Menu
I am using rspec and for asserts like
student.name should be nil
student.name should be_nil
Both seem to work. is there a difference between using be nil an be_nil ???
868
RSpec::Expectations provides a simple, readable API to express the expected outcomes in a code example. To express an expected outcome, wrap an object or block in expect , call to or to_not (aliased as not_to ) and pass it a matcher object: expect(order. total). to eq(Money. new(5.55, :USD)) expect(list).
Running tests by their file or directory names is the most familiar way to run tests with RSpec. RSpec can take a file name or directory name and run the file or the contents of the directory. So you can do: rspec spec/jobs to run the tests found in the jobs directory.
Summary: RSpec's subject is a special variable that refers to the object being tested. Expectations can be set on it implicitly, which supports one-line examples. It is clear to the reader in some idiomatic cases, but is otherwise hard to understand and should be avoided.
Use let to define a memoized helper method. The value will be cached across multiple calls in the same example but not across examples. Note that let is lazy-evaluated: it is not evaluated until the first time the method it defines is invoked.
There is no difference really, except be nil gets defined on the fly, and be_nil has been specifically programmed by rspec.
when you say should.be something, rspec tries the following
[:==, :<, :<=, :>=, :>, :===].each do |operator|
define_method operator do |operand|
BeComparedTo.new(operand, operator)
end
end
Whereas, when you try should.be_nil it just checks
object.nil?
https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/blob/master/lib/rspec/matchers/built_in/be.rb
169
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
