Prepare for RSpec 3.x

[petergoldstein]

1. Changed to RSpec expect syntax.
2. Replaced 'be_true' and 'be_false' matchers with 'be true' and 'be false'

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.01%) when pulling 602dd7c on petergoldstein:feature/prepare_for_rspec_3 into 36c6a49 on floere:master.

[floere]

Hi Peter!

Thanks for the PR. Some issues:

• Your global search and replace seems to have matched too many instances.
• be_true and be_false have been replaced with be_truthy and be_falsy (see Consider renaming be_true and be_false to be_truthy and be_falsey rspec/rspec-expectations#283).

Cheers!

[petergoldstein]

Hi @floere

1. I'm not certain what you mean when you say that my search and replace seems to have matched too many instances. Can you provide some examples?
2. Regarding the matchers, be true and be false are specifically not equivalent to be_truthy and be_falsy. As discussed in the linked issue, this was the whole point of renaming be_true andbe_false` in the first place, to address this ambiguity.

Phony.plausible? and other methods under test are specifically intended to return boolean values, which means that using be true and be false is the more restrictive and correct test. For example, if this method suddenly started returning 7 and nil for previously true and false return values, I'd consider this a bug. And accordingly it would fail the specs in this PR. If, however, I had used be_truthy and be_falsy then the specs would not fail under this changed behavior. So in my view the correct specs will not use the be_truthy and be_falsy matchers

[petergoldstein]

@floere Ok. Give me a few minutes to rebase and get your latest changes, then I'll push updated code.

[floere]

Thank you very much!

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same when pulling 9f00482 on petergoldstein:feature/prepare_for_rspec_3 into 7eef1fa on floere:master.

[petergoldstein]

@floere Not sure how you're feeling about the be true/be false based on my reply above. For the reasons described there I left in be true and be false in preference to using be_truthy and be_falsy

[floere]

@petergoldstein No worries. I extremely rarely explicitly test for true/false since return values of ? methods in Ruby only need to evaluate true or false, as they are not supposed to be used any other way (imho – I can't find a reference for it currently). But give me a day to get used to it, and also the hard to digest expect syntax (more parentheses, thing under test not leftmost and tests thus easily scannable) – yes, I am a bit picky ;)

[petergoldstein]

@floere I have to admit I'm not exactly nuts about the changed syntax, although the underlying motivation to keep Object clean makes sense. Anyway, sit on it for a day or two and let me know if you want to discuss any changes. Thanks.

[floere]

@petergoldstein Thanks for your understanding ;)

[petergoldstein]

Rebased for recent changes. Updated newly added specs to expect syntax.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.04%) when pulling aad15bb on petergoldstein:feature/prepare_for_rspec_3 into e795779 on floere:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.04%) when pulling 2050016 on petergoldstein:feature/prepare_for_rspec_3 into f408df6 on floere:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.0%) when pulling 0f5c750 on petergoldstein:feature/prepare_for_rspec_3 into 5a931cd on floere:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.04%) when pulling 9f8cf66 on petergoldstein:feature/prepare_for_rspec_3 into c492738 on floere:master.

[petergoldstein]

@floere Let me know what you're thinking here. I've rebased to latest changes, so this is ready for merge. But if you're not planning to merge it in, I'd prefer to just close it at this point.

[floere]

Hi @petergoldstein,

First of all, let me say that I am terribly sorry for not deciding earlier. That was careless and not very respectful of your time!
After good experiences with bacon, I am strongly considering switching to that test framework. I do prefer leaner libraries. So sadly, I'll have to close this pull request, but let me say that I really appreciate your work and moving it with master, which is why I added you under contributors, here: https://github.com/floere/phony/wiki.
I hope to be able to shout (unsure what the American equivalent would be here) you a beer some time in the future!

All the best,
Florian

[petergoldstein]

Hey @floere,

No worries. I look forward to getting that beer with you sometime.

Best,

Peter

[floere]

Great, and likewise! All the best :)