Thank you for your explanation!
Ruud
On Mar 5, 3:10 pm, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:18 AM, ruud144 <r.grosm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > hi group,
>
> > I read that expectations can print a custom message on failure using a
> > syntax like
>
> > cars.should be_empty, "Cars left"
>
> > But when I try this syntax for this expectation:
>
> > string.should == 'Cars left', 'Yippee, no cars anymore'
>
> > I get a syntax error:
>
> > syntax error, unexpected ',', expecting keyword_end (SyntaxError)
>
> > I want two things:
> > - I want a syntax error free expectation for should ==
>
> Can't have it because Ruby won't parse it. The reason `a.should == b`
> works is because Ruby parses that as `a.should.==(b)`.
>
> There is an `eq` matcher, which is the recommended approach these days
> for this (and other similar) reason(s):
>
> string.should eq('Cars left'), 'Yippee, no cars anymore'
>
> > - I want to understand what the mechanism is. I am afraid that my ruby
> > knowledge is not sufficient. Clearly, should is a function, but what
> > are be_empty and == then? Parameters? Can I use parentheses?
>
> Here are the bits of code relevant to your question:
>
> https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/blob/master/lib/rspec/exp...
>
> https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/blob/master/lib/rspec/exp...
>
> The `should` method delegates to `handle_matcher`, passing along the
> matcher (which might be nil), optional message (also might be nil),
> and optional block (again, might be nil).
>
> When you use `a.should == b`, the matcher itself is nil, and the
> `handle_matcher` method delegates to a `PositiveOperatorMatcher`
> (there is also a `NegativeOperatorMatcher` for `should_not`),
> otherwise it handles the matcher itself.
>
> Parens won't help you here because everything after `==` is bound to
> `==`, not should - there's no way (that I know of) to bind the message
> to `should`. It's feasible to pass an array to `==`:
>
> string.should == ['Cars left', 'Yippee, no cars anymore']
>
> ... but then we'd be comparing `string` with the list, so that
> wouldn't work either (nor would it make any sense).
>
> Your best bet is using the `eq` matcher, as described above.
>
> HTH,
> David
>
>
>
> > Thanks for helping me!
>
> > Ruud
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-us...@rubyforge.orghttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
