Commits on Sep 14, 2019

1. Prevent block-only matchers from being used with value expectation ta… …

   …rget
   
   https://blog.rubystyle.guide/rspec/2019/07/17/rspec-implicit-block-syntax.html
   https://rspec.rubystyle.guide/#implicit-block-expectations
   
   Spec changes are due to:
   
       matcher.matches?(invalid_value)
   
   doesn't work with block-only matchers, as no block is passed in, and it
   fails with a message:
   
       1) RSpec::Matchers::BuiltIn::Change behaves like an RSpec block-only matcher uses the `ObjectFormatter` for `failure_message`
          Failure/Error: expect(message).to include("detailed inspect")
            expected "expected `@k` to have changed, but was not given a block" to include "detailed inspect"
   
   The redundant (due to existing check in ExpectationTarget) `Proc ===
   @event_proc` checks could not be removed safely as well, since
   @actual_after is not initialized yet when we haven't executed the block:
   
        RuntimeError:
          Warnings were generated: rspec-dev/repos/rspec-expectations/lib/rspec/matchers/built_in/change.rb:407: warning: instance variable @actual_after not initialized
   
   Ruby 1.8-specific workarounds:
   
       multiple values for a block parameter (0 for 1)
   
   If a block expects an argument, it ought to be provided an argument in 1.8

   

   pirj committed Sep 14, 2019
   Configuration menu

   • View commit details
   • Copy full SHA for 771da6d
   • Browse repository at this point

   Copy the full SHA

   771da6d View commit details

   Browse the repository at this point in the history