From e608340b6ea4aa8ffb6cda370c73d69840c57a6a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Adam McCrea Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 23:38:08 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Remove statement about should_not have vs should have_no This statement may have been true in the past, but now the two statements are functionally equivalent. --- README.rdoc | 11 ----------- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.rdoc b/README.rdoc index 3f9be373..1e271fe5 100644 --- a/README.rdoc +++ b/README.rdoc @@ -495,17 +495,6 @@ 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.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: