Add RSpec/HaveAttributes cop

[Darhazer]

Fixes #1057

---

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).

If you have created a new cop:

• Added the new cop to config/default.yml.
• The cop is configured as Enabled: pending in config/default.yml.
• The cop is configured as Enabled: true in .rubocop.yml.
• The cop documents examples of good and bad code.
• The tests assert both that bad code is reported and that good code is not reported.
• Set VersionAdded: "<<next>>" in default/config.yml.

[bquorning]

This is neat, but it is not safe. I tested this cop on one of our services, and found that it auto-corrected some longer integration tests doing something like this

expect(list.length).to eq(4)
expect(Api.call.response.code).to eq(200)
Foo.update(whatever)
expect(list.length).to eq(4)
expect(Api.call.response.code).to eq(200)

into

expect(list).to have_attributes(
  length: 4,
  length: 4
)
expect(Api.call.response).to have_attributes(
  code: 200,
  code: 200
)
Foo.update(whatever)

This is obviously pseudo-code, but if necessary I can produce a more realistic snipped.

[Darhazer]

Thank you. I also was playing with a real code base and found out the case when there could be two expectations on the same attribute, generating a duplicated key. While this could be corrected to a combined matcher like:

expect(list).to have_attributes(
  length: eq(4).and(eq(4))
)

there is the case of an action between the expectations (which is probably what you were pointing out) that would change the result, so in a sense the corrected code would be

expect(list).to have_attributes(
  length: eq(4).and(eq(5))
)

which could never pass - it is expected to have different value in different points of time.
Should we mark it as unsafe auto-correct then?
Or perhaps to make it safer, it should work only on sequential expectations with no code that might be causing side effects in between? So it will not flag your example, but it still could group the expectations if before the Foo.update there were 2 expectations on the same object set?

[bquorning]

there is the case of an action between the expectations (which is probably what you were pointing out) that would change the result

Yes, this is what I was trying to point out. So as you also mention, to work safely, the cop can unfortunately only point out expectations right after each other, since it will be hard/impossible to detect if code in between the expectations could alter the result.

[Darhazer]

@bquorning I have updated the cop to ignore non-consecutive expectations. I'm yet to check for false negatives against a real code base, but seems the false positives are fixed and I no longer have cases when the specs are broken due to the auto-correction. Would appreciate another look / test against your code base

[bquorning]

Sorry for the delay. I ran this new cop on my code base and found no serious problems. I do have two comments, though:

1. When used with Rails, date comparisons don’t work exactly the same in eq and have_attributes. E.g.

   expect(foo.created_at).to eq("2025-01-27T15:53:13Z")

   ends up in Time#== but

   expect(foo).to have_attributes(
     created_at: "2025-01-27T15:53:13Z"
   )

   ends up in String#==.
2. It would be nice to also treat be_nil, be(nil), be(true), and be(false) as attribute checks.