gem_repackager 0.1.0

data/support/gems/rspec-expectations-2.11.2/features/built_in_matchers/predicates.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+Feature: predicate matchers
+
+  Ruby objects commonly provide predicate methods:
+
+      7.zero?                  # => false
+      0.zero?                  # => true
+      [1].empty?               # => false
+      [].empty?                # => true
+      { :a => 5 }.has_key?(:b) # => false
+      { :b => 5 }.has_key?(:b) # => true
+
+  You could use a basic equality matcher to set expectations on these:
+
+      7.zero?.should == true # fails with "expected true, got false (using ==)"
+
+  ...but RSpec provides dynamic predicate matchers that are more readable and
+  provide better failure output.
+
+  For any predicate method, RSpec gives you a corresponding matcher.  Simply
+  prefix the method with "be_" and remove the question mark.  Examples:
+
+      7.should_not be_zero       # calls 7.zero?
+      [].should be_empty         # calls [].empty?
+      x.should be_multiple_of(3) # calls x.multiple_of?(3)
+
+  Alternately, for a predicate method that begins with "has_" like Hash#has_key?,
+  RSpec allows you to use an alternate form since "be_has_key" makes no sense.
+
+      hash.should have_key(:foo)       # calls hash.has_key?(:foo)
+      array.should_not have_odd_values # calls array.has_odd_values?
+
+  In either case, RSpec provides nice, clear error messages, such as:
+
+      expected zero? to return true, got false
+
+  Any arguments passed to the matcher will be passed on to the predicate method.
+
+  Scenario: should be_zero (based on Fixnum#zero?)
+    Given a file named "should_be_zero_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe 0 do
+        it { should be_zero }
+      end
+
+      describe 7 do
+        it { should be_zero } # deliberate failure
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec should_be_zero_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain "2 examples, 1 failure"
+     And the output should contain "expected zero? to return true, got false"
+
+  Scenario: should_not be_empty (based on Array#empty?)
+    Given a file named "should_not_be_empty_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe [1, 2, 3] do
+        it { should_not be_empty }
+      end
+
+      describe [] do
+        it { should_not be_empty } # deliberate failure
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec should_not_be_empty_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain "2 examples, 1 failure"
+     And the output should contain "expected empty? to return false, got true"
+
+   Scenario: should have_key (based on Hash#has_key?)
+    Given a file named "should_have_key_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe Hash do
+        subject { { :foo => 7 } }
+        it { should have_key(:foo) }
+        it { should have_key(:bar) } # deliberate failure
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec should_have_key_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain "2 examples, 1 failure"
+     And the output should contain "expected #has_key?(:bar) to return true, got false"
+
+   Scenario: should_not have_all_string_keys (based on custom #has_all_string_keys? method)
+     Given a file named "should_not_have_all_string_keys_spec.rb" with:
+       """
+       class Hash
+         def has_all_string_keys?
+           keys.all? { |k| String === k }
+         end
+       end
+
+       describe Hash do
+         context 'with symbol keys' do
+           subject { { :foo => 7, :bar => 5 } }
+           it { should_not have_all_string_keys }
+         end
+
+         context 'with string keys' do
+           subject { { 'foo' => 7, 'bar' => 5 } }
+           it { should_not have_all_string_keys } # deliberate failure
+         end
+       end
+       """
+     When I run `rspec should_not_have_all_string_keys_spec.rb`
+     Then the output should contain "2 examples, 1 failure"
+      And the output should contain "expected #has_all_string_keys? to return false, got true"
+
+   Scenario: matcher arguments are passed on to the predicate method
+     Given a file named "predicate_matcher_argument_spec.rb" with:
+       """
+       class Fixnum
+         def multiple_of?(x)
+           (self % x).zero?
+         end
+       end
+
+       describe 12 do
+         it { should be_multiple_of(3) }
+         it { should_not be_multiple_of(7) }
+
+         # deliberate failures
+         it { should_not be_multiple_of(4) }
+         it { should be_multiple_of(5) }
+       end
+       """
+     When I run `rspec predicate_matcher_argument_spec.rb`
+     Then the output should contain "4 examples, 2 failures"
+      And the output should contain "expected multiple_of?(4) to return false, got true"
+      And the output should contain "expected multiple_of?(5) to return true, got false"
+

