resque-pool 0.3.0.beta.2 → 0.3.0

data/vendor/bundle/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-expectations-2.9.1/features/built_in_matchers/have.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+Feature: have(n).items matcher
+
+  RSpec provides several matchers that make it easy to set expectations about the
+  size of a collection.  There are three basic forms:
+
+    * collection.should have(x).items
+    * collection.should have\_at\_least(x).items
+    * collection.should have\_at\_most(x).items
+
+  In addition, #have_exactly is provided as an alias to #have.
+
+  These work on any collection-like object--the object just needs to respond to #size
+  or #length (or both).  When the matcher is called directly on a collection object,
+  the #items call is pure syntactic sugar.  You can use anything you want here.  These
+  are equivalent:
+
+    * collection.should have(x).items
+    * collection.should have(x).things
+
+  You can also use this matcher on a non-collection object that returns a collection
+  from one of its methods.  For example, Dir#entries returns an array, so you could
+  set an expectation using the following:
+
+    Dir.new("my/directory").should have(7).entries
+
+  Scenario: have(x).items on a collection
+    Given a file named "have_items_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe [1, 2, 3] do
+        it { should have(3).items }
+        it { should_not have(2).items }
+        it { should_not have(4).items }
+
+        it { should have_exactly(3).items }
+        it { should_not have_exactly(2).items }
+        it { should_not have_exactly(4).items }
+
+        it { should have_at_least(2).items }
+        it { should have_at_most(4).items }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should_not have(3).items }
+        it { should have(2).items }
+        it { should have(4).items }
+
+        it { should_not have_exactly(3).items }
+        it { should have_exactly(2).items }
+        it { should have_exactly(4).items }
+
+        it { should have_at_least(4).items }
+        it { should have_at_most(2).items }
+      end
+      """
+     When I run `rspec have_items_spec.rb`
+     Then the output should contain "16 examples, 8 failures"
+      And the output should contain "expected target not to have 3 items, got 3"
+      And the output should contain "expected 2 items, got 3"
+      And the output should contain "expected 4 items, got 3"
+      And the output should contain "expected at least 4 items, got 3"
+      And the output should contain "expected at most 2 items, got 3"
+
+  Scenario: have(x).words on a String when String#words is defined
+    Given a file named "have_words_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      class String
+        def words
+          split(' ')
+        end
+      end
+
+      describe "a sentence with some words" do
+        it { should have(5).words }
+        it { should_not have(4).words }
+        it { should_not have(6).words }
+
+        it { should have_exactly(5).words }
+        it { should_not have_exactly(4).words }
+        it { should_not have_exactly(6).words }
+
+        it { should have_at_least(4).words }
+        it { should have_at_most(6).words }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should_not have(5).words }
+        it { should have(4).words }
+        it { should have(6).words }
+
+        it { should_not have_exactly(5).words }
+        it { should have_exactly(4).words }
+        it { should have_exactly(6).words }
+
+        it { should have_at_least(6).words }
+        it { should have_at_most(4).words }
+      end
+      """
+     When I run `rspec have_words_spec.rb`
+     Then the output should contain "16 examples, 8 failures"
+      And the output should contain "expected target not to have 5 words, got 5"
+      And the output should contain "expected 4 words, got 5"
+      And the output should contain "expected 6 words, got 5"
+      And the output should contain "expected at least 6 words, got 5"
+      And the output should contain "expected at most 4 words, got 5"
+

data/vendor/bundle/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-expectations-2.9.1/features/built_in_matchers/include.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+Feature: include matcher
+
+  Use the include matcher to specify that a collection includes one or more
+  expected objects.  This works on any object that responds to #include?  (such
+  as a string or array):
+
+    "a string".should include("a")
+    "a string".should include("str")
+    "a string".should include("str", "g")
+    "a string".should_not include("foo")
+
+    [1, 2].should include(1)
+    [1, 2].should include(1, 2)
+    [1, 2].should_not include(17)
+
