[rspec-users] != again

Pat Maddox pergesu at gmail.com
Sun Jun 1 15:57:47 EDT 2008


Very cool. Maybe we could print a warning when people use !=. That
would let us get the ugly != bug fixed, but not have the perf issues.

Pat


On 6/1/08, Matthias Hennemeyer <mhennemeyer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hey!
>
> I have implemented a quick solution for the should != .. , should !
> ~ ... 'problem'.
> It uses source code inspection (I think it's the only way) and i've
> done some
> benchmarking to see if it's really that slow.
>
> A direct comparison of
> running '1.should == 1'
> with the unmodified rspec source against the rspec-version with
> source inspect
> shows that the latter is 7 times slower ... :(
>
> But benchmarks with '1.should == 1' inside a real example file are
> showing 'only'
> an overall speed decrease of 15% to 50%. That is still bad but having
> lots of people
> consider the passing of '1.should != 1'  an rspec bug is bad too.
>
> Here is the benchmarking script:
> http://pastie.caboo.se/206853
>
> And the code is at branch 'inspect' in:
> git://github.com/mhennemeyer/rspec
>
> There are examples for should and should_not != and !~ and i will
> definitely work on performance if you not totally reject this whole
> idea.
>
> Matthias.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>


More information about the rspec-users mailing list