On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Yi Wen wrote:
> Ok, I guess in reality it will never make a difference if a predicate
> returns a nil or a false.
>
> The behavior annoys me a little bit when I write a test that passes when the
> method itself does nothing (so that it returns nil). Any thoughts?
Ok, I guess in reality it will never make a difference if a predicate
returns a nil or a false.
The behavior annoys me a little bit when I write a test that passes
when the method itself does nothing (so that it returns nil). Any
thoughts?
Thanks
Yi
On Sep 18, 2009, at 11:06 AM, David
Sorry for the spam, but I was wrong: the *should_not have_something*
also passed when the method returned nil.
On Sep 18, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Yi Wen wrote:
Hi all,
I noticed that if I have a method named has_somthing? and I do:
object.should_not have_somthing and it failed (as expected) when
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Yi Wen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I noticed that if I have a method named has_somthing? and I do:
> object.should_not have_somthing and it failed (as expected) when the method
> returns nil.
Actually, this should pass. The have_xxx and be_xxx matchers should
pass/fail
Hi all,
I noticed that if I have a method named has_somthing? and I do:
object.should_not have_somthing and it failed (as expected) when the
method returns nil.
But if the method is something? and I do:
object.should_not be_something, and it succeeded (not what I expected)
when something? r
