On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Iain Barnett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a class that takes callbacks and stores them for later use. It
> supplies a default block for all the other methods to use, and you can set a
> new default if you like. I want to check that the new default is being set
> and that it's the same block as the one given. When I try and spec this,
> however, I get the following message:
>
>> When you call a matcher in an example without a String, like this:
>
> specify { object.should matcher }
>
> or this:
>
> it { should matcher }
or this:
specify { expect(object).to matcher
w000t!
>
> RSpec expects the matcher to have a #description method. You should either
> add a String to the example this matcher is being used in, or give it a
> description method. Then you won't have to suffer this lengthy warning
> again.
>
>
> The code is as like this:
>
> DEFAULT_BLOCK = ->(klass,field){
> ->(term) {
> klass.filter(field.to_sym =>
> /#{term}.*/i).select(Sequel.as(field,"value"))
> }
> }
>
>
> def default_suggester=(block)
> @default_block = block
> end
>
>
> def default_suggester
> @default_block ||= DEFAULT_BLOCK
> end
>
>
> and the spec I had that gave that message:
>
> describe "Adding a default suggester" do
> include_context "All pages" # this loads the Sinatra app the code runs
> in and puts it in a variable called "app".
> let(:my_default) { ->(klass,field) {
> ->(term) {
> klass.filter(
> Sequel.like(field.to_sym, "#{term}%")
> ).select(Sequel.as(field,"value"))
> }
> }
> }
>
> context "When given a new default suggester" do
> before :all do
> app.suggesters.clear
> app.default_suggester = my_default
> end
> it "should be a lambda/proc" do
> app.default_suggester.should respond_to? :call
> end
> it "should be the same as my_default" do
> app.default_suggester.should.equal? my_default
> end
> after :all do
> app.suggesters.clear
> end
> end
> end
>
> It appears to me that because it's a lambda that RSpec thinks it's a matcher?
> Is there a way to change this to do what I intend?
That sounds like a red herring, but I'm not sure.
>
> Any suggestions or help would be much appreciated. I'm running Ruby
> v1.9.3-p194 and RSpec 2.11.0
My guess is that it's related to the context being included and the
fact that you're using before :all. Try it with before :each and see
if that works. If not, please run the spec with the --backtrace flag
and post the full backtrace, along with the code in the included
context.
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
