Consistently use record.new_record?.
#1803
Merged
+8
−8
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
`be_a_new(model_class)` and `be_new_record` were inconsistent in that one of them checked `!persisted?` and one checked `new_record?`. The docs also said that both checked `!persisted?` even only one did. This changes both to use `new_record?` and to be documented as such. Fixes #1801.
myronmarston
force-pushed
the
myron/make-new-record-matchers-consistent
branch
from
aee0bb6 to
1f3836a
Compare
|
LGTM |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
be_a_new(model_class)andbe_new_recordwereinconsistent in that one of them checked
!persisted?and one checked
new_record?. The docs also said thatboth checked
!persisted?even only one did.This changes both to use
new_record?and to be documentedas such.
Fixes #1801.
Note that I'm not sure this is the right fix but I figured I'd offer to get the conversation on #1801 rolling. My book has an rspec-rails cheat sheet and documents the current inconsistency which is confusing some readers, so I'd like to get this fixed by publication if possible.
/cc @rspec/rspec