On Apr 14, 2010, at 12:28 PM, rogerdpack wrote:
> I remember reading a post where somebody mentioned something like
>
> "sometimes after a refactoring, a test block like
>
> lambda { ... }.should raise_error
>
> catches a NoMethodError in error, thus is actually failing, but the
> user isn't notified of the same."
>
> A suggestion in this regard:
> change it so that if raise_error is called without parameters, and it
> catches NoMethodError, it outputs a warning somehow.
>
> The objection to this might be "what if I *expect* a NoMethodError--
> I'll get spurious warnings"
>
> Answer: user can, at that point, put in NoMethodError as a parameter,
> and warning goes away (and that's a rare enough case that it probably
> won't cause conflicts).
Be explicit about the error you expect to get:
lambda { ... }.should raise_error(SomeErrorClass, /match the message/)
Read the documentation at
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/rspec/1.3.0/classes/Spec/Matchers.html#M000184
Nothing kills me more than a generic raise_error. Especially when the block is
wrapped around a whole bunch of code that doesn't need it e.g.
lambda {
some_setup
some_setup
some.stupid_typo_that_blows_up
call_that_we_expect_to_raise_an_error
}.should raise_error
Anyone on my team using a naked raise_error matcher gets a smack on the head
from me...and I have a special spiky dunce cap for whoever does the above
example.
Also note in RSpec 1.3.0 #lambda is aliased to #expect, and #should to #to, so
you can do
expect { ... }.to raise_error(SomeErrorClass, /match the message/)
which you may find more pleasant to read.
Pat
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
