On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:15 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Pat Maddox <mailingli...@patmaddox.com> > wrote: >> [...@admin, @allowed_user].should all(be_allowed_to_visit(url)) >> [...@admin, @allowed_user].should all_be_allowed_to_visit(url) >> I prefer the first so as not to introduce more "magic" but if it catches on >> then moving to the second might be worthwhile. > > Seems like there are a few approaches to syntax that might work, but > we also have to consider failure messages. Either of Pat's suggestions > would make it easier to provide a meaningful failure message. > Something like: > > Expected <#User @role => 'admin'>, <#User @role => 'allowed'> to be > allowed to visit /some/path: > - <#User @role => 'allowed'> was not > - <#User @role => 'admin'> was
I like Pat's idea too, but [x, y, z].should_not all_be_allowed_to(...) doesn't seem to be the same thing as none_of(x, y, z).should be_allowed_to(...) maybe [x, y, z].should all_not_be_alllowed_to(...) but I'm not sure -- Rick DeNatale Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
