Sounds good!!
Nori
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:57 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Nori Hamamoto <norisu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I said I'm using the newest version on the repository, but I mean that the
> newest version of rspec1's repository.
> I didn't try it on rspec2 because according to rspec2's git repository, it
> doesn't support rails 2 and I'm using rails 2.
> Sorry about the lack of the information in my report.
>
>
> No apology necessary. There are a couple of projects in the works to make
> rspec 2 work with rails 2, but I don't think any are ready for general
> consumption.
>
> Cheers,
> Nori
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:44 AM, David Chelimsky < <dchelim...@gmail.com>
> dchelim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 14, 2011, at 12:19 AM, Nori Hamamoto wrote:
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I've just started using rspec and rspec-rails (both are the newest version
>> on git repository).
>> I met some inconsistently behavior on it method and its method.
>> The following is the way to reproduce it:
>>
>> command line:
>>
>> > script/generate spec_controller product show
>>
>> Modify a file spec/products_controller_spec.rb like the following:
>>
>> require 'spec_helper'
>>
>> describe ProductsController do
>> describe Array do
>> subject { Array.new }
>> it { should be_empty }
>> its(:size) { should == 0 }
>> end
>> end
>>
>> Then, when I run spec, the first example (it { should be_empty }) pass the
>> test, but not the second one(its(:size){ should == 0 }).
>> How so?
>>
>> I've found a similar issue:
>>
>> describe 10 do
>> it { should == 10 }
>> its(:to_s) { should == "10" }
>> end
>>
>> The first one passes, but not for the second one.
>> Is this a bug on rspec 1.3.1?
>>
>> Another example:
>>
>> describe Array do
>> its(:empty?) { should be_true } # pass
>> end
>>
>> describe [] do
>> its(:empty?) { should be_true } # not pass
>> end
>>
>> The first one passes the test where as the second one doesn't pass.
>> So, what's going on on its method??
>>
>>
>> All of these pass in rspec-2, but it looks like there are some
>> inconsistencies in rspec-1. You're welcome to file bug reports for this, but
>> I can tell you that unless somebody else submits patches for it it's
>> unlikely to get fixed.
>>
>> Bug reports for rspec-1 live at <http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com>
>> http://rspec.lighthouseapp.com.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> <rspec-users@rubyforge.org>rspec-users@rubyforge.org
>> <http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users>
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