data/support/gems/rspec-expectations-2.11.2/features/built_in_matchers/respond_to.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+Feature: respond_to matcher
+
+  Use the respond_to matcher to specify details of an object's interface.  In
+  its most basic form:
+
+    obj.should respond_to(:foo) # pass if obj.respond_to?(:foo)
+
+  You can specify that an object responds to multiple messages in a single
+  statement with multiple arguments passed to the matcher:
+    
+    obj.should respond_to(:foo, :bar) # passes if obj.respond_to?(:foo) && obj.respond_to?(:bar)
+
+  If the number of arguments accepted by the method is important to you,
+  you can specify that as well:
+
+    obj.should respond_to(:foo).with(1).argument
+    obj.should respond_to(:bar).with(2).arguments
+
+  Note that this matcher relies entirely upon #respond_to?.  If an object
+  dynamically responds to a message via #method_missing, but does not indicate
+  this via #respond_to?, then this matcher will give you false results.
+
+  Scenario: basic usage
+    Given a file named "respond_to_matcher_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe "a string" do
+        it { should respond_to(:length) }
+        it { should respond_to(:hash, :class, :to_s) }
+        it { should_not respond_to(:to_model) }
+        it { should_not respond_to(:compact, :flatten) }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should respond_to(:to_model) }
+        it { should respond_to(:compact, :flatten) }
+        it { should_not respond_to(:length) }
+        it { should_not respond_to(:hash, :class, :to_s) }
+
+        # mixed examples--String responds to :length but not :flatten
+        # both specs should fail
+        it { should respond_to(:length, :flatten) }
+        it { should_not respond_to(:length, :flatten) }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec respond_to_matcher_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 10 examples, 6 failures                                    |
+      | expected "a string" to respond to :to_model                |
+      | expected "a string" to respond to :compact, :flatten       |
+      | expected "a string" not to respond to :length              |
+      | expected "a string" not to respond to :hash, :class, :to_s |
+      | expected "a string" to respond to :flatten                 |
+      | expected "a string" not to respond to :length              |
+
+  Scenario: specify arguments
+    Given a file named "respond_to_matcher_argument_checking_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe 7 do
+        it { should respond_to(:zero?).with(0).arguments }
+        it { should_not respond_to(:zero?).with(1).argument }
+
+        it { should respond_to(:between?).with(2).arguments }
+        it { should_not respond_to(:between?).with(7).arguments }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should respond_to(:zero?).with(1).argument }
+        it { should_not respond_to(:zero?).with(0).arguments }
+
+        it { should respond_to(:between?).with(7).arguments }
+        it { should_not respond_to(:between?).with(2).arguments }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec respond_to_matcher_argument_checking_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 8 examples, 4 failures                                  |
+      | expected 7 to respond to :zero? with 1 argument         |
+      | expected 7 not to respond to :zero? with 0 arguments    |
+      | expected 7 to respond to :between? with 7 arguments     |
+      | expected 7 not to respond to :between? with 2 arguments |

data/support/gems/rspec-expectations-2.11.2/features/built_in_matchers/satisfy.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Feature: satisfy matcher
+
+  The satisfy matcher is extremely flexible and can handle almost anything
+  you want to specify.  It passes if the block you provide returns true:
+
+    10.should satisfy { |v| v % 5 == 0 }
+    7.should_not satisfy { |v| v % 5 == 0 }
+
+  This flexibility comes at a cost, however: the failure message
+  ("expected [actual] to satisfy block") is not very descriptive
+  or helpful.  You will usually be better served by using one of
+  the other built-in matchers, or writing a custom matcher.
+
+  Scenario: basic usage
+    Given a file named "satisfy_matcher_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe 10 do
+        it { should satisfy { |v| v > 5 } }
+        it { should_not satisfy { |v| v > 15 } }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should_not satisfy { |v| v > 5 } }
+        it { should satisfy { |v| v > 15 } }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec satisfy_matcher_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 4 examples, 2 failures           |
+      | expected 10 not to satisfy block |
+      | expected 10 to satisfy block     |
+

