-better- assert_difference and to some it should look familiar -- you know who you are :), so I took a shot at one for rSpec on Rails. class Object def should_be_different(method = nil, difference = nil) return self.should_not_eql(yield) if method.nil?

There''s another quirk I wanted to bring up. It''s about the failure message with should_equal and should_be. x.should_equal 2 a.should_not_be nil When they fail they yield messages like: 1 should equal 2 nil should not be nil When I''m caught off guard, which can be often, these messages confuse me. 1 should equal 2? No it shouldn''t. nil should not be

I sent this earlier under with the subject "artificial sugar causes cancer" and I think some spam filters ate it. Here it is again: ====================================== All, If you look at http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=6760&group_id=797&atid=3149 you''ll see that Chad (the submitter) found the source of the bug. Unfortunately, the source

All, If you look at http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=6760&group_id=797&atid=3149 you''ll see that Chad (the submitter) found the source of the bug. Unfortunately, the source of *this* bug is the *solution* to a *previous bug* in which Rails was replacing RSpec''s method missing with its own. When we settled on underscores, my one reservation was

As things stand now, the following will all pass: true.should_be true "true".should_be true "false".should_be true 3.should_be true etc My feeling is that "should_be true" should only pass if it returns boolean true even though ruby says that non-nil/non-false is true. Anybody else? David

Mike Williams contributed a patch to support arbitrary comparisons. This is now in the trunk and will be part of the next release. So you will now be able to do this: result.should_be < 5 result.should_be >= 7 It also supports alternate syntax for should_be, should_match result.should == 3 result.should =~ /regex/ Personally, I prefer should_be and should_match in these cases, as I think

I''m trying out rspec_on_rails with a very simple test: ... specify "product name should be ''test''" do Product.find( :all ).first.name.should_equal ''test'' end ... with this fixture: first: id: 1 name: test When I run it: .F 1) ''Given a generated product_spec.rb with fixtures loaded product name should be

We''d like to get some feedback on RSpec 0.9 before we start pushing out releases via Rubyforge''s gem server and update the website. We have therefore made the first beta of 0.9 available - both prepackaged and tagged in subversion (see below). RSpec 0.9 introduces a new API for expectations, which essentially means that your underscores go away (there has been other discussions

Recently as a result of using Git I''ve noticed a number of inconsistencies in the RSpec codebase with respect to whitespace (mixed line endings, mixed use of spaces and tabs for indentation, and trailing whitespace at the end of lines). I never would have noticed, but Git produces nice colorized diff output which highlights these kinds of inconsistencies. I wanted to ask if the

All, Inspired by a conversation on the mocha list, I added the ability to mix stubs w/ mocks on the same methods. Here''s what it allows: context "a mock" do specify "can stub! and mock the same message" do mock = mock("stubbing mock") mock.stub!(:msg).and_return(:stub_value) mock.should_receive(:msg).with(:arg).and_return(:mock_value)

Yesterday I added some Watir examples to RSpec''s svn. Today I added some Selenium (actually - Selenium Remote Control) examples. It''s dead easy to use both, and the Ruby code you end up writing is actually quite similar. Here''s a taste: == Watir == require File.dirname(__FILE__) + ''/rspec_watir'' context "Google''s search page" do

Hi, I''m trying the specs for restful_authentication I found here http://jonathan.tron.name/articles/2007/01/02/rspec-on-rails-restful- authentication It seems to use custom .should methods: should_eql, should_be_an_instance_of, should_redirect_to, should_be_success, should_not_be_nil, should_be_nil, should_not_be_nil, should_be_empty, should_be_success, should_not_change, and

Hello generous coders, I''m having difficulty getting a couple of tests to pass. I have an address model which takes an address and with a callback on save and update passes the address to google''s geocoding service. The returned XML is parsed and saved to the address object: protected def geocode_address key = "mykey" url =

Hi all !! I have this code: require ''account'' describe Account, "when first created" do before do @account = Account.new end it "should have a balance of $0" do @account.balance.should eql(Money.new(0, :dollars)) end after do @account = nil end end How can I pass the @account.balance.should eql(Money.new(0, :dollars)) spec. From my

This page has some typos in the forth grey box http://rspec.rubyforge.org/tutorials/stack_04.html "should_equal" should be "should ==" and "should_not_be_empty" should be "should_not be_empty" this causes some spec to fail By the way, this is my first mail to the list, so Hi everybody !!

I''m having a problems mocking successive return values. I don''t know if I''m doing something wrong or if this is a limitation of rspec mocks. Any ideas of what I may be doing wrong? I''m trying to test the generate_quote_number method. It generates a quote number, looks to see if it is in the db already. If it is, it calls itself to try again. I want

Hello, i have 3 XCP 1.0.0 hosts in a pool, one of them is not enabled: xe host-param-list uuid=402f07f4-99c0-4501-9787-8dee8984e313 uuid ( RO) : 402f07f4-99c0-4501-9787-8dee8984e313 name-label ( RW): xcp1.domain.com name-description ( RW): Default install of XenServer allowed-operations (SRO):

I''m working with a has_many :through association, where a Member has_many Projects through ProjectViewers. The problem I''m running into is that Rails doesn''t load the association so line (3) fails until I explicitly access a member of the collection (in this case, I iterated it). Is there a better way? Thanks, Steve 1. assigns[:member].should_not_be_nil 2.

Hello, I''m confused why the spec described below is failing. Other simple comparison specs are passing fine for the same model. The code is working accordingly when I test it through the console, I''m just having difficulty getting this spec to work. Any pointers would be appreciated. Failure message: ''Address fetch and geocode should extract department and write to