[rspec-users] [rspec] be_something accepts nils

Matt Wynne matt at mattwynne.net
Fri Mar 13 12:34:33 EDT 2009


On 13 Mar 2009, at 15:42, Pat Maddox wrote:

> On Mar 13, 2009, at 5:17 AM, Ashley Moran wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Just noticed that the behaviour of
>>
>> @cow.should_not be_hungry
>>
>> is not the same as
>>
>> @cow.hungry?.should == false # nil also passes
>>
>> Don't know how this has escaped me for so long =)
>>
>> What's the thinking behind this?  You can already do
>>
>> @cow.hungry?.should(_not) be_nil
>>
>> so surely it makes more sense for be_true and be_false to check for  
>> booleans?
>
> be_true and be_false do check for booleans :)  but you didn't use  
> either of them.
>
> The expanded form of
> @cow.should_not be_hungry
> is
> @cow.hungry?.should_not be
>
> Pat

Like yoda sounds, that does


Matt Wynne
http://blog.mattwynne.net
http://www.songkick.com



More information about the rspec-users mailing list