False negative for `RSpec/BeEq` or `RSpec/BeEql`

[ydakuka]

Describe

specify { expect(profile.owner).to equal nil }

RuboCop

$ rubocop -V
1.71.0 (using Parser 3.3.6.0, rubocop-ast 1.37.0, analyzing as Ruby 2.7, running on ruby 2.7.8) [x86_64-linux]
  - rubocop-capybara 2.21.0
  - rubocop-factory_bot 2.26.1
  - rubocop-performance 1.23.1
  - rubocop-rails 2.29.1
  - rubocop-rake 0.6.0
  - rubocop-rspec 3.4.0
  - rubocop-rspec_rails 2.30.0
  - rubocop-thread_safety 0.6.0

[ydah]

Since equal, eq, and eql are distinctly different, this is not considered a false negative.

BeEql
The be matcher compares by identity while the eql matcher compares using eql?. Integers, floats, booleans, symbols, and nil can be compared by identity and therefore the be matcher is preferable as it is a more strict test.

BeEq
The be matcher compares by identity while the eq matcher compares using ==. Booleans and nil can be compared by identity and therefore the be matcher is preferable as it is a more strict test.

equal checks identify like be. So it means exactly the same thing, so unlike BeEql or BeEq, it's just a matter of Style. In that case, one is the better style, so we need to discuss unifying it, but I don't think we can decide whether equal or be is better. So I don't think we should deal with this as RuboCop RSpec. WDYT? @bquorning @pirj @Darhazer

refs: https://rspec.info/features/3-12/rspec-expectations/built-in-matchers/equality/

RSpec.describe "a string" do
  it "is equal to itself" do
    string = "this string"
    expect(string).to equal(string)
  end

  it "is not equal to another string of the same value" do
    expect("this string").not_to equal("this string")
  end

  it "is not equal to another string of a different value" do
    expect("this string").not_to equal("a different string")
  end
end

RSpec.describe "a string" do
  it "is equal to itself" do
    string = "this string"
    expect(string).to be(string)
  end

  it "is not equal to another string of the same value" do
    expect("this string").not_to be("this string")
  end

  it "is not equal to another string of a different value" do
    expect("this string").not_to be("a different string")
  end
end

[Darhazer]

equal checks identify like be. So it means exactly the same thing, so unlike BeEql or BeEq, it's just a matter of Style. In that case, one is the better style, so we need to discuss unifying it, but I don't think we can decide whether equal or be is better. So I don't think we should deal with this as RuboCop RSpec. WDYT? @bquorning @pirj @Darhazer

RuboCop and by extension RuboCop Rspec deal with that by allowing to configure the preferred style. Having said that this would be rather a separate cop to enforce the given style