Add is_expected for expect-based one-liner syntax.

[myronmarston]

No description provided.

[JonRowe]

Whilst I'm a 👍 on this, didn't we debate not doing this :P

[JonRowe]

LGTM though.

[myronmarston]

We discussed it. I see enough questions/comments from users indicating confusion over expect and the one-liner syntax that I thought it worth adding, particularly since the implementation is so trivial and easy to understand.

[myronmarston]

I think I'll backport this to 2.99 so that it can be available for transpec to convert during the upgrade process. Gonne leave it open until I have that PR ready so I don't forget.

[JonRowe]

Yeah given the number of "whats the expect equivalent of" I think it's worth while. I and @mootpointer were discussing doing this ages ago but never got around to it so 👍 :)

[xaviershay]

I thought this was what we were moving to rspec-its, guess not.

[JonRowe]

No thats its(:thing) {} not at all related to example { should do_something }

[myronmarston]

Right...its is just the its syntax that generates a nested example group and example based on the attribute structure of the subject. This is just a general mechanism for one-liner examples. It's useful but can easily be abused.