On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Premdas <aprem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/30 rogerdpack <rogerpack2...@gmail.com> > > > What about something like: >> > >> > expected #<Class:2158174640> => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum >> > >> > That is more aligned with other failure messages. WDYT? >> >> I quite like it. >> In this instance it was >> >> 3.class.should be_a Fixnum # fails >> >> I suppose it would be something like >> expected #<Class:Fixnum> => Class to be a kind of Fixnum >> >> ? >> >> > And just out of curiosity, Roger, what's your use case? I can't >> remember ever using be_a/be_an, at least not in any code that has survived. >> >> The very first test I thought up was "this method should return an >> integer" so kind of a basic test for a not yet existent method. >> >> > Isn't this a bit anti-ruby though. Surely the things we should be testing > is that the object exists, responds to certain messages and gives certain > values back for those messages. Thinking about types is so Java, C++ :-) > Generally speaking, you're correct, but there are cases where this is valuable - like if you're spec'ing a factory in a lib for others to use, etc. > > > all best > > Andrew > >> -r >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
