Browse files

Merge pull request #482 from adamlogic/readme_fix

Remove statement about should_not have vs should have_no
  • Loading branch information...
2 parents ec94dd9 + b5c20fb commit 1b6dca33d4f8f54d35c7585d0d340f3e75c76300 @jnicklas jnicklas committed Sep 9, 2011
Showing with 10 additions and 5 deletions.
  1. +10 −5 README.rdoc
@@ -498,14 +498,19 @@ is (the default is 2 seconds):
Be aware that because of this behaviour, the following two statements are *not*
equivalent, and you should *always* use the latter!
+ !page.has_xpath?('a')
+ page.has_no_xpath?('a')
+The former would immediately fail because the content has not yet been removed.
+Only the latter would wait for the asynchronous process to remove the content
+from the page.
+Capybara's Rspec matchers, however, are smart enough to handle either form.
+The two following statements are functionally equivalent:
page.should_not have_xpath('a')
page.should have_no_xpath('a')
-The former would incorrectly wait for the content to appear, since the
-asynchronous process has not yet removed the element from the page, it would
-therefore fail, even though the code might be working correctly. The latter
-correctly waits for the element to disappear from the page.
Capybara's waiting behaviour is quite advanced, and can deal with situations
such as the following line of code:

0 comments on commit 1b6dca3

Please sign in to comment.