Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rspec 3.13: breaking changes to ExpectedsForMultipleDiffs #250

Open
jas14 opened this issue May 8, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #251
Open

rspec 3.13: breaking changes to ExpectedsForMultipleDiffs #250

jas14 opened this issue May 8, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #251

Comments

@jas14
Copy link
Contributor

jas14 commented May 8, 2024

It appears that in rspec 3.12, have_attributes was an aliased matcher, but no longer is. I haven't tracked down the precise source of the change, but I added an Appraisal set for RSpec 3.13.0 and tests are failing.

EDIT: I think I misdiagnosed – the issue may be the rename from RSpec::Matchers::{ExpectedsForMultipleDiffs -> MultiMatcherDiff }, see rspec/rspec-expectations@81d3a58 .

EDIT 2: it's both. 😭

@jas14 jas14 changed the title rspec 3.13: breaking changes to have_attributes differ rspec 3.13: breaking changes to ExpectedsForMultipleDiffs May 8, 2024
@jas14
Copy link
Contributor Author

jas14 commented May 8, 2024

Suspect: rspec/rspec-expectations@3d97c7e

AliasedMatcher now delegates almost everything – including and especially .is_a? – to the underlying matcher. Differs::ObjectHavingAttributes therefore no longer applies to the matcher: https://github.com/mcmire/super_diff/blob/fc418c15f04925e00f32298fc85f74c57591fc69/lib/super_diff/rspec.rb#L45https://github.com/mcmire/super_diff/blob/fc418c15f04925e00f32298fc85f74c57591fc69/lib/super_diff/rspec.rb#L45

@jas14 jas14 linked a pull request May 8, 2024 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant