[rspec-users] more verbosity for be_an?
dchelimsky at gmail.com
Sat Jan 2 16:35:53 EST 2010
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Premdas <apremdas at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/30 rogerdpack <rogerpack2005 at gmail.com>
> > What about something like:
>> > expected #<Class:2158174640> => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum
>> > That is more aligned with other failure messages. WDYT?
>> I quite like it.
>> In this instance it was
>> 3.class.should be_a Fixnum # fails
>> I suppose it would be something like
>> expected #<Class:Fixnum> => Class to be a kind of Fixnum
>> > And just out of curiosity, Roger, what's your use case? I can't
>> remember ever using be_a/be_an, at least not in any code that has survived.
>> The very first test I thought up was "this method should return an
>> integer" so kind of a basic test for a not yet existent method.
> Isn't this a bit anti-ruby though. Surely the things we should be testing
> is that the object exists, responds to certain messages and gives certain
> values back for those messages. Thinking about types is so Java, C++ :-)
Generally speaking, you're correct, but there are cases where this is
valuable - like if you're spec'ing a factory in a lib for others to use,
> all best
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rspec-users