On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:56:00 -0700, you wrote:
>This will work (I'll go update the code now) but it still leaves the
>problem I mentioned that if you are unfamiliar with the vagaries of
>floating point math -- or even if you momentarily forget -- then using
>== will occasionally mysteriously fail.
> What about a helpful error message when "should ==" fails on floats:
>
> expected 98.6, got 98.6
>
> The expected and actual may appear to be the same due to Ruby's string
> representation of floating point numbers. For floating point math, we
> recommend using the be_close() matcher instead.
>
>
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Alex Chaffee wrote:
> ...and, while I was composing that message, Brian sent me the following:
>
>> Rspec does provide the be_close matcher. See cheat rspec.
>
> @temperature.ctof(37).should be_close(98.6, 0.1)
>
> This will work (I'll go update the code now) but i
On 24 Aug 2009, at 18:56, Alex Chaffee wrote:
== will occasionally mysteriously fail. So my proposal remains: can
the == matcher do be_close(x, 0.01) for floats? Arguments pro
and con?
The "problem" you describe is with Ruby's == operator, not with RSpec.
The == matcher must agree with
...and, while I was composing that message, Brian sent me the following:
> Rspec does provide the be_close matcher. See cheat rspec.
@temperature.ctof(37).should be_close(98.6, 0.1)
This will work (I'll go update the code now) but it still leaves the
problem I mentioned that if you are unfamilia
Check out the following gist: http://gist.github.com/173975
It's from a Test-Driven Intro To Ruby class I'm working on. Looks good, right?
Not so fast. Check out this spec:
it "converts body temperature" do
t = @temperature.ctof(37)
(t*10).round.should == 986
end
Why do we
