[rspec-users] be_success misleading

David Chelimsky dchelimsky at gmail.com
Sun Nov 11 08:45:14 EST 2007


On Nov 10, 2007 11:12 AM, aslak hellesoy <aslak.hellesoy at gmail.com> wrote:
> be_success has the same semantics (and uses) Response#success? and
> that's not our API, but Rails'
>
> If you don't like Rails' semantics you can make your own matcher, but
> I don't want to invent a whole new API on top of Rails in the official
> Spec::Rails.

+1

David

ps - Aslak, what gives w/ the top posting?

>
> Aslak
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2007 5:31 PM, Steve <vertebrate at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just wondering if anyone else thinks that 'response.should be_success' is
> > potentially misleading. If you're writing a spec for an action that is
> > failing in some way it can still have a status 200. So while the
> > HTTP request was technically successful, something in the action
> > was not. Perhaps something like 'response.should have_success_status'?
> >
> > Steve


More information about the rspec-users mailing list