On 10/4/07, Scott Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Nick Sieger wrote:
>
> > On 10/4/07, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I have an array of shipping_type's being returned, and I want to see
> >> what is in there. In the past I have done:
On Oct 4, 2007, at 12:46 PM, Nick Sieger wrote:
> On 10/4/07, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have an array of shipping_type's being returned, and I want to see
>> what is in there. In the past I have done:
>>
>> shipping_type.include?(Cart::SHIPPING_TYPE_REGULAR).sh
On 10/4/07, Geoffrey Wiseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/4/07, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > shipping_type.should
> be_include(Cart::SHIPPING_TYPE_REGULAR)
>
> This is what I usually do; I agree the syntax of be_include looks odd, as is
> true for some other predicates.
>
> O
On 10/4/07, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> shipping_type.should be_include(Cart::SHIPPING_TYPE_REGULAR)
This is what I usually do; I agree the syntax of be_include looks odd, as is
true for some other predicates.
OTOH, it's hard to find a formulation that works well for all predi
On 10/4/07, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have an array of shipping_type's being returned, and I want to see
> what is in there. In the past I have done:
>
> shipping_type.include?(Cart::SHIPPING_TYPE_REGULAR).should be_true
>
> This works, but looks really ugly.. It j
Hi all,
I have an array of shipping_type's being returned, and I want to see
what is in there. In the past I have done:
shipping_type.include?(Cart::SHIPPING_TYPE_REGULAR).should be_true
This works, but looks really ugly.. It just doesn't roll of the
tongue very well. I then looked u