data/support/gems/rspec-expectations-2.11.2/features/built_in_matchers/start_with.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+Feature: start_with matcher
+
+  Use the `start_with` matcher to specify that a string or array starts with 
+  the expected characters or elements.
+
+    "this string".should start_with("this")
+    "this string".should_not start_with("that")
+    [0,1,2].should start_with(0, 1)
+
+  Scenario: with a string
+    Given a file named "example_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe "this string" do
+        it { should start_with "this" }
+        it { should_not start_with "that" }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should_not start_with "this" }
+        it { should start_with "that" }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec example_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 4 examples, 2 failures                          |
+      | expected "this string" not to start with "this" |
+      | expected "this string" to start with "that"     |
+
+  Scenario: with an array
+    Given a file named "example_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] do
+        it { should start_with 0 }
+        it { should start_with(0, 1)}
+        it { should_not start_with(2) }
+        it { should_not start_with(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should_not start_with 0 }
+        it { should start_with 3 }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec example_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 6 examples, 2 failures                       |
+      | expected [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] not to start with 0 |
+      | expected [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] to start with 3     |

data/support/gems/rspec-expectations-2.11.2/features/built_in_matchers/throw_symbol.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+Feature: throw_symbol matcher
+
+  The throw_symbol matcher is used to specify that a block of code
+  throws a symbol.  The most basic form passes if any symbol is thrown:
+
+    expect { throw :foo }.to throw_symbol
+
+  You'll often want to specify that a particular symbol is thrown:
+
+    expect { throw :foo }.to throw_symbol(:foo)
+
+  If you care about the additional argument given to throw, you can
+  specify that as well:
+
+    expect { throw :foo, 7 }.to throw_symbol(:foo, 7)
+
+  Scenario: basic usage
+    Given a file named "throw_symbol_matcher_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe "throw" do
+        specify { expect { throw :foo    }.to     throw_symbol }
+        specify { expect { throw :bar, 7 }.to     throw_symbol }
+        specify { expect { 5 + 5         }.to_not throw_symbol }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        specify { expect { throw :foo    }.to_not throw_symbol }
+        specify { expect { throw :bar, 7 }.to_not throw_symbol }
+        specify { expect { 5 + 5         }.to     throw_symbol }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec throw_symbol_matcher_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 6 examples, 3 failures                      |
+      | expected no Symbol to be thrown, got :foo   |
+      | expected no Symbol to be thrown, got :bar   |
+      | expected a Symbol to be thrown, got nothing |
+
+  Scenario: specify thrown symbol
+    Given a file named "throw_symbol_matcher_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe "throw symbol" do
+        specify { expect { throw :foo    }.to     throw_symbol(:foo) }
+        specify { expect { throw :foo, 7 }.to     throw_symbol(:foo) }
+        specify { expect { 5 + 5         }.to_not throw_symbol(:foo) }
+        specify { expect { throw :bar    }.to_not throw_symbol(:foo) }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        specify { expect { throw :foo    }.to_not throw_symbol(:foo) }
+        specify { expect { throw :foo, 7 }.to_not throw_symbol(:foo) }
+        specify { expect { 5 + 5         }.to     throw_symbol(:foo) }
+        specify { expect { throw :bar    }.to     throw_symbol(:foo) }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec throw_symbol_matcher_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 8 examples, 4 failures                          |
+      | expected :foo not to be thrown, got :foo        |
+      | expected :foo not to be thrown, got :foo with 7 |
+      | expected :foo to be thrown, got nothing         |
+      | expected :foo to be thrown, got :bar            |
+
+  Scenario: specify thrown symbol and argument
+    Given a file named "throw_symbol_argument_matcher_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      describe "throw symbol with argument" do
+        specify { expect { throw :foo, 7 }.to     throw_symbol(:foo, 7) }
+        specify { expect { throw :foo, 8 }.to_not throw_symbol(:foo, 7) }
+        specify { expect { throw :bar, 7 }.to_not throw_symbol(:foo, 7) }
+        specify { expect { throw :foo    }.to_not throw_symbol(:foo, 7) }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        specify { expect { throw :foo, 7 }.to_not throw_symbol(:foo, 7) }
+        specify { expect { throw :foo, 8 }.to     throw_symbol(:foo, 7) }
+        specify { expect { throw :bar, 7 }.to     throw_symbol(:foo, 7) }
+        specify { expect { throw :foo    }.to     throw_symbol(:foo, 7) }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec throw_symbol_argument_matcher_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 8 examples, 4 failures                                       |
+      | expected :foo with 7 not to be thrown, got :foo with 7       |
+      | expected :foo with 7 to be thrown, got :foo with 8           |
+      | expected :foo with 7 to be thrown, got :bar                  |
+      | expected :foo with 7 to be thrown, got :foo with no argument |
+

data/support/gems/rspec-expectations-2.11.2/features/built_in_matchers/types.feature

