[rspec-users] New RSpec methods to Object proposal: should_all and should_none

Pat Maddox mailinglists at patmaddox.com
Wed Dec 9 11:55:02 EST 2009


[@admin, @allowed_user].should all(be_allowed_to_visit(url))
[@admin, @allowed_user].should all_be_allowed_to_visit(url)

I prefer the first so as not to introduce more "magic" but if it catches on then moving to the second might be worthwhile.

Pat

On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:27 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <lbocseg at yahoo.com.br> wrote:
> I was thinking that it would be great to add 2 additional methods to Object: should_all and should_none.
> 
> The idea is that we would be able to write tests like:
> 
> [@admin, @allowed_user].should_all be_allowed_to_visit(url)
> 
> [@unprivileged, @non_welcome].should_none be_allowed_to_visit(url)
> 
> Implementation is trivial, but I think that tests would become much cleaner than:
> 
> [@admin, @allowed_user].each{|u| u.should be_allowed_to_visit(url)}
> 
> Any thoughts on that?
> 
> How about:
> 
> each_of(@admin, @allowed_user).should be_allowed_to_visit(url)
> none_of(@admin, @allowed_user).should be_allowed_to_visit(url)
> 
> This gets the cleanliness without adding to Object.
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> David
>  
> Rodrigo.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rspec-users/attachments/20091209/82f4e123/attachment.html>


More information about the rspec-users mailing list