On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Joaquin Rivera Padron <joahk...@gmail.com>wrote:
> ok, let's say: > > Then /should see "(.+)"/ do |text| > # a binary step, easily negable > end > > Then /I deny some steps/ do > # really not so readable > Not Then "should see \"your are not log in\"" > > Then "some other step that holds" > > # another way of saying it bad > But Not Then "should receive info for non users" > > # or maybe this bad > And Not Then "should receive info for non users" > end > > now comes the mars attack part, I haven't dig into cucumber or rspec code > that much, only guessing here. > and Not could do something like receiving the step that comes behind the > keyword > > def Not(step) > # we tell the step to assert (I mean the rspec synonym) itself > # so that it raises some RSpec exception > step.assert! > # the step really passed, we should raise an Exception not rescueable > for the next rescue > raise Spec::UncatchableException > rescue Spec::Expectations # or something like that > # green, nothing, this is what we expected > end > end > > is this doable? I have to say I have not come to need this that bad to ask > the cucumber to provide it > Only if you have exactly one thing that can be negated. If you have several things, this won't work. Frankly, I don't think I'll ever implement a cute feature in Cucumber that allows you to have out of the box negation. It would be ugly no matter how it's done, and it would only save you a line or 2 of code. Aslak > > is really late and this cross my mind :-) > > joaquin > > _______________________________________________ > 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