Fix a false positive for RSpec/PredicateMatcher when multiple arguments and not replaceable method

[ydah]

This PR is fix a false positive for RSpec/PredicateMatcher when multiple arguments and not replaceable method.

following code:

expect(foo).to include(foo, bar)

RSpec/PredicateMatcher autocorrects it as follows:

expect(foo.include?(foo, bar)).to be(true)

However, this is a SyntaxError.

ArgumentError:
       wrong number of arguments (given 2, expected 1)

---

Before submitting the PR make sure the following are checked:

• Feature branch is up-to-date with master (if not - rebase it).
• Squashed related commits together.
• Added tests.
• [-] Updated documentation.
• Added an entry to the CHANGELOG.md if the new code introduces user-observable changes.
• The build (bundle exec rake) passes (be sure to run this locally, since it may produce updated documentation that you will need to commit).

[tiagotex]

I've just downloaded the latest version and am using the following config:

RSpec/PredicateMatcher:
  Strict: true
  EnforcedStyle: explicit

It now corrects all occurrences of predicate matcher include to be similar to expect(foo.include?("bar")).to be(true), but in the case of include we would want to skip the checks for this cop. Would you be open to a PR allowing users to define ignored predicates for RSpec/PredicateMatcher?

[bquorning]

FYI I intend to do a v2.17.1 release when this and #1555 is merged. Followed by a v2.18.0 release with the extraction of Capybara cops (#1519).

[bquorning]

@pirj, @Darhazer Is this PR ok to merge?

[Darhazer]

We don't have a test case with zero arguments, do we?

[bquorning]

I thought the same thing. Also, which implementation of include takes zero arguments?

[pirj]

Suggested change

	matcher.arguments.count <= 1
	matcher.arguments.one?

May be just this if there are no cases where it's used with no arguments. And include does not accept a block, so expect(foo).to include is nonsense and is probably worth a cop if anyone have seen this in practice, or there are offenders in real-world apps open source code.

[pirj]

Thank you, @ydah !

[bquorning]

Actually this PR conflicts with 3 spec examples from #1555:

rubocop-rspec/spec/rubocop/cop/rspec/predicate_matcher_spec.rb

Lines 354 to 358 in 3a31ab1

	expect(foo)
	^^^^^^^^^^^ Prefer using `include?` over `include` matcher.
	.to include(bar, <<~TEXT, 'baz')
	bar
	TEXT

,

rubocop-rspec/spec/rubocop/cop/rspec/predicate_matcher_spec.rb

Lines 373 to 377 in 3a31ab1

	expect(foo)
	^^^^^^^^^^^ Prefer using `include?` over `include` matcher.
	.to include(bar, <<~TEXT, 'baz')
	#{bar}
	TEXT

and

rubocop-rspec/spec/rubocop/cop/rspec/predicate_matcher_spec.rb

Lines 392 to 396 in 3a31ab1

	expect(foo)
	^^^^^^^^^^^ Prefer using `include?` over `include` matcher.
	.to include(bar, <<~COMMAND, 'baz')
	pwd
	COMMAND

[ydah]

Sorry for the late reply. I updated this PR.