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

Failing test strict option on numericality matcher #620

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Failing test strict option on numericality matcher #620

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mrageh
Copy link

@mrageh mrageh commented Dec 3, 2014

This is related to issue #613

@mrageh
Copy link
Author

mrageh commented Dec 3, 2014

Hey @mcmire

So for sometime I've been wanting to contribute to shoulda-matchers, its a great project that's saved many developers a lot of time.

I wondered if you could review my pull request and give me tips on what the next steps are, that way I can start getting to grips with the code a lot quicker and I can start contributing more regularly.

expect(validating_numericality(strict: true)).to matcher.strict
end

it 'rejects when model does not enforce strict'
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You also need a context+test here that says, if the validation declares strict but the matcher does not then the test should fail.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How would I write a test for this? expect(validating_numericality(strict: true)).to_not matcher

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@mcmire Not sure on how I'd write a test for expect(validating_numericality(strict: true)).to_not matcher?

@mcmire
Copy link
Collaborator

mcmire commented Dec 8, 2014

@Adam89 That's cool that you've been wanting to contribute, and I've been failing at communicating what the roadmap looks like. I'll email you with some things to work on -- can I use the email address on your GitHub profile?

As for implementing this PR: essentially, we need to copy the strict qualifier from the numericality matcher to any submatchers that it's using. The numericality keeps an array of submatchers, but it also has an extra DisallowValueMatcher instance which is separate. So when strict is called, we need to call strict on each of the submatchers, and also this DisallowValueMatcher.

To test this -- well, it gets tricky. We essentially need these three tests:

  • We expect a record where the validation defines strict to validate numericality of with strict qualifier specified
  • We expect a record where the validation does not define strict to validate numericality of with strict qualifier specified
  • We expect a record where the validation defines strict not to validate numericality of with strict qualifier missing

However, because the numericality matcher has so many qualifiers, and all of these qualifiers (only_integer, odd, even, etc.) essentially modify how the tests are run, we need to test strict against all of those qualifiers. This is kind of lame, but it's the only way to confirm that strict works correctly.

Hope that helps, if you need further assistance let me know.

@mrageh
Copy link
Author

mrageh commented Dec 8, 2014

My primary email address is [email protected]. Thanks for the info it makes it easier for a beginner like myself to contribute regularly and hopefully learn a lot in the process.

@mrageh
Copy link
Author

mrageh commented Dec 29, 2014

@mcmire I did a quick spike, this pr was quite easy. I'll delete this commit and start again by writing my tests first.

@@ -66,6 +66,14 @@
end
end

context 'with the strict option' do

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Prefer double-quoted strings unless you need single quotes to avoid extra backslashes for escaping.

@mcmire
Copy link
Collaborator

mcmire commented Jan 5, 2015

@Adam89 Cool, thanks. Also don't forget: strict needs to be tested in conjunction with the other qualifiers here (the ones that add new submatchers, like odd, even, etc.)

@mrageh
Copy link
Author

mrageh commented Jan 26, 2015

I'll work on this pr during the weekend @mcmire been a bit busy lately

@mcmire
Copy link
Collaborator

mcmire commented Jan 27, 2015

No worries, Adam, thanks.

@@ -19,6 +19,10 @@ class << fake_matcher

context 'is_greater_than' do
it do
expect(instance_with_validations(greater_than: 1, strict: true)).to matcher.is_greater_than(1).strict

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Line is too long. [107/80]

@mrageh
Copy link
Author

mrageh commented Jan 30, 2015

@mcmire mind reviewing this and letting me know if I've done it correctly. Am just not sure

@mrageh
Copy link
Author

mrageh commented Feb 6, 2015

Hey @mcmire

I think I've implemented strict option correctly but am not sure, could you please review it and let me know if am heading in the right direction.

end

it "rejects when model does not enforce strict" do
expect(validating_numericality).to_not matcher.strict
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

to_not -> not_to

@@ -66,6 +66,26 @@
end
end

context "with the strict option" do
it "allows strict values for that attribute" do
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reword this same as above

@mcmire
Copy link
Collaborator

mcmire commented Feb 12, 2015

@Adam89 Sorry it took me so long to get back to you... busy busy. Thanks for this. I had a few comments on wording of test names, and Hound seems to have noticed some style-related things that you'll want to correct. Other than that, I think it's good to go.

@mrageh
Copy link
Author

mrageh commented Feb 13, 2015

Thanks @mcmire I was going to refactor and improve this. I was just not confident in my implementation of strict. Really glad to hear that you're ok with this. I'll finish it off tonight hopefully.

