On 8/2/07, Jay Levitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was, for the first time, spec'ing a class that redefined ==. And my > spec was incorrect, so == was returning false. > > The result was something like: > > class C > def ==(other) > false > end > end > > .. C.new.should == other... > > expected other, got #<C:0x7f03c454> (using ==)
What did it really call other? The output should be evaluating a variable there, not naming it. > But wait! Why on earth is == returning the class itself instead of > true/false? That shouldn't be possible. No, no time for coffee, let me > go debug this for a few hours... oh. of course. == IS returning a > boolean value, in this case, false; rspec is helpfully showing me > C.inspect so I can see why they MIGHT differ, assuming I haven't > redefined ==. Which I have. > > Would it be good, when == is redefined (or eql? or equals?) for the > rspec output to indicate somehow what it's doing and why you might be > seeing what you're seeing? Maybe something like > > expected C==other, but C!=other. You have redefined ==. C.inspect > shows: #<C:...> > > but much prettier and better worded. > > Or do I just call this a learning experience? I must be missing something. I don't really understand the problem you are experiencing. Any class can redefine == at any time. Many library classes do. That's just part of the language. You defined == to always return false, so the feedback you got seems to be the feedback you would expect. Even if you do explain this differently and I end up seeing it differently, I don't think it's feasible for rspec to be trying to discover what methods get defined, overridden, etc, and when. Cheers, David > > Jay > > _______________________________________________ > 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
