[rspec-devel] [ rspec-Patches-10731 ] response.should be_a_success

noreply at rubyforge.org noreply at rubyforge.org
Sat May 26 23:26:49 EDT 2007


Patches item #10731, was opened at 2007-05-09 23:56
You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=3151&aid=10731&group_id=797

Category: rails plugin
Group: None
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Rejected
Priority: 3
Submitted By: Scott Taylor (smtlaissezfaire)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: response.should be_a_success

Initial Comment:

The current rails controller/resource generators output code like the following:

response.should be_success


I think it reads much better like this:

response.should be_a_success

This is a tiny little patch that changes those instances in the generators



----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: David Chelimsky (dchelimsky)
Date: 2007-05-27 03:26

Message:
I agree w/ Aslak on this. Both be_x and be_a_x are supported by rspec. This is just about generated code. You're free to change it after its generated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Scott Taylor (smtlaissezfaire)
Date: 2007-05-10 20:03

Message:
I think it only looks more cluttered if the it blocks read
"it should be successful". If the it blocks read "it should
be a success", then I think it gives a uniformity to the spec.

WDYT?  Reject it if you still think the same.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Aslak Hellesøy (aslak_hellesoy)
Date: 2007-05-10 13:34

Message:
I think be_a_success looks more cluttered than be_success

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=3151&aid=10731&group_id=797


More information about the rspec-devel mailing list