I hate should/should_not be and so if I really *have* to do it then I just throw a !! in the method and get back a real boolean. Not ideal, but it works.
HOWEVER Predicate matchers *do* accept args, and in the specific example you gave, the have matcher comes to the rescue. Check out these examples: http://gist.github.com/82148 The first one shows the typical be_blah form taking an arg, and the second one shows some magic provided by the have matcher. Pat 2009/3/19 Rick DeNatale <rick.denat...@gmail.com>: > I like to avoid over-constraining specifications, so for example of methods > which return 'boolean' values, I prefer to test either truthiness (anything > but false or nil), or falsiness (either false or nil). > This isn't an issue true predicate methods which are of the right form to > use be_whatever (as in a whatever? method taking no arguments). But for a > method taking arguments this doesn't work (I think!), and even if it did I > wouldn't want to use it for some cases. For instance I'm working with some > code now (which I'm not really free to change) which has methods like > has_member?(user) which tells whether or not the object has user as a > member. So I tend to write things like > @it.has_member?(user).should be > when the response is expected to be truthy > or > @it.has_member?(user).should_not be > Now I recently noticed that if the second expectation fails, I get a rather > snarky message like 'not only did it fail, but it's awkwardly expressed, try > to express it as a positive.' > While I agree that it isn't as elegant an expression as I like, I don't see > a way out of the box to check that a result should be a falsy (or should > that be non-truthy) value. > Even 'should be' is a bit grating. I'm tempted to write a pair of matchers > like be_truthy and be_falsy, but I was wondering what other RSpec users have > to say. > > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