+  The matcher also provides flexible handling for hashes:
+
+    {:a => 1, :b => 2}.should include(:a)
+    {:a => 1, :b => 2}.should include(:a, :b)
+    {:a => 1, :b => 2}.should include(:a => 1)
+    {:a => 1, :b => 2}.should include(:b => 2, :a => 1)
+    {:a => 1, :b => 2}.should_not include(:c)
+    {:a => 1, :b => 2}.should_not include(:a => 2)
+    {:a => 1, :b => 2}.should_not include(:c => 3)
+
+  Scenario: array usage
+    Given a file named "array_include_matcher_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe [1, 3, 7] do
+        it { should include(1) }
+        it { should include(3) }
+        it { should include(7) }
+        it { should include(1, 7) }
+        it { should include(1, 3, 7) }
+        it { should_not include(17) }
+        it { should_not include(43, 100) }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should include(4) }
+        it { should_not include(1) }
+        it { should_not include(3) }
+        it { should_not include(7) }
+        it { should_not include(1, 3, 7) }
+
+        # both of these should fail since it includes 1 but not 9
+        it { should include(1, 9) }
+        it { should_not include(1, 9) }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec array_include_matcher_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 14 examples, 7 failures                       |
+      | expected [1, 3, 7] to include 4               |
+      | expected [1, 3, 7] not to include 1           |
+      | expected [1, 3, 7] not to include 3           |
+      | expected [1, 3, 7] not to include 7           |
+      | expected [1, 3, 7] not to include 1, 3, and 7 |
+      | expected [1, 3, 7] to include 1 and 9         |
+      | expected [1, 3, 7] not to include 1 and 9     |
+
+  Scenario: string usage
+    Given a file named "string_include_matcher_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe "a string" do
+        it { should include("str") }
+        it { should include("a", "str", "ng") }
+        it { should_not include("foo") }
+        it { should_not include("foo", "bar") }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should include("foo") }
+        it { should_not include("str") }
+        it { should include("str", "foo") }
+        it { should_not include("str", "foo") }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec string_include_matcher_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 8 examples, 4 failures                             |
+      | expected "a string" to include "foo"               |
+      | expected "a string" not to include "str"           |
+      | expected "a string" to include "str" and "foo"     |
+      | expected "a string" not to include "str" and "foo" |
+
+  Scenario: hash usage
+    Given a file named "hash_include_matcher_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe Hash do
+        subject { { :a => 7, :b => 5 } }
+
+        it { should include(:a) }
+        it { should include(:b, :a) }
+        it { should include(:a => 7) }
+        it { should include(:b => 5, :a => 7) }
+        it { should_not include(:c) }
+        it { should_not include(:c, :d) }
+        it { should_not include(:d => 2) }
+        it { should_not include(:a => 5) }
+        it { should_not include(:b => 7, :a => 5) }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should_not include(:a) }
+        it { should_not include(:b, :a) }
+        it { should_not include(:a => 7) }
+        it { should_not include(:a => 7, :b => 5) }
+        it { should include(:c) }
+        it { should include(:c, :d) }
+        it { should include(:d => 2) }
+        it { should include(:a => 5) }
+        it { should include(:a => 5, :b => 7) }
+
+        # Mixed cases--the hash includes one but not the other.
+        # All 4 of these cases should fail.
+        it { should include(:a, :d) }
+        it { should_not include(:a, :d) }
+        it { should include(:a => 7, :d => 3) }
+        it { should_not include(:a => 7, :d => 3) }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec hash_include_matcher_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain "13 failure"

data/vendor/bundle/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-expectations-2.9.1/features/built_in_matchers/match.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+Feature: match matcher
+
+  The match matcher calls #match on the object, passing if #match returns a
+  truthy (not false or nil) value.  Regexp and String both provide a #match
+  method.
+
+    "a string".should match(/str/) # passes
+    "a string".should match(/foo/) # fails
+    /foo/.should match("food")     # passes
+    /foo/.should match("drinks")   # fails
+
+  This is equivalent to using the =~ matcher (see the operator matchers
+  feature for more details).
