I generally write custom expectation matchers when I want more specific information on failure scenarios. Granted this might not work in all scenarios (taking time to write a custom matcher I mean), but for most things it has made it very nice.
-Chad On Sep 4, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Jay Levitt wrote: > Shane Mingins wrote: >> >> On 5/09/2007, at 8:51 AM, Geoffrey Wiseman wrote: >> >>> >>> Using this as an example, if a new validation rule is added, this >>> test >>> will fail without indicating /why/. Sure, I can get that answer in >>> other ways, but I'd hate to discover things like: >>> >>> it "should be valid with valid attributes" do >>> # puts @person.errors if [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> @person.should be_valid >>> end >>> >> >> Sorry if I missed the point of this, but in the context of having an >> optional failure message.... >> >> I am curious as to how an optional message param to the assertion >> would >> help you in this case? > > Seems like, in this case, he'd output @person.errors in his message so > he could see *why* person was invalid; the "puts" is his current > hack-around for the lack of custom messages. > > Not a bad idea, really. (the custom messages, not the hackaround!) > > 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