@@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ def allowed_type
def diff_to_compare
2
end

def strict
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think you can actually add this to NumericTypeMatcher instead of adding individually to EvenNumberMatcher, OddNumberMatcher, and OnlyIntegerMatcher.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, I just checked and this is already contained in ValidationMatcher so you can get rid of this. The only thing you need is the loop in ValidateNumericalityOfMatcher to set strict on each submatcher.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Comparison matcher is the only matcher that out of the numericality matchers that inherits from ValidationMatcher Should I make the others inherit from that matcher as well?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The other matchers inherit from NumericTypeMatcher which already inherits from ValidationMatcher.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, misspoke here, they don't inherit from ValidationMatcher. We're actually trying to avoid inheriting from ValidationMatcher in the future. What you have here is fine.

@mcmire
Copy link
Collaborator

mcmire commented Mar 29, 2015

Hey @Adam89, thanks for the PR. I took the opportunity to refactor the numericality specs and then tweaked some of the stuff in your PR: 4e4c546. Anyway, this is merged now, so thanks!

@mcmire mcmire closed this Mar 29, 2015
netbsd-srcmastr pushed a commit to NetBSD/pkgsrc that referenced this pull request Sep 23, 2018
# 3.1.2

### Deprecations

* This is the **last version** that supports Rails 4.0 and 4.1 and Ruby 2.0 and 2.1.

### Bug fixes

* When the `permit` matcher was used without `#on`, the controller did not use
  `params#require`, the params object was duplicated, and the matcher did not
  recognize the `#permit` call inside the controller. This behavior happened
  because the matcher overwrote double registries with the same parameter hash
  whenever ActionController::Parameters was instantiated.

  * *Commit: [44c019]*
  * *Issue: [#899]*
  * *Pull request: [#902]*

# 3.1.1

### Bug fixes

* Some matchers make use of ActiveSupport's `in?` method, but do not include the
  file where this is defined in ActiveSupport. This causes problems with
  projects using shoulda-matchers that do not include all of ActiveSupport by
  default. To fix this, replace `in?` with Ruby's builtin `include?`.

  * *Pull request: [#879]*

* `validate_uniqueness_of` works by creating a record if it doesn't exist, and
  then testing against a new record with various attributes set that are equal
  to (or different than) corresponding attributes in the existing record. In
  3.1.0 a change was made whereby when the uniqueness matcher is given a new
  record and creates an existing record out of it, it ensures that the record is
  valid before continuing on. This created a problem because if the subject,
  before it was saved, was empty and therefore in an invalid state, it could not
  effectively be saved. While ideally this should be enforced, doing so would be
  a backward-incompatible change, so this behavior has been rolled back.
  ([#880], [#884], [#885])

  * *Commit: [45de869]*
  * *Issues: [#880], [#884], [#885]*

* Fix an issue with `validate_uniqueness_of` + `scoped_to` when used against a
  model where the attribute has multiple uniqueness validations and each
  validation has a different set of scopes. In this case, a test written for the
  first validation (and its scopes) would pass, but tests for the other
  validations (and their scopes) would not, as the matcher only considered the
  first set of scopes as the *actual* set of scopes.

  * *Commit: [28bd9a1]*
  * *Issues: [#830]*

### Improvements

* Update `validate_uniqueness_of` so that if an existing record fails to be
  created because a column is non-nullable and was not filled in, raise an
  ExistingRecordInvalid exception with details on how to fix the test.

  * *Commit: [78ccfc5]*

[#879]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#879
[45de869]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@45de869
[#880]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#880
[#884]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#884
[#885]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#885
[78ccfc5]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@78ccfc5
[28bd9a1]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@28bd9a1
[#830]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#830

# 3.1.0

### Bug fixes

* Update `validate_numericality_of` so that submatchers are applied lazily
  instead of immediately. Previously, qualifiers were order-dependent, meaning
  that if you used `strict` before you used, say, `odd`, then `strict` wouldn't
  actually apply to `odd`. Now the order that you specify qualifiers doesn't
  matter.

  * *Source: [6c67a5e]*

* Fix `allow_value` so that it does not raise an AttributeChangedValueError
  (formerly CouldNotSetAttributeError) when used against an attribute that is an
  enum in an ActiveRecord model.

