Respond_to matcher

sthorpe · March 17, 2009, 4:40am

I noticed this strange behaviour in a spec, and was wondering if it was
considered a bug (it certainly took me by surprise):

gist.github.com

https://gist.github.com/smtlaissezfaire/80261

environment_variables_spec.rb

        it "should take an include_private flag" do
          # this is a bug in rspec:
#           @env.should respond_to(:method_missing, true)   #=> fails
          @env.respond_to?(:method_missing, true).should be_true  # => succeeds
        end

The respond_to matcher specs seem to show this behaviour as intended:

gist.github.com

https://gist.github.com/smtlaissezfaire/80262

respond_to_spec.rb

describe "should respond_to(message1, message2)" do
  
  it "passes if target responds to both messages" do
    Object.new.should respond_to('methods', 'inspect')
  end
  
  it "fails if target does not respond to first message" do
    lambda {
      Object.new.should respond_to('method_one', 'inspect')
    }.should fail_with(/expected #<Object:.*> to respond to "method_one"/)

This file has been truncated. show original

Scott