+
+  Scenario: string usage
+    Given a file named "string_match_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe "a string" do
+        it { should match(/str/) }
+        it { should_not match(/foo/) }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should_not match(/str/) }
+        it { should match(/foo/) }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec string_match_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 4 examples, 2 failures                 |
+      | expected "a string" not to match /str/ |
+      | expected "a string" to match /foo/     |
+
+  Scenario: regular expression usage
+    Given a file named "regexp_match_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe /foo/ do
+        it { should match("food") }
+        it { should_not match("drinks") }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should_not match("food") }
+        it { should match("drinks") }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec regexp_match_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 4 examples, 2 failures             |
+      | expected /foo/ not to match "food" |
+      | expected /foo/ to match "drinks"   |
+

data/vendor/bundle/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-expectations-2.9.1/features/built_in_matchers/operators.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
+Feature: operator matchers
+
+  RSpec provides a number of matchers that are based on Ruby's built-in
+  operators. These pretty much work like you expect. For example, each of these
+  pass:
+
+      7.should == 7
+      [1, 2, 3].should == [1, 2, 3]
+      "this is a string".should =~ /^this/
+      "this is a string".should_not =~ /^that/
+      String.should === "this is a string"
+
+  You can also use comparison operators combined with the "be" matcher like
+  this:
+
+      37.should be < 100
+      37.should be <= 38
+      37.should be >= 2
+      37.should be > 7
+
+  RSpec also provides a `=~` matcher for arrays that disregards differences in
+  the ording between the actual and expected array.  For example:
+
+      [1, 2, 3].should =~ [2, 3, 1] # pass
+      [:a, :c, :b].should =~ [:a, :c] # fail
+
+  Scenario: numeric operator matchers
+    Given a file named "numeric_operator_matchers_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe 18 do
+        it { should == 18 }
+        it { should be < 20 }
+        it { should be > 15 }
+        it { should be <= 19 }
+        it { should be >= 17 }
+
+        it { should_not == 28 }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should == 28 }
+        it { should be < 15 }
+        it { should be > 20 }
+        it { should be <= 17 }
+        it { should be >= 19 }
+
+        it { should_not == 18 }
+      end
+      """
+     When I run `rspec numeric_operator_matchers_spec.rb`
+     Then the output should contain "12 examples, 6 failures"
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should == 28 }
+             expected: 28
+                  got: 18 (using ==)
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should be < 15 }
+             expected: < 15
+                  got:   18
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should be > 20 }
+             expected: > 20
+                  got:   18
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should be <= 17 }
+             expected: <= 17
+                  got:    18
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should be >= 19 }
+             expected: >= 19
+                  got:    18
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should_not == 18 }
+             expected not: == 18
+                      got:    18
+      """
+
+  Scenario: string operator matchers
+    Given a file named "string_operator_matchers_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe "Strawberry" do
+        it { should == "Strawberry" }
+        it { should be < "Tomato" }
+        it { should be > "Apple" }
+        it { should be <= "Turnip" }
+        it { should be >= "Banana" }
+        it { should =~ /berry/ }
+
+        it { should_not == "Peach" }
+        it { should_not =~ /apple/ }
+
+        it "reports that it is a string using ===" do
+          String.should === subject
+        end
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should == "Peach" }
+        it { should be < "Cranberry" }
+        it { should be > "Zuchini" }
+        it { should be <= "Potato" }
+        it { should be >= "Tomato" }
+        it { should =~ /apple/ }
+
+        it { should_not == "Strawberry" }
+        it { should_not =~ /berry/ }
+
+        it "fails a spec asserting that it is a symbol" do
+          Symbol.should === subject
+        end
+      end
+      """
+     When I run `rspec string_operator_matchers_spec.rb`
+     Then the output should contain "18 examples, 9 failures"
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should == "Peach" }
+             expected: "Peach"
+                  got: "Strawberry" (using ==)
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should be < "Cranberry" }
+             expected: < "Cranberry"
+                  got:   "Strawberry"
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should be > "Zuchini" }
+             expected: > "Zuchini"
+                  got:   "Strawberry"
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should be <= "Potato" }
+             expected: <= "Potato"
+                  got:    "Strawberry"
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should be >= "Tomato" }
+             expected: >= "Tomato"
+                  got:    "Strawberry"
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should =~ /apple/ }
+             expected: /apple/
+                  got: "Strawberry" (using =~)
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should_not == "Strawberry" }
+             expected not: == "Strawberry"
+                      got:    "Strawberry"
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should_not =~ /berry/ }
+             expected not: =~ /berry/
+                      got:    "Strawberry"
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: Symbol.should === subject
+             expected: "Strawberry"
+                  got: Symbol (using ===)
+      """
+
+  Scenario: array operator matchers
+    Given a file named "array_operator_matchers_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe [1, 2, 3] do
+        it { should == [1, 2, 3] }
+        it { should_not == [1, 3, 2] }
+
+        it { should =~ [1, 2, 3] }
+        it { should =~ [1, 3, 2] }
+        it { should =~ [2, 1, 3] }
+        it { should =~ [2, 3, 1] }
+        it { should =~ [3, 1, 2] }
+        it { should =~ [3, 2, 1] }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should_not == [1, 2, 3] }
+        it { should == [1, 3, 2] }
+        it { should =~ [1, 2, 1] }
+      end
+      """
+     When I run `rspec array_operator_matchers_spec.rb`
+     Then the output should contain "11 examples, 3 failures"
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should_not == [1, 2, 3] }
+             expected not: == [1, 2, 3]
+                      got:    [1, 2, 3]
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should == [1, 3, 2] }
+             expected: [1, 3, 2]
+                  got: [1, 2, 3] (using ==)
+      """
+      And the output should contain:
+      """
+           Failure/Error: it { should =~ [1, 2, 1] }
+             expected collection contained:  [1, 1, 2]
+             actual collection contained:    [1, 2, 3]
+             the missing elements were:      [1]
+             the extra elements were:        [3]
+      """
+

data/vendor/bundle/ruby/1.8/gems/rspec-expectations-2.9.1/features/built_in_matchers/predicates.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+Feature: predicate matchers
+
+  Ruby objects commonly provide predicate methods:
+
+      7.zero?                  # => false
+      0.zero?                  # => true
+      [1].empty?               # => false
+      [].empty?                # => true
+      { :a => 5 }.has_key?(:b) # => false
+      { :b => 5 }.has_key?(:b) # => true
+
+  You could use a basic equality matcher to set expectations on these:
+
+      7.zero?.should == true # fails with "expected true, got false (using ==)"
+
+  ...but RSpec provides dynamic predicate matchers that are more readable and
+  provide better failure output.