  * *Source: [9e8603e]*

* Add a `ignoring_interference_by_writer` qualifier to all matchers, not just
  `allow_value`. *This is enabled by default, which means that you should never
  get a CouldNotSetAttributeError again.* (You may get some more information if
  a test fails, however.)

  * *Source: [1189934], [5532f43]*
  * *Fixes: [#786], [#799], [#801], [#804], [#817], [#841], [#849], [#872],
    [#873], and [#874]*

* Fix `validate_numericality_of` so that it does not blow up when used against
  a virtual attribute defined in an ActiveRecord model (that is, an attribute
  that is not present in the database but is defined using `attr_accessor`).

  * *Source: [#822]*

* Update `validate_numericality_of` so that it no longer raises an
  IneffectiveTestError if used against a numeric column.

  * *Source: [5ed0362]*
  * *Fixes: [#832]*

[6c67a5e]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@6c67a5e
[9e8603e]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@9e8603e
[1189934]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@1189934
[5532f43]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@5532f43
[#786]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#786
[#799]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#799
[#801]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#801
[#804]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#804
[#817]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#817
[#841]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#841
[#849]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#849
[#872]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#872
[#873]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#873
[#874]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#874
[#822]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#822
[5ed0362]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@5ed0362
[#832]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#832

### Features

* Add a new qualifier, `ignoring_case_sensitivity`, to `validate_uniqueness_of`.
  This provides a way to test uniqueness of an attribute whose case is
  normalized, either in a custom writer method for that attribute, or in a
  custom `before_validation` callback.

  * *Source: [#840]*
  * *Fixes: [#836]*

[#840]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#840
[#836]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#836

### Improvements

* Improve failure messages and descriptions of all matchers across the board so
  that it is easier to understand what the matcher was doing when it failed.
  (You'll see a huge difference in the output of the numericality and uniqueness
  matchers in particular.)

* Matchers now raise an error if any attributes that the matcher is attempting
  to set do not exist on the model.

  * *Source: [2962112]*

* Update `validate_numericality_of` so that it doesn't always run all of the
  submatchers, but stops on the first one that fails. Since failure messages
  now contain information as to what value the matcher set on the attribute when
  it failed, this change guarantees that the correct value will be shown.

  * *Source: [8e24a6e]*

* Continue to detect if attributes change incoming values, but now instead of
  immediately seeing a CouldNotSetAttributeError, you will only be informed
  about it if the test you've written fails.

  * *Source: [1189934]*

* Add an additional check to `define_enum_for` to ensure that the column that
  underlies the enum attribute you're testing is an integer column.

  * *Source: [68dd70a]*

* Add a test for `validate_numericality_of` so that it officially supports money
  columns.

  * *Source: [a559713]*
  * *Refs: [#841]*

[2962112]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@2962112
[8e24a6e]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@8e24a6e
[68dd70a]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@68dd70a
[a559713]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@a559713

# 3.0.1

### Bug fixes

* Fix `validate_inclusion_of` + `in_array` when used against a date or datetime
  column/attribute so that it does not raise a CouldNotSetAttributeError.
  ([#783], [8fa97b4])

* Fix `validate_numericality_of` when used against a numeric column so that it
  no longer raises a CouldNotSetAttributeError if the matcher has been qualified
  in any way (`only_integer`, `greater_than`, `odd`, etc.). ([#784], [#812])

### Improvements

* `validate_uniqueness_of` now raises a NonCaseSwappableValueError if the value
  the matcher is using to test uniqueness cannot be case-swapped -- in other
  words, if it doesn't contain any alpha characters. When this is the case, the
  matcher cannot work effectively. ([#789], [ada9bd3])

[#783]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#783
[8fa97b4]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@8fa97b4
[#784]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#784
[#789]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#789
[ada9bd3]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@ada9bd3
[#812]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#812

# 3.0.0

### Backward-incompatible changes

* We've dropped support for Rails 3.x, Ruby 1.9.2, and Ruby 1.9.3, and RSpec 2.
  All of these have been end-of-lifed. ([a4045a1], [b7fe87a], [32c0e62])

* The gem no longer detects the test framework you're using or mixes itself into
  that framework automatically. [History][no-auto-integration-1] has
  [shown][no-auto-integration-2] that performing any kind of detection is prone
  to bugs and more complicated than it should be.

