[experiment with] replace Cucumber fatures with specs

[faisal]

In past battles with the cucumber dependency, we'd discussed removing the cucumber dependency entirely. For example, @JuanVqz in #531 (comment):

I think a good solution would be to stop using the functionality in cucumber we use in our test suite, I think you suggested that in a previous PR, I wonder how many tests would be using that feature.

So this is an issue to try that.

[faisal]

Here is an illustrative attempt, mostly intended to discuss the idea and approach.

Notes:

1. This replaces the rake features task with a rake spec task. The specs use minitest/spec, so we don't add to the dependencies. The spec task replaces the features task wherever I could find (including in CI).
2. This was done by telling an LLM to write a spec replacement, tweaking it to fix the obvious failures (e.g. it wouldn't even complete a test run), getting an inobvious failulre to pass (see "Prints a message informing the score is below the minimum" gives a false positive, but correcting it would give a false negative #564), manually reviewing the tasks to ensure parity before removing the features, and finally swapping out and removing the old features task (including removing the cucumber dependency). I do not like the style of the generated code but what are others' opinions?
3. I wrote this on top of a branch I was maintaining to track any changes needed for Ruby 4.0 support. The full history is at https://github.com/faisal/rubycritic/tree/replace_features_with_specs, but everything prior to c7dc3af is just related to Ruby 4.0 support and related modernization.

[JuanVqz]

@faisal, it looks good to me. :) 🥇

[etagwerker]

I like this idea. I'm all for removing dependencies.

[JuanVqz]

@faisal maybe you can cherry-pick the commit and open a PR just for it without the Ruby 4.0

[JuanVqz]

what about including this in RubyCritic v5?

[faisal]

Is it ready? I don't want to hold up v5 for this, but on the other hand it's "only" test code (he says, nervously recalling the xv back door incident).

[JuanVqz]

Is it ready? I don't want to hold up v5 for this, but on the other hand it's "only" test code (he says, nervously recalling the xv back door incident).

yep, it was ready and now merged. so this could be handy for v5.1