+
+  For any predicate method, RSpec gives you a corresponding matcher.  Simply
+  prefix the method with "be_" and remove the question mark.  Examples:
+
+      7.should_not be_zero       # calls 7.zero?
+      [].should be_empty         # calls [].empty?
+      x.should be_multiple_of(3) # calls x.multiple_of?(3)
+
+  Alternately, for a predicate method that begins with "has_" like Hash#has_key?,
+  RSpec allows you to use an alternate form since "be_has_key" makes no sense.
+
+      hash.should have_key(:foo)       # calls hash.has_key?(:foo)
+      array.should_not have_odd_values # calls array.has_odd_values?
+
+  In either case, RSpec provides nice, clear error messages, such as:
+
+      expected zero? to return true, got false
+
+  Any arguments passed to the matcher will be passed on to the predicate method.
+
+  Scenario: should be_zero (based on Fixnum#zero?)
+    Given a file named "should_be_zero_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe 0 do
+        it { should be_zero }
+      end
+
+      describe 7 do
+        it { should be_zero } # deliberate failure
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec should_be_zero_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain "2 examples, 1 failure"
+     And the output should contain "expected zero? to return true, got false"
+
+  Scenario: should_not be_empty (based on Array#empty?)
+    Given a file named "should_not_be_empty_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe [1, 2, 3] do
+        it { should_not be_empty }
+      end
+
+      describe [] do
+        it { should_not be_empty } # deliberate failure
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec should_not_be_empty_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain "2 examples, 1 failure"
+     And the output should contain "expected empty? to return false, got true"
+
+   Scenario: should have_key (based on Hash#has_key?)
+    Given a file named "should_have_key_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe Hash do
+        subject { { :foo => 7 } }
+        it { should have_key(:foo) }
+        it { should have_key(:bar) } # deliberate failure
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec should_have_key_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain "2 examples, 1 failure"
+     And the output should contain "expected #has_key?(:bar) to return true, got false"
+
+   Scenario: should_not have_all_string_keys (based on custom #has_all_string_keys? method)
+     Given a file named "should_not_have_all_string_keys_spec.rb" with:
+       """
+       class Hash
+         def has_all_string_keys?
+           keys.all? { |k| String === k }
+         end
+       end
+
+       describe Hash do
+         context 'with symbol keys' do
+           subject { { :foo => 7, :bar => 5 } }
+           it { should_not have_all_string_keys }
+         end
+
+         context 'with string keys' do
+           subject { { 'foo' => 7, 'bar' => 5 } }
+           it { should_not have_all_string_keys } # deliberate failure
+         end
+       end
+       """
+     When I run `rspec should_not_have_all_string_keys_spec.rb`
+     Then the output should contain "2 examples, 1 failure"
+      And the output should contain "expected #has_all_string_keys? to return false, got true"
+
+   Scenario: matcher arguments are passed on to the predicate method
+     Given a file named "predicate_matcher_argument_spec.rb" with:
+       """
+       class Fixnum
+         def multiple_of?(x)
+           (self % x).zero?
+         end
+       end
+
+       describe 12 do
+         it { should be_multiple_of(3) }
+         it { should_not be_multiple_of(7) }
+
+         # deliberate failures
+         it { should_not be_multiple_of(4) }
+         it { should be_multiple_of(5) }
+       end
+       """
+     When I run `rspec predicate_matcher_argument_spec.rb`
+     Then the output should contain "4 examples, 2 failures"
+      And the output should contain "expected multiple_of?(4) to return false, got true"
+      And the output should contain "expected multiple_of?(5) to return true, got false"
+