connect: Rewrite test to use hspec with fail-fast.

[rbasso]

• Rewrite tests to