4 ms·

Still works[0], I just had to rename mymethod to the tested method. Pretty poor show from CW. [0] - http://imgur.com/a/QC1gf http://imgur.com/a/QC1gf

• jlebrech 9y ago
  they could just use a different interpreter, i.e disable some monkeypatching.
  • whyever 9y ago
    They could just add a test that makes sure trivial comparisons still work.
    • jlebrech 9y ago
      sure that would work too :)
      • bialpio 9y ago
        So is there no way to check the call stack and only "tweak" the result if you are being called from the verifier? Or only return "true" on the 2nd call to the comparison? Just some random ideas.
  • sleepychu 9y ago
    you mean sandbox the interpreter that the kata runs in? Extract the value and then de-serialise it for an equality check in another instance of the interpreter?
  • masklinn 9y ago
    I'm not sure disabling monkeypatching would suffice, couldn't you then just create your own type equal to everything and return that? I assume assert_equal just does `a == b` internally so `a` could be an AlwaysEqual instance rather than a monkeypatched nil. A more sensible alternative would probably be to serialise the assert_equal parameters and check the results externally. Adding negative tests (using `not a == b` to avoid the same monkeypatching of !=) would also help