Phil Pirozhkov
Phil Pirozhkov
> only a total of 18 lines uncovered; I'll tackle the tests for those lines Nice! > non-required) github status, or just by cranking the [minimum coverage](https://github.com/rspec/rspec-expectations/blob/main/spec/spec_helper.rb#L5) up to 100%...
What concerns me the most, why are matchers available as methods on an i stance of a matcher in the first place?
All three sibling PRs are green together. @JonRowe, @benoittgt please have a look. I suggest the following merge order: - https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/pull/2880 - this one - https://github.com/rspec/rspec-mocks/pull/1418
It should become green when a corresponding `rspec-core` PR is merged. All three are green locally together.
> if you try to pass a keyword arg to a chain method on Ruby 3. As you may see, `**opts` delegation isn't really the best option. See https://eregon.me/blog/2021/02/13/correct-delegation-in-ruby-2-27-3.html for...
> just fix it now Let's go for it :+1:
``` SyntaxError: /__w/rspec-expectations/rspec-expectations/spec/rspec/matchers/dsl_spec.rb:357: syntax error, unexpected tLABEL chain :and_smaller_than do |ceiling, inclusive: false| ``` I suggest extracting those specs with the matcher involving block kwargs into a separate one, as...
> few helper functions in spec_helper.rb. That seems like where timeout_if_not_debugging should go A perfect place for it 👍
@Lukom does this fix your case?
I'm not convinced to make a breaking change. There is `be_start_with` dynamic matcher that works similarly to `start_with?`. And we can keep the known behaviour for `start_with` intact. To still...