Add .does as a no-op assertion, Fix #700

[vieiralucas]

Hello guys, I saw that #700 was marked as pull-request-wanted.
So here I am 😄

I also did not find tests addressing no-op assertions.
Maybe I could add tests for it.

What do you guys think about it?

[lucasfcosta]

@vieiralucas is right at my side right now at college, I also watched him coding, so this LGTM.

I think it would be a great idea to have this kind of tests.
Putting them on the expect and should interfaces should be enough, since there's no way we can do this kind of chaining on the assert interface (and since it uses should behind the scenes).

[meeber]

Hey guys I was thinking about the same thing earlier. I think a really simple test for each of the language chains would definitely be good. And I agree it should appear in both the should and expect interface tests for thoroughness.

I didn't realize you two were acquaintances! This Lucas camaraderie is more dangerous than I feared... I need to find a second Meeber, and fast.

[vieiralucas]

Thinking about this PR

I'll do the tests, make sure to rebase this in order for the commits to make sense and keep the git logs clean.

[vieiralucas]

I added the only test that I could think of, which just checks that the chain exists.
What else should be tested?

[meeber]

I'd say validate that each of them is chaining correctly, even though grammatically it won't always make sense:

    expect(3).to.equal(3);                                                      
    expect(3).and.equal(3);
    expect(3).of.equal(3);
    ...etc...

Also a nitpick: The indent-style in the test arrays is different than the assertions.js array.

[vieiralucas]

I see, the problem is that the error will be

TypeError: Cannot read property 'equal' of undefined

That's why I used .not.undefined instead of .to.not.be.undefined

But that's what you get when you use chai to test chai right?
Others tests already have this behavior.
I was wondering, have you consider using node's Assert to test chai?

Anyways, I'll add tests that validade if they are chaining correctly.

[vieiralucas]

Looking closer I realized that it will be testing that (3).equal(3) still works.
Now I understand

[meeber]

LGTM!

[lucasfcosta]

Awesome, good job guys!
LGTM