Add test matchers for validators

[StefSchenkelaars]

I worked on a first version of the test matchers as requested in #48. For now I've only implemented:

• AttachedValidatorMatcher
• ContentTypeValidatorMatcher
• DimensionValidatorMatcher
• SizeValidatorMatcher

and they should also be extended more to test all options of the validators (like message and validation context). But I hope it is a starting point and that we can add a complete set of matchers for all validators.

[igorkasyanchuk]

@StefSchenkelaars this is great news, as I see it's created for mini-test, which I think good start. Maybe you or someone else in the future could implement the same for RSpec.

[StefSchenkelaars]

@igorkasyanchuk Well, I actually build it to work with RSpec since that what we use. I am not an expert in minitest but I think they should also work with minitest.

[StefSchenkelaars]

I've tested the matchers with minitest and the shoulda context gem. Everything worked as expected and I've updated the readme accordingly.

[igorkasyanchuk]

This is fantastic!

[igorkasyanchuk]

let me know if you think it's ready for a review

[StefSchenkelaars]

Worked a bit on making sure that the stubbing works with both Minitest and RSpec. I now think that works. Also made sure that de dimension validator matcher works with exact matches.

As I said before, there is plenty of work to be done to make the matchers great but they help me quite a bit already in the current state.

But it would be great if you can do a code review!

And a bit unrelated is the rubocop. I ran it on the codebase and there where many failures. But I leave that up to another PR to fix (guess it's a good idea to add rubocop to travis)

[igorkasyanchuk]

merged and released a new version. Thank you

[connorshea]

This is great, thanks! 👍

FWIW, pundit-matchers auto-includes itself if the matcher file is required, not sure if there are downsides to that but I figured I'd mention it: https://github.com/chrisalley/pundit-matchers/blob/00c89e7fa1f4dde6f2ad0c03a79db629a8f99e3e/lib/pundit/matchers.rb#L347-L351

[StefSchenkelaars]

@connorshea It's probably a good idea to write a new issue for this and include your proposal. Since I think it will get lost since you commented on a closed PR. If I get bored sometimes, I might have a look at this, but you might fix it yourself too ;)