There are some articles (e.g. [1]) regarding solving flaky acceptance tests when using Capybara which advocates using e.g.
.to have_text("foo")
instead of
.to eql("foo")
In one of my tests I have .to match(/foo/) and every once in a while this fails. I assume that the match matcher is not in the same category as e.g. the have_text matcher and doesn't wait. The documentation doesn't mention anything regarding this.
Is there any regex matcher so that I can check e.g.
expect(next_url).to match(/foo/)
?
Versions used (not changeable):
capybara: 2.7.x
spec-rails: 3.6.x
[1] https://www.urbanbound.com/make/fix-flaky-feature-tests-by-using-capybaras-apis-properly
The docs for have_text link to the assert_text docs - https://www.rubydoc.info/gems/capybara/Capybara/Node/Matchers#assert_text-instance_method which show that it takes either a string
expect(page).to have_text('Something')
or a Regexp
expect(page).to have_text(/foo/)
As the article you linked to implies, if you find yourself using any non capybara provided matcher with information returned from Capybara you're probably doing something wrong, and setting yourself up for flaky tests.