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+Feature: specify types of objects
+
+  rspec-expectations includes two matchers to specify types of objects:
+
+    * obj.should be_kind_of(type): calls obj.kind_of?(type), which returns
+      true if type is in obj's class hierarchy or is a module and is
+      included in a class in obj's class hierarchy.
+    * obj.should be_instance_of(type): calls obj.instance_of?(type), which
+      returns true if and only if type if obj's class.
+
+  Both of these matchers have aliases:
+
+    * obj.should be_a_kind_of(type) # same as obj.should be_kind_of(type)
+    * obj.should be_a(type) # same as obj.should be_kind_of(type)
+    * obj.should be_an(type) # same as obj.should be_kind_of(type)
+    * obj.should be_an_instance_of(type) # same as obj.should be_instance_of(type)
+
+  Scenario: be_(a_)kind_of matcher
+    Given a file named "be_kind_of_matcher_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      module MyModule; end
+
+      class Fixnum
+        include MyModule
+      end
+
+      describe 17 do
+        # the actual class
+        it { should be_kind_of(Fixnum) }
+        it { should be_a_kind_of(Fixnum) }
+        it { should be_a(Fixnum) }
+
+        # the superclass
+        it { should be_kind_of(Integer) }
+        it { should be_a_kind_of(Integer) }
+        it { should be_an(Integer) }
+
+        # an included module
+        it { should be_kind_of(MyModule) }
+        it { should be_a_kind_of(MyModule) }
+        it { should be_a(MyModule) }
+
+        # negative passing case
+        it { should_not be_kind_of(String) }
+        it { should_not be_a_kind_of(String) }
+        it { should_not be_a(String) }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should_not be_kind_of(Fixnum) }
+        it { should_not be_a_kind_of(Fixnum) }
+        it { should_not be_a(Fixnum) }
+        it { should_not be_kind_of(Integer) }
+        it { should_not be_a_kind_of(Integer) }
+        it { should_not be_an(Integer) }
+        it { should_not be_kind_of(MyModule) }
+        it { should_not be_a_kind_of(MyModule) }
+        it { should_not be_a(MyModule) }
+        it { should be_kind_of(String) }
+        it { should be_a_kind_of(String) }
+        it { should be_a(String) }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec be_kind_of_matcher_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 24 examples, 12 failures                 |
+      | expected 17 not to be a kind of Fixnum   |
+      | expected 17 not to be a kind of Integer  |
+      | expected 17 not to be a kind of MyModule |
+      | expected 17 to be a kind of String       |
+
+  Scenario: be_(an_)instance_of matcher
+    Given a file named "be_instance_of_matcher_spec.rb" with:
+      """
+      module MyModule; end
+
+      class Fixnum
+        include MyModule
+      end
+
+      describe 17 do
+        # the actual class
+        it { should be_instance_of(Fixnum) }
+        it { should be_an_instance_of(Fixnum) }
+
+        # the superclass
+        it { should_not be_instance_of(Integer) }
+        it { should_not be_an_instance_of(Integer) }
+
+        # an included module
+        it { should_not be_instance_of(MyModule) }
+        it { should_not be_an_instance_of(MyModule) }
+
+        # another class with no relation to the subject's hierarchy
+        it { should_not be_instance_of(String) }
+        it { should_not be_an_instance_of(String) }
+
+        # deliberate failures
+        it { should_not be_instance_of(Fixnum) }
+        it { should_not be_an_instance_of(Fixnum) }
+        it { should be_instance_of(Integer) }
+        it { should be_an_instance_of(Integer) }
+        it { should be_instance_of(MyModule) }
+        it { should be_an_instance_of(MyModule) }
+        it { should be_instance_of(String) }
+        it { should be_an_instance_of(String) }
+      end
+      """
+    When I run `rspec be_instance_of_matcher_spec.rb`
+    Then the output should contain all of these:
+      | 16 examples, 8 failures                     |
+      | expected 17 not to be an instance of Fixnum |
+      | expected 17 to be an instance of Integer    |
+      | expected 17 to be an instance of MyModule   |
+      | expected 17 to be an instance of String     |