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

Rick DeNatale rick.denatale at gmail.com
Wed Dec 9 18:13:20 EST 2009

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:15 PM, David Chelimsky <dchelimsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Pat Maddox <mailinglists at patmaddox.com> wrote:
>> [@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.
> Seems like there are a few approaches to syntax that might work, but
> we also have to consider failure messages. Either of Pat's suggestions
> would make it easier to provide a meaningful failure message.
> Something like:
> Expected <#User @role => 'admin'>, <#User @role => 'allowed'> to be
> allowed to visit /some/path:
> - <#User @role => 'allowed'> was not
> - <#User @role => 'admin'> was

I like Pat's idea too, but

[x, y, z].should_not all_be_allowed_to(...)

doesn't seem to be the same thing as

none_of(x, y, z).should be_allowed_to(...)

[x, y, z].should all_not_be_alllowed_to(...)

but I'm not sure

Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

More information about the rspec-users mailing list