Curtis, hey man, I saw your post in the rspec list archives
(http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/2013-August/021811.html). I use
context with pattern A:
describe UsersController do
describe "POST create" do
it "creates a user" do
...
end
context "with bad data" do
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
> 2009/3/19 Rick DeNatale :
> > Even 'should be' is a bit grating. I'm tempted to write a pair of
> matchers
> > like be_truthy and be_falsy, but I was wondering what other RSpec users
> have
> > to say.
>
> should be || should_not be: that i
Stephen Eley wrote:
2009/3/19 Rick DeNatale :
Even 'should be' is a bit grating. I'm tempted to write a pair of matchers
like be_truthy and be_falsy, but I was wondering what other RSpec users have
to say.
should be || should_not be: that is the expectation:
Whether 'tis nobler in the
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Wilk wrote:
> Stephen Eley wrote:
>>
>> 2009/3/19 Rick DeNatale :
>>
>>>
>>> Even 'should be' is a bit grating. I'm tempted to write a pair of
>>> matchers
>>> like be_truthy and be_falsy, but I was wondering what other RSpec users
>>> have
>>> to say.
>>>
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 11:42 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
> what_follows.should be_brilliant
Thank you! Glad I could provide a bit of entertainment.
(And hmmm. Now I'm wondering why Ruby culture doesn't have a
phenomenon like that of Perl culture, where hackers have 'Perl Poetry'
competitions
Stephen Eley wrote:
2009/3/19 Rick DeNatale :
Even 'should be' is a bit grating. I'm tempted to write a pair of matchers
like be_truthy and be_falsy, but I was wondering what other RSpec users have
to say.
should be || should_not be: that is the expectation:
Whether 'tis nobler in the
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 8:42 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
>> 2009/3/19 Rick DeNatale :
>>> Even 'should be' is a bit grating. I'm tempted to write a pair of matchers
>>> like be_truthy and be_falsy, but I was wondering what other RSpec users
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Stephen Eley wrote:
> 2009/3/19 Rick DeNatale :
>> Even 'should be' is a bit grating. I'm tempted to write a pair of matchers
>> like be_truthy and be_falsy, but I was wondering what other RSpec users have
>> to say.
>
what_follows.should be_brilliant
> should
2009/3/19 Rick DeNatale :
> Even 'should be' is a bit grating. I'm tempted to write a pair of matchers
> like be_truthy and be_falsy, but I was wondering what other RSpec users have
> to say.
should be || should_not be: that is the expectation:
Whether 'tis nobler in the parser to interpret
The o
I hate should/should_not be and so if I really *have* to do it then I
just throw a !! in the method and get back a real boolean. Not ideal,
but it works.
HOWEVER
Predicate matchers *do* accept args, and in the specific example you
gave, the have matcher comes to the rescue. Check out these exam
2009/3/19 Rick DeNatale :
> I like to avoid over-constraining specifications, so for example of methods
> which return 'boolean' values, I prefer to test either truthiness (anything
> but false or nil), or falsiness (either false or nil).
> This isn't an issue true predicate methods which are of th
11 matches
Mail list logo
