It would be better to split that into two tests that test when each error is
raised.
On Mar 9, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Adam Sroka <adam.sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It depends on what you really mean:
>
> 1) If you care that it is either OneError or OtherError, then these are two
> separate scenarios and should be written as such.
>
> 2) If you don't care which one it is, then you probably just be less
> specific. Is there a common message they respond to that you could check for?
>
> 3) If you care which error you are getting, but you don't want to have to
> check for each one, then you might consider wrapping the error with something
> easier to inspect.
>
> There are probably a number of other good answers too, depending on which
> smell is bugging you the most.
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Fearless Fool <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> I'm expecting my_test to raise one error or another, but since I'm
> pulling data from a db, I don't know which error it will be. Is there a
> better way to write this?
>
> expect { my_test }.to raise_error { |error|
> error.should satisfy {|e|
> e.instance_of?(OneError) || e.instance_of?(OtherError)
> }
> }
>
> ?
>
> I'm not complaining, mind you -- I'm really impressed that RSpec lets me
> test for such specific pathology! I'm just wondering if there's another
> matcher that won't be quite so verbose.
>
> - ff
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
