[rspec-devel] have_text not doing a contains?

Corey Haines coreyhaines at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 11:25:35 EDT 2008


We wrote a contain_text that does what I would like. I'd like to submit this
as a patch, then fix the documentation for have_text.


-Corey

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:22 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Corey Haines <coreyhaines at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > We were struggling with a story yesterday, trying to be able to write
> > something like
> >
> > Then user should see message 'Blah blah blah blah'
> >
> > Then("user should see message '$msg') do |expected_text|
> >  response.should have_text(expected_text)
> > end
> >
> > Our main problem was that the response was just a <p>Blah blah blah
> > blah</p>. It just would not pass. I decided to look at the matcher for
> > have_text, and this is what it is:
> >
> >         def matches?(response_or_text)
> >           @actual = response_or_text.respond_to?(:body) ?
> > response_or_text.body : response_or_text
> >           return actual =~ expected if Regexp === expected
> >           return actual == expected unless Regexp === expected
> >          end
> >
> > Per the documentation,
> > Use this instead of response.should have_tag() when you either don't
> know or
> > don't care where on the page this text appears.
> >
> > So, my expectation was that this would do a String#include? or something
> > similar, rather than ==. Or, even, creating a regexp with the expected
> and
> > run it against actual.
> >
> > Does this make sense? If so, I'd like to put in a ticket and take this
> > opportunity to learn how to submit a patch to rspec.
> >
> > Also, I'd probably switch the code into something like
> >
> > return (Regexp === expected) ? actual =~ expected :
> > actual.include?(expected)
> >
> > But, of course, that's just personal style, as I think the if/unless in
> the
> > last two lines is duplicate intention.
>
> What you request makes great sense. But ....
>
> The only problem with adding this is that existing examples that use a
> String and expect an exact match (intentionally) would then give false
> positives if the string changed to something that included that
> String.
>
> My instinct is say "no go" here and improve the docs. Thoughts?
>
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > -Corey
> >
> > --
> > http://www.coreyhaines.com
> > The Internet's Premiere source of information about Corey Haines
> > _______________________________________________
> >  rspec-devel mailing list
> >  rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> >  http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
> >
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-devel
>



-- 
http://www.coreyhaines.com
The Internet's Premiere source of information about Corey Haines
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-devel/attachments/20080314/9a38b44c/attachment.html 


More information about the rspec-devel mailing list