  Here are the updated instructions:

  * You no longer need to say `require: false` in your Gemfile; you can
    include the gem as normal.
  * You'll need to add the following somewhere in your `rails_helper` (for
    RSpec) or `test_helper` (for Minitest / Test::Unit):

    ``` ruby
    Shoulda::Matchers.configure do |config|
      config.integrate do |with|
        # Choose a test framework:
        with.test_framework :rspec
        with.test_framework :minitest
        with.test_framework :minitest_4
        with.test_framework :test_unit

        # Choose one or more libraries:
        with.library :active_record
        with.library :active_model
        with.library :action_controller
        # Or, choose the following (which implies all of the above):
        with.library :rails
      end
    end
    ```

  ([1900071])

* Previously, under RSpec, all of the matchers were mixed into all of the
  example groups. This created a problem because some gems, such as
  [active_model_serializers-matchers], provide matchers that share the same
  name as some of our own matchers. Now, matchers are only mixed into whichever
  example group they belong to:

    * ActiveModel and ActiveRecord matchers are available only in model example
      groups.
    * ActionController matchers are available only in controller example groups.
    * The `route` matcher is available only in routing example groups.

  ([af98a23], [8cf449b])

* There are two changes to `allow_value`:

  * The negative form of `allow_value` has been changed so that instead of
    asserting that any of the given values is an invalid value (allowing good
    values to pass through), assert that *all* values are invalid values
    (allowing good values not to pass through). This means that this test which
    formerly passed will now fail:

    ``` ruby
    expect(record).not_to allow_value('good value', *bad_values)
    ```

    ([19ce8a6])

  * `allow_value` now raises a CouldNotSetAttributeError if in setting the
    attribute, the value of the attribute from reading the attribute back is
    different from the one used to set it.

    This would happen if the writer method for that attribute has custom logic
    to ignore certain incoming values or change them in any way. Here are three
    examples we've seen:

    * You're attempting to assert that an attribute should not allow nil, yet
      the attribute's writer method contains a conditional to do nothing if
      the attribute is set to nil:

      ``` ruby
      class Foo
        include ActiveModel::Model

        attr_reader :bar

        def bar=(value)
          return if value.nil?
          @bar = value
        end
      end

      describe Foo do
        it do
          foo = Foo.new
          foo.bar = "baz"
          # This will raise a CouldNotSetAttributeError since `foo.bar` is now "123"
          expect(foo).not_to allow_value(nil).for(:bar)
        end
      end
      ```

    * You're attempting to assert that an numeric attribute should not allow a
      string that contains non-numeric characters, yet the writer method for
      that attribute strips out non-numeric characters:

      ``` ruby
      class Foo
        include ActiveModel::Model

        attr_reader :bar

        def bar=(value)
          @bar = value.gsub(/\D+/, '')
        end
      end

      describe Foo do
        it do
          foo = Foo.new
          # This will raise a CouldNotSetAttributeError since `foo.bar` is now "123"
          expect(foo).not_to allow_value("abc123").for(:bar)
        end
      end
      ```

    * You're passing a value to `allow_value` that the model typecasts into
      another value:

      ``` ruby
      describe Foo do
        # Assume that `attr` is a string
        # This will raise a CouldNotSetAttributeError since `attr` typecasts `[]` to `"[]"`
        it { should_not allow_value([]).for(:attr) }
      end
      ```

    With all of these failing examples, why are we making this change? We want
    to guard you (as the developer) from writing a test that you think acts one
    way but actually acts a different way, as this could lead to a confusing
    false positive or negative.

    If you understand the problem and wish to override this behavior so that
    you do not get a CouldNotSetAttributeError, you can add the
    `ignoring_interference_by_writer` qualifier like so. Note that this will not
    always cause the test to pass.

    ``` ruby
    it { should_not allow_value([]).for(:attr).ignoring_interference_by_writer }
    ```

    ([9d9dc4e])

* `validate_uniqueness_of` is now properly case-sensitive by default, to match
  the default behavior of the validation itself. This is a backward-incompatible
  change because this test which incorrectly passed before will now fail:

    ``` ruby
    class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
      validates_uniqueness_of :name, case_sensitive: false
    end

    describe Product do
      it { is_expected.to validate_uniqueness_of(:name) }
    end
    ```

    ([57a1922])

* `ensure_inclusion_of`, `ensure_exclusion_of`, and `ensure_length_of` have been
  removed in favor of their `validate_*` counterparts. ([55c8d09])

* `set_the_flash` and `set_session` have been changed to more closely align with
  each other:
  * `set_the_flash` has been removed in favor of `set_flash`. ([801f2c7])
  * `set_session('foo')` is no longer valid syntax, please use
    `set_session['foo']` instead. ([535fe05])
  * `set_session['key'].to(nil)` will no longer pass when the key in question
    has not been set yet. ([535fe05])

