On 10 Mar 2013, at 02:04, Robert Poor <rdp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Adam Sroka <adam.sr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It depends on what you really mean:
>
> 1) If you care that it is either OneError or OtherError, then these are two
> separate scenarios and should be written as such.
>
> 2) If you don't care which one it is, then you probably just be less
> specific. Is there a common message they respond to that you could check for?
>
> 3) If you care which error you are getting, but you don't want to have to
> check for each one, then you might consider wrapping the error with something
> easier to inspect.
>
> There are probably a number of other good answers too, depending on which
> smell is bugging you the most.
>
> I don't care which error I'm getting, so suggestion 2) works. The errors I
> expect are within a specific module (UpdateOrInsert::), so I could simply
> check for that. Not sure how do to that short of parsing the class name
> string (e.g. error_class.name.split("::")), but I'm not sure that is less
> smelly than the code I already have.
>
> I'll contemplate 3), which could make life easer. Thanks!
Could you give both errors a common base class, then assert on that?
cheers,
Matt
--
http://mattwynne.net || https://twitter.com/mattwynne ||
http://the-cucumber-book.com || http://bddkickstart.com ||
http://www.relishapp.com
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
