Rick DeNatale escreveu:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:15 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Pat Maddox <mailingli...@patmaddox.com> wrote:
[...@admin, @allowed_user].should all(be_allowed_to_visit(url))
[...@admin, @allowed_user].should all_be_allowed_to_visit(url)
I prefer the first so as not to introduce more "magic" but if it catches on
then moving to the second might be worthwhile.
Seems like there are a few approaches to syntax that might work, but
we also have to consider failure messages. Either of Pat's suggestions
would make it easier to provide a meaningful failure message.
Something like:
Expected <#User @role => 'admin'>, <#User @role => 'allowed'> to be
allowed to visit /some/path:
- <#User @role => 'allowed'> was not
- <#User @role => 'admin'> was
I like Pat's idea too, but
[x, y, z].should_not all_be_allowed_to(...)
doesn't seem to be the same thing as
none_of(x, y, z).should be_allowed_to(...)
maybe
[x, y, z].should all_not_be_alllowed_to(...)
but I'm not sure
I was just thinking about that. Maybe "all" should be documented as in
"have_at_least":
"should have_at_least(number).items
Warning: should_not have_at_least is not supported"
The correct way should be:
@collection.should none(be_allowed_to(...))
Of course the "none_of" syntax would be easier to read, but the option
above is also acceptable in my opinion...
Rodrigo.
__________________________________________________
Faça ligações para outros computadores com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
