Add Strict configuration option to RSpec/PendingWithoutReason

[ydah]

This PR is add Strict configuration option to RSpec/PendingWithoutReason.
The following PR was found to be an incorrect fix, so I have reverted and added support for this option.

• Fix a false positive for RSpec/PendingWithoutReason when pending/skip has a reason inside an example group #1598

This option works as before by default, but setting it to Strict: false will make it a violation only in the following cases

• when a pending or skip method is called with no arguments
• When a pending/skip is done as metadata for example or example group, but there is no reason for it

---

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 modified an existing cop's configuration options:

• Set VersionChanged: "<<next>>" in config/default.yml.

[bquorning]

I wonder is Strict should be "true" or "false" by default. I would say "false", but that may just be my personal preference.

[ydah]

It is very difficult to decide which is the default.
I would somewhat prefer to leave Strict set to true, but I guess that is also my personal preference.

[pirj]

We should just ignore this

RSpec.describe 'something' do
  pending 'does something'
end

as it's a way to remind self to write a spec for something, or to indicate that something is yet to be implemented along with a proper spec. Previously discussed here.

Is there a good reason to be strict about this?

[ydah]

Is there a good reason to be strict about this?

The motivation for this PR was not to make it more strict than before, but rather to make it possible to avoid violations for the following cases depending on the configuration options.

RSpec.describe 'something' do
  pending 'does something'
end

The goal was not to ignore them entirely, but to allow control through configuration options.
As mentioned in #1598 (comment), it is a good reason to be able to consider those without reasons as offenses in a strict sense.

[ydah]

However, it may be valid to simply ignore offenses even without using a configuration option 🤔. In that case, this PR could be closed and we could proceed with the release, unless I have missed something.

[pirj]

I'd go with just ignoring this case.

[ydah]

I'd go with just ignoring this case.

I agree. So let's leave this case on ignore.

RSpec.describe 'something' do
  pending 'does something'
end

So is it correct to say that the following concerns have been addressed and the blocker in the release is gone? Please point out if I have missed something.

• Bump version to v2.20.0 #1600 (comment)