> What about something like:
>
> expected # => 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 to be a kind of Fixnum
On 29 Dec 2009, at 15:59, David Chelimsky wrote:
> I started http://wiki.github.com/dchelimsky/rspec/matcher-libraries. Please
> feel free to modify/add.
I like! A wiki solves 90% of problems like this with 2% of the effort. I
hadn't realised the wiki had moved along - unlike Cucumber, I st
On 30 Dec 2009, at 20:19, David Chelimsky wrote:
> What about something like:
>
> expected # => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum
>
> That is more aligned with other failure messages. WDYT?
I like that. You have to read the current message _very_ carefully to see what
it's actually saying.
Th
Given this simple cucumber feature (related to another rspec bug I am
working on):
http://gist.github.com/266335
I'm fighting with this error messages that _only_ shows up in certain
situations that I can't quite pin down (rake features breaks, individual
cucumber run works, rake with debugger
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 1:33 PM, rogerdpack wrote:
> before I hack up a patch for it. Would a patch to change
>
> "expected Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum"
>
> to
>
> "expected Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum (is a Class)"
>
> or possibly
>
> "expected Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum (is a Class, Mod
before I hack up a patch for it. Would a patch to change
"expected Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum"
to
"expected Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum (is a Class)"
or possibly
"expected Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum (is a Class, Module, Object,
Kernel, BasicObject)"
have any chance of being accepted
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Ronald Chaplin wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 09:26 -0600, David Chelimsky wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Ronald Chaplin
> > wrote:
> > Hey all,
> > So I woke up early this morning, and was running some tests
> > through
> >
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 09:26 -0600, David Chelimsky wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Ronald Chaplin
> wrote:
> Hey all,
> So I woke up early this morning, and was running some tests
> through
> autospec, and it returned a time as follows:
>
>
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Ronald Chaplin wrote:
> Hey all,
> So I woke up early this morning, and was running some tests through
> autospec, and it returned a time as follows:
>
> Finished in 0.01516001 seconds
>
> I know that there are alot of other more important issues being
> a
Hey all,
So I woke up early this morning, and was running some tests through
autospec, and it returned a time as follows:
Finished in 0.01516001 seconds
I know that there are alot of other more important issues being
addressed right now for the rspec project, (2.0 for Rails 3.0). However,
10 matches
Mail list logo
