# Rspec and inequalities? **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [June 9, 2008, 1:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rspec-and-inequalities/139947 "2008-06-09T13:40:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![markthomas](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/90db22/32.png) [@markthomas](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markthomas)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 1:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rspec-and-inequalities/139947/1 "2008-06-09T13:40:46Z")
In an old version of rspec, you could do “x.should\_be \< y”, but this throws a NoMethodError now. What’s the proper way to test inequalities (less than/greater than)? ---
**Author:** ![markthomas](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/90db22/32.png) [@markthomas](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markthomas)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 5:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rspec-and-inequalities/139947/2 "2008-06-09T17:30:53Z")
On Jun 9, 7:35 am, Mark T. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > In an old version of rspec, you could do “x.should\_be \< y”, but this > throws a NoMethodError now. What’s the proper way to test inequalities > (less than/greater than)? It’s basically the same: x.should be \< y James ---
**Author:** ![markthomas](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/90db22/32.png) [@markthomas](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markthomas)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2008, 5:55pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rspec-and-inequalities/139947/3 "2008-06-09T17:55:42Z")
> It’s basically the same: > > x.should be \< y > > James Thanks! Is this syntactic sugar for all be\_xxx methods? I just noticed that I can omit the underscore in be\_true also. I’m surprised I haven’t noticed that in examples. ---
**Author:** ![markthomas](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/90db22/32.png) [@markthomas](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markthomas)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2008, 12:32am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rspec-and-inequalities/139947/4 "2008-06-12T00:32:20Z")
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Mark T. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > It’s basically the same: > > > > x.should be \< y > > > > James > > Thanks! Is this syntactic sugar for all be\_xxx methods? No. 1.should be \> 0 will work, but say: 1.should be\_false \> 0 will fail when RSpec tries to send #:0? to 1. One might say that this is an rspec bug, but I’d say that 1.should be\_false \> 0 is nonsensical, so who cares. > I just noticed > that I can omit the underscore in be\_true also. I’m surprised I > haven’t noticed that in examples. This is because x.should be y is interpreted as x.should eql y so it will succeed if x.eql?(y) returns a truthy value. Also note that there’s a difference between x.should be\_true or x.should be true or x.should eql true and x.should be The first three will succeed only iff x == true whereas the latter will succeed iff x is any truthy value (i.e. anything except nil and false), likewise x.should\_not be will succeed iff x is a falsy value (i.e. nil or false) – Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) ---
**Author:** ![markthomas](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/90db22/32.png) [@markthomas](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markthomas)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2008, 11:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rspec-and-inequalities/139947/5 "2008-06-12T23:41:48Z")
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Mark T. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > item.should be valid? I don’t think that would work. But I think you could use the rather Yoda like: item.valid?.should be – Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) ---
**Author:** ![markthomas](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/90db22/32.png) [@markthomas](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/markthomas)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2008, 4:48pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rspec-and-inequalities/139947/6 "2008-06-12T16:48:19Z")
On Jun 11, 6:31 pm, Rick DeNatale [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > rspec bug, but I’d say that 1.should be\_false \> 0 is nonsensical, so who > cares. Actually, what I meant is can item.should be\_valid be replaced with item.should be valid but now that I think about it, rspec probably does some method\_missing magic with the be\_ prefix and wouldn’t know to use #valid? with the question mark. Maybe the equivalent is item.should be valid?