Skip to content
This repository
Browse code

more doc tweaks

  • Loading branch information...
commit d3f5e0bec96ea86cea66eee09aedbd12dde1bed0 1 parent 62eed8c
David Chelimsky dchelimsky authored

Showing 1 changed file with 9 additions and 8 deletions. Show diff stats Hide diff stats

  1. +9 8 features/Upgrade.md
17 features/Upgrade.md
Source Rendered
@@ -85,19 +85,20 @@ that is the subject of a view example:
85 85
86 86 stub_template "widgets/_widget.html.erb" => "This Content"
87 87
88   -### No more `have_tag`
  88 +### No more `have_tag` or `have_text`
89 89
90   -Before Webrat came along, rspec-rails had its own `have_tag` matcher that
91   -wrapped Rails' `assert_select`. Webrat included a replacement for `have_tag` as
92   -well as new matchers (`have_selector` and `have_xpath`), all of which rely on
93   -Nokogiri to do its work, and are far less brittle than RSpec's `have_tag`.
  90 +Before Webrat came along, rspec-rails had its own `have_tag` and `have_text`
  91 +matchers that wrapped Rails' `assert_select`. Webrat included replacement for
  92 +these methods, as well as new matchers (`have_selector` and `have_xpath`), all
  93 +of which rely on Nokogiri to do its work, and are far less brittle than RSpec's
  94 +`have_tag`.
94 95
95 96 Capybara has similar matchers, which will soon be available view specs (they
96 97 are already available in controller specs with `render_views`).
97 98
98   -Given the brittleness of RSpec's `have_tag` matcher and the presence of new
99   -Webrat and Capybara matchers that do a better job, `have_tag` was not included
100   -in rspec-rails-2.
  99 +Given the brittleness of RSpec's `have_tag` and `have_text` matchers and the
  100 +presence of new Webrat and Capybara matchers that do a better job, `have_tag`
  101 +and `have_text` were not included in rspec-rails-2.
101 102
102 103 ## Mocks, stubs, doubles
103 104

0 comments on commit d3f5e0b

Please sign in to comment.
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.