include/string/contain doc errors

[jfirebaugh]

The include API doc has this example

expect([1,2,3]).to.contain(2);

I think that's meant to be:

expect([1,2,3]).to.include(2);

string has this example:

expect('foobar').to.include.string('bar');

I think that's meant to be:

expect('foobar').to.have.string('bar');

Though, if you did want include to work as both a function and a chaining property, it seems to be possible:

Object.defineProperty(Assertion.prototype, 'include', {
  get: function () {
    var include = function (obj) {
      this.assert(
          ~this.obj.indexOf(obj)
        , 'expected ' + this.inspect + ' to include ' + inspect(obj)
        , 'expected ' + this.inspect + ' to not include ' + inspect(obj));

      return this;
    };
    include.__proto__ = this;
    return include;
  }
});

I think it would be nice if both include and contain worked this way (i.e. they were synonyms, with the definition above):

expect([1,2,3]).to.contain(2);
expect([1,2,3]).to.include(2);
expect('foobar').to.contain('bar');
expect('foobar').to.include('bar');
expect({foo: 1, bar: 2}).to.contain.keys('foo', 'bar');
expect({foo: 1, bar: 2}).to.include.keys('foo', 'bar');

I can send a pull request if you agree.

[logicalparadox]

One thing to note is that keys behaves differently depending on the modifier..

expect({ foo: 1, bar: 2 }).to.have.keys('foo', 'bar'); // this is strict; all or nothing
expect({ foo: 1, bar: 2 }).to.contain.keys('foo'); // this is inclusion

This is achieved through this.contains, which can be seen triggered here and used here.

Provided that the strict/inclusion feature for keys is not lost, I have no objections. Also, if you would be so kind to include some tests, that would be awesome :)

[logicalparadox]

I fixed the small typos for the docs.

Is the second part, the feature request, something that you have had a chance to look into? It not, I'll slate it for 0.4.x.

[jfirebaugh]

I ended up using similar ideas in chai-jquery, but haven't had time to do it for chai itself. Feel free to put it on the back burner.

[logicalparadox]

i like the idea so im going to leave this open so it doesn't fall into the abyss of closed tickets

[logicalparadox]

This has been implemented in the 0.6.x branch and will be in the next release :)

/cc @vesln