I think the first example is better personally, it's more specific about what your expectation is asserting. Also I'm pretty sure that "have" matcher was deprecated, dropped from rspec-expectations, and moved to this gem https://github.com/rspec/rspec-collection_matchers . Just a heads up that the book may be a bit dated.
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 5:05:00 AM UTC-7, Roelof Wobben wrote: > > Hello, > > I like to learn Rspec once again and im using the everydayRails book. > > Now I see that one of the test looks like this : > > expect ( build (:contact, firstname : > nill)).to_have(1).errors.on(:firstname) > > but I wonder why not use this : > > expect ( build (:contact, firstname : nill)).not_to_be valid > > Roelof > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rspec" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rspec/b6359298-4cf8-45a0-b2d8-db8876ac2e52%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
