On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:33 PM, rogerdpack wrote:
>
>> What about something like:
>>
>> expected # => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum
Truthfully, I find this much less clear than the original message.
I've got no idea what # => Fixnum means.
Expected Fixnum to be kind of Fixnum makes a lot of s
> What about something like:
>
> expected # => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum
Still in favor of something like this...
:)
-rp
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
2010/1/2 David Chelimsky
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Premdas wrote:
>
>> 2009/12/30 rogerdpack
>>
>> > What about something like:
>>> >
>>> > expected # => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum
>>> >
>>> > That is more aligned with other failure messages. WDYT?
>>>
>>> I quite like i
2010/1/3 rogerdpack
> > > 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
> > 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
> valu
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 4:35 PM, David Chelimsky
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Premdas
> wrote:
> >>
> >> 2009/12/30 rogerdpack
> >>>
> >>> > What about something like:
> >>> >
> >>> > expected # => Fixnum to
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 4:35 PM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Premdas wrote:
>>
>> 2009/12/30 rogerdpack
>>>
>>> > What about something like:
>>> >
>>> > expected # => Fixnum to be a kind of Fixnum
>>> >
>>> > That is more aligned with other failure messag
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Andrew Premdas wrote:
> 2009/12/30 rogerdpack
>
> > 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
2009/12/30 rogerdpack
> > 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
> 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 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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
