From b5c20fb6a6cba5760760da240443a8216426b053 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam McCrea Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:07:52 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] More clarification in the README --- README.rdoc | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) diff --git a/README.rdoc b/README.rdoc index 1e271fe5..5a194f82 100644 --- a/README.rdoc +++ b/README.rdoc @@ -495,6 +495,22 @@ is (the default is 2 seconds): Capybara.default_wait_time = 5 +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') + Capybara's waiting behaviour is quite advanced, and can deal with situations such as the following line of code: