spec/spec/matchers/have_spec.rb in rspec-1.1.12 vs spec/spec/matchers/have_spec.rb in rspec-1.2.0

@@ -210,19 +210,19 @@
     #when
     length_matcher.matches?(owner)
     size_matcher.matches?(owner)
     
     #then
-    length_matcher.negative_failure_message.should == <<-EOF
+    length_matcher.failure_message_for_should_not.should == <<-EOF
 Isn't life confusing enough?
 Instead of having to figure out the meaning of this:
   should_not have_at_least(3).items_in_collection_with_length_method
 We recommend that you use this instead:
   should have_at_most(2).items_in_collection_with_length_method
 EOF
 
-    size_matcher.negative_failure_message.should == <<-EOF
+    size_matcher.failure_message_for_should_not.should == <<-EOF
 Isn't life confusing enough?
 Instead of having to figure out the meaning of this:
   should_not have_at_least(3).items_in_collection_with_size_method
 We recommend that you use this instead:
   should have_at_most(2).items_in_collection_with_size_method
@@ -264,18 +264,18 @@
     #when
     length_matcher.matches?(owner)
     size_matcher.matches?(owner)
     
     #then
-    length_matcher.negative_failure_message.should == <<-EOF
+    length_matcher.failure_message_for_should_not.should == <<-EOF
 Isn't life confusing enough?
 Instead of having to figure out the meaning of this:
   should_not have_at_most(3).items_in_collection_with_length_method
 We recommend that you use this instead:
   should have_at_least(4).items_in_collection_with_length_method
 EOF
     
-    size_matcher.negative_failure_message.should == <<-EOF
+    size_matcher.failure_message_for_should_not.should == <<-EOF
 Isn't life confusing enough?
 Instead of having to figure out the meaning of this:
   should_not have_at_most(3).items_in_collection_with_size_method
 We recommend that you use this instead:
   should have_at_least(4).items_in_collection_with_size_method