El 4/9/2007, a las 22:51, Geoffrey Wiseman escribió: > Using this as an example, if a new validation rule is added, this > test will > fail without indicating /why/. Sure, I can get that answer in > other ways, > but I'd hate to discover things like: > > it "should be valid with valid attributes" do > # puts @person.errors if [EMAIL PROTECTED] > @person.should be_valid > end > > (Which I've seen when people have to repeatedly diagnose issues in > a test; > I'd prefer a failure message to the above)
My personal approach when a spec fails and I can't figure out *why* just by looking at it is to run the spec under the debugger and set a breakpoint on the line where the corresponding spec fails. In this way I can get as much information as I want about the problem and its context. The suggestion of using a custom matcher is a good one, but I personally don't find it general enough. I actually *like* the way that RSpec doesn't provide a mechanism for specifying error messages; it's one of the things that makes the specs so easy to read. It's difficult to imagine a syntax that would provide what you're asking for without sacrificing readability. Cheers, Wincent _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
