On 14 Oct 2009, at 02:25, Stephen Eley wrote:
The AST pass over the spec files already exists. It's what Ruby does
when you run the specs, and these quirks are caught when your specs
pass and you haven't done anything to make them pass yet. 8-
Really? I just tried `1.should != 2' and got
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Ashley Moran
ashley.mo...@patchspace.co.uk wrote:
On 14 Oct 2009, at 02:25, Stephen Eley wrote:
[...] these quirks are caught when your specs
pass and you haven't done anything to make them pass yet. 8-
Really? I just tried `1.should != 2' and got no
On 14 Oct 2009, at 17:01, Stephen Eley wrote:
Did your brain try to warn you? You're part of the system, you
know. 8-
Well I already know not to do `should !=`, so I don't do it. But I
was suggesting that RSpec could make an AST pass over the specs to
pick up this, which is
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Tero Tilus t...@tilus.net wrote:
2009-10-12 11:33, Willy Mene:
I've tried searching around for something describing how the #should
method works with the != operator
Afaik it doesn't. I have led to believe this is because there is no
method '!='. Expression
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Ashley Moran
ashley.mo...@patchspace.co.uk wrote:
This is a common mistake, and one I made for a long while even after being
familiar with RSpec. I wonder if there is justification for an AST pass
over spec files to catch this (among possibly other issues)?
I've tried searching around for something describing how the #should
method works with the != operator, but couldn't find anything
conclusive. Can someone please explain while the following lines will
pass if placed into an rspec example?
it should fail but passes do
[].should != []
Willy...
Should you not use .should_not ?
-- Lee
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
Yes, I do know about .should_not, and the example should be written
that way. So the following
[].should_not == []
'string'.should_not == 'string'
do fail. But I'm trying to understand why they pass with .should !=
Willy
On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Lee Hambley wrote:
Willy...
Should
Looks like an rspec bug to me.
Bret
Willy Mene wrote:
I've tried searching around for something describing how the #should
method works with the != operator, but couldn't find anything
conclusive. Can someone please explain while the following lines will
pass if placed into an rspec
Afaik, != is one of the few operators that is intrinsic. I believe
there is no !=() method defined in Ruby.
Hunted and pecked from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Willy Mene wm...@stanford.edu wrote:
Yes, I do know about .should_not, and the example should be written
that way. So
Den 12. okt. 2009 kl. 21.11 skrev Bret Pettichord b...@pettichord.com:
Looks like an rspec bug to me.
It's not an rspec bug. != is not a method, and therefore can't be
treated by rspec. It's a limitation of ruby.
Aslak
Bret
Willy Mene wrote:
I've tried searching around for something
It's not a bug. Consider:
abc.should eql(abc) = pass
abc.should_not eql(def) = pass
But eql() is a Ruby method. In Pickaxe, you'll see that other
comparators such as != = etc. Are not implemented as overridable
methods.
Hope this clarifies.
Hunted and pecked from my iPhone
On Oct 12,
2009-10-12 22:18, Tero Tilus:
Expression x!=y is instead just syntactic sugar for !(x==y).
To illustrate how this affects #should, think of
'some string'.should != 'some string'
Now Ruby internals kick in and desugar this (before anything is even
executed) to
!('some string'.should ==
On 12 Oct 2009, at 19:33, Willy Mene wrote:
it should fail but passes do
[].should != []
'some string'.should != 'some string'
end
This is a common mistake, and one I made for a long while even after
being familiar with RSpec. I wonder if there is justification for an
AST pass over
Aslak Hellesøy wrote:
Den 12. okt. 2009 kl. 21.11 skrev Bret Pettichord b...@pettichord.com:
Looks like an rspec bug to me.
It's not an rspec bug. != is not a method, and therefore can't be
treated by rspec. It's a limitation of ruby.
OK. I get it.
Bret
15 matches
Mail list logo
