Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for rspec 3 #46

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

searls
Copy link

@searls searls commented Jan 9, 2015

This PR is mirrored on the new repo here

There are currently 19 failing specs on master when running the latest versions of rspec.

  • 9 specs fixed by @ronen's Bug fix for have_failed with RSpec 3.0.0 #43
  • 2 specs fixed by reverting the part of the above change (does_not_match? was inadvertently wrapping Given::Failure objects)
  • 8 specs fixed by passing expect a block when paired with the raise_error matcher

Before merging, it may make sense to attempt a travis build matrix that maintains rspec 2 support.

As of a recent [commit](https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/blame/79582c2c160ac7b3a58d3d128012b022c63d6174/lib/rspec/matchers/built_in/raise_error.rb#L38) to rspec-expectations, Rspec::Matchers::BuiltIn::RaiseError strictly requires a Proc rather than something that quacks like one.
searls referenced this pull request in forever-inc/netsweet Jan 9, 2015
Reverts half of be0b142

@ronen: it looks like what happened here is that does_not_match#super 
will pass whatever it is given into `matches?` and as a result, the 
matcher was never ever being passed an actual ::Given::Failure. This 
caused all of the (already red) negative cases to remain red even after
the patch.
@searls
Copy link
Author

searls commented Jan 9, 2015

Moving this PR to the new repo rspec-given#1

@searls searls closed this Jan 9, 2015
@ronen
Copy link
Contributor

ronen commented Jan 9, 2015

@searls oh, just saw that you moved to the new repo. Makes sense.

I just posted a comment on old issue #31 and added two new issues #47 and #48 -- do you want me to repost them over on the new repo?

@searls
Copy link
Author

searls commented Jan 9, 2015

Insofar as future issues and discussion should be on the new repo so we can actually maintain them: yes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants