As you may well know, using 'expect' over 'should' is a recommended practice because of dealing with delegate/proxy objects as detailed in http://myronmars.to/n/dev-blog/2012/06/rspecs-new-expectation-syntax.
As detailed in the blog post "In the future, we plan to change the defaults so that only expect is available unless you explicitly enable should. We may do this as soon as RSpec 3.0, but we want to give users plenty of time to get acquianted with it."
I noticed that expect is now being used in many of the major gems that use rspec and I'd like to offer this change from the should format to the expect format for consideration.
I also changed the pattern matchers from =~ to match() or match_array() as required for this change and while at it I also took the opportunity to change the == format to eq as recommended in the post.
All previously passing tests still pass after this change.
I've tried to be careful to observe the existing style and structure with my proposed changes.
As you may well know, using 'expect' over 'should' is a recommended practice because of dealing with delegate/proxy objects as detailed in http://myronmars.to/n/dev-blog/2012/06/rspecs-new-expectation-syntax. As detailed in the blog post "In the future, we plan to change the defaults so that only expect is available unless you explicitly enable should. We may do this as soon as RSpec 3.0, but we want to give users plenty of time to get acquianted with it." I noticed that expect is now being used in many of the major gems that use rspec and I'd like to offer this change from the should format to the expect format for consideration. I also changed the pattern matchers from =~ to match() or match_array() as required for this change and while at it I also took the opportunity to change the == format to eq as recommended in the post. All previously passing tests still pass after this change. I've tried to be careful to observe the existing style and structure with my proposed changes.