What is the correct format for using shoulda-matchers and RSpec's new expect syntax?
While one could certainly use the shoulda-matchers with the new expect syntax as follows:
it 'should validate presence of :email' do expect(subject).to validate_presence_of :email end
or the more concise but less readable:
it { expect(subject).to validate_presence_of :email }
the one-liner should
format these matchers are typically used with is explicitly supported in 2.14 even when config.syntax == :expect
. When should
is being used with an implicit subject as in:
describe User it { should validate_presence_of :email } end
it does not rely on the monkey patching of Kernel
that should
otherwise depends on.
This is covered in https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/blob/master/Should.md. In fact, that documentation even uses the above shoulda
matcher example to illustrate this exception.
See also Using implicit `subject` with `expect` in RSpec-2.11, which discusses a configuration option which lets you use as an alternative to it
.
expect_it { to validate_presence_of :email }
Update: As of RSpec 3.0 (beta2), you will also be able to use:
it { is_expected.to validate_presence_of :email }
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