On Nov 10, 2007 11:12 AM, aslak hellesoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > be_success has the same semantics (and uses) Response#success? and > that's not our API, but Rails' > > If you don't like Rails' semantics you can make your own matcher, but > I don't want to invent a whole new API on top of Rails in the official > Spec::Rails.
+1 David ps - Aslak, what gives w/ the top posting? > > Aslak > > > On Nov 10, 2007 5:31 PM, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just wondering if anyone else thinks that 'response.should be_success' is > > potentially misleading. If you're writing a spec for an action that is > > failing in some way it can still have a status 200. So while the > > HTTP request was technically successful, something in the action > > was not. Perhaps something like 'response.should have_success_status'? > > > > Steve _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
