-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
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
Add handling for Range
s
#267
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is awesome, thanks @lucaseras !
On second thought, let's skip attempting to diff Range objects. As the test files show, because the diff is just (- expected) (+ actual), I don't think it adds any clarity to the failure message beyond what the inspection results already show.
The InspectionTreeBuilder
is great and makes the output way more useful:
1) blah blah
Failure/Error: expect(r1).to eq(r2)
- Expected #<Range:0x0000000100de8a18> to eq #<Range:0x0000000100de89f0>.
+ Expected 1..2 to eq 2..3.
@@ -10,15 +10,19 @@ module InspectionTreeBuilders | |||
:DataObject, | |||
"super_diff/basic/inspection_tree_builders/data_object" | |||
) | |||
autoload :DateLike, "super_diff/basic/inspection_tree_builders/date_like" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
Oh, and don't forget to add a CHANGELOG entry. |
d8e7cd0
to
01729cc
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me besides the leftover OperationTreeBuilder autoload. I'll tack on a commit to remove that.
Thanks!
9727816
to
ee3bda4
Compare
Fix for #154