* Change `set_flash` so that `set_flash[:foo].now` is no longer valid syntax.
  You'll want to use `set_flash.now[:foo]` instead. This was changed in order to
  more closely align with how `flash.now` works when used in a controller.
  ([#755], [#752])

* Change behavior of `validate_uniqueness_of` when the matcher is not
  qualified with any scopes, but your validation is. Previously the following
  test would pass when it now fails:

  ``` ruby
  class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
    validate :slug, uniqueness: { scope: :user_id }
  end

  describe Post do
    it { should validate_uniqueness_of(:slug) }
  end
  ```

  ([6ac7b81])

[active_model_serializers-matchers]: https://github.com/adambarber/active_model_serializers-matchers
[no-auto-integration-1]: freerange/mocha@049080c
[no-auto-integration-2]: rr/rr#29
[1900071]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@1900071
[b7fe87a]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@b7fe87a
[a4045a1]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@a4045a1
[57a1922]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@57a1922
[19ce8a6]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@19c38a6
[eaaa2d8]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@eaaa2d8
[55c8d09]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@55c8d09
[801f2c7]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@801f2c7
[535fe05]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@535fe05
[6ac7b81]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@6ac7b81
[#755]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#755
[#752]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#752
[9d9dc4e]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@9d9dc4e
[32c0e62]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@32c0e62
[af98a23]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@af98a23
[8cf449b]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@8cf449b

### Bug fixes

* So far the tests for the gem have been running against only SQLite. Now they
  run against PostgreSQL, too. As a result we were able to fix some
  Postgres-related bugs, specifically around `validate_uniqueness_of`:

  * When scoped to a UUID column that ends in an "f", the matcher is able to
    generate a proper "next" value without erroring. ([#402], [#587], [#662])

  * Support scopes that are PostgreSQL array columns. Please note that this is
    only supported for Rails 4.2 and greater, as versions before this cannot
    handle array columns correctly, particularly in conjunction with the
    uniqueness validator. ([#554])

  * Fix so that when scoped to a text column and the scope is set to nil before
    running it through the matcher, the matcher does not fail. ([#521], [#607])

* Fix `define_enum_for` so that it actually tests that the attribute is present
  in the list of defined enums, as you could fool it by merely defining a class
  method that was the pluralized version of the attribute name. In the same
  vein, passing a pluralized version of the attribute name to `define_enum_for`
  would erroneously pass, and now it fails. ([#641])

* Fix `permit` so that it does not break the functionality of
  ActionController::Parameters#require. ([#648], [#675])

* Fix `validate_uniqueness_of` + `scoped_to` so that it does not raise an error
  if a record exists where the scoped attribute is nil. ([#677])

* Fix `route` matcher so if your route includes a default `format`, you can
  specify this as a symbol or string. ([#693])

* Fix `validate_uniqueness_of` so that it allows you to test against scoped
  attributes that are boolean columns. ([#457], [#694])

* Fix failure message for `validate_numericality_of` as it sometimes didn't
  provide the reason for failure. ([#699])

* Fix `shoulda/matchers/independent` so that it can be required
  independently, without having to require all of the gem. ([#746], [e0a0200])

### Features

* Add `on` qualifier to `permit`. This allows you to make an assertion that
  a restriction was placed on a slice of the `params` hash and not the entire
  `params` hash. Although we don't require you to use this qualifier, we do
  recommend it, as it's a more precise check. ([#675])

* Add `strict` qualifier to `validate_numericality_of`. ([#620])

* Add `on` qualifier to `validate_numericality_of`. ([9748869]; h/t [#356],
  [#358])

* Add `join_table` qualifier to `have_and_belong_to_many`. ([#556])

* `allow_values` is now an alias for `allow_value`. This makes more sense when
  checking against multiple values:

  ``` ruby
  it { should allow_values('this', 'and', 'that') }
  ```

  ([#692])

[9748869]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers@9748869
[#402]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#402
[#587]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#587
[#662]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#662
[#554]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#554
[#641]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#641
[#521]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#521
[#607]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#607
[#648]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#648
[#675]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#675
[#677]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#677
[#620]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#620
[#693]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#693
[#356]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#356
[#358]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#358
[#556]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#556
[#457]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#457
[#694]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#694
[#692]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#692
[#699]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#699
[#746]: thoughtbot/shoulda-matchers#746
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants