lib/pundit/matchers.rb in pundit-matchers-1.6.0 vs lib/pundit/matchers.rb in pundit-matchers-1.7.0

@@ -41,11 +41,12 @@
                 .inspect + '.'
       end
     end
   end
 
-  RSpec::Matchers.define :forbid_actions do |actions|
+  RSpec::Matchers.define :forbid_actions do |*actions|
+    actions.flatten!
     match do |policy|
       return false if actions.count < 1
       @allowed_actions = actions.select do |action|
         policy.public_send("#{action}?")
       end
@@ -202,16 +203,37 @@
         policy.public_send(Pundit::Matchers.configuration.user_alias)
               .inspect + '.'
     end
   end
 
-  RSpec::Matchers.define :permit_actions do |actions|
+  RSpec::Matchers.define :permit_actions do |*actions|
+    actions.flatten!
     match do |policy|
       return false if actions.count < 1
       @forbidden_actions = actions.reject do |action|
         policy.public_send("#{action}?")
       end
       @forbidden_actions.empty?
+    end
+
+    match_when_negated do |policy|
+      ::Kernel.warn 'Using expect { }.not_to permit_actions could produce \
+        confusing results. Please use `.to forbid_actions` instead. To \
+        clarify, `.not_to permit_actions` will look at all of the actions and \
+        checks if ANY actions fail, not if all actions fail. Therefore, you \
+        could result in something like this: \
+
+        it { is_expected.to permit_actions([:new, :create, :edit]) } \
+        it { is_expected.not_to permit_actions([:edit, :destroy]) } \
+
+        In this case, edit would be true and destroy would be false, but both \
+        tests would pass.'
+
+      return true if actions.count < 1
+      @forbidden_actions = actions.reject do |action|
+        policy.public_send("#{action}?")
+      end
+      !@forbidden_actions.empty?
     end
 
     attr_reader :forbidden_actions
 
     zero_actions_failure_message = 'At least one action must be specified ' \