Having BigDecimal comparisons print decimal amount rather than scientific

[justin808]

I can monkey patch BigDecimal to get clear error messages, but maybe we can just change rspec/matchers/built_in/eq.rb to support special inspect?

I'm supposing we'd want some generalized way of checking if there's a helper for the value of expected to do a better to_s than inspect.

If there's interest, I'll submit a PR.

# Monkey patch BigDecimal#inspect
# Otherwises test errors print like:
# expected: #<BigDecimal:108482700,'0.11E3',9(27)>
#     got: #<BigDecimal:108468080,'0.12E3',9(27)>
# After get:
# expected: 110.0
#      got: 120.0
class BigDecimal
  def inspect
    to_s
  end
end

module RSpec
  module Matchers
    module BuiltIn
      class Eq < BaseMatcher
        def match(expected, actual)
          actual == expected
        end

        def failure_message_for_should
          "\nexpected: #{expected.inspect}\n     got: #{actual.inspect}\n\n(compared using ==)\n"
        end

        def failure_message_for_should_not
          "\nexpected: value != #{expected.inspect}\n     got: #{actual.inspect}\n\n(compared using ==)\n"
        end

        def diffable?; true; end
      end
    end
  end
end

[JonRowe]

Sure, that seems reasonable, we already special case Time and DateTime. (Your example is out of date). Please note you'll need a defined?(BigDecimal) check, as we won't require it for people.

[justin808]

@JonRowe What is the correct branch to base this on? I'll implement similar to Time and DateTime.

[JonRowe]

Always master.

[justin808]

And then will we merge this to 2-14-maintenance? Or should I update the rspec my rails app is using?

[JonRowe]

No, this is a new feature, it will only go into RSpec 3.x

[danielfone]

@JonRowe this can be closed.