2009/12/30 rogerdpack <rogerpack2...@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++ :-)
all best Andrew > -r > _______________________________________________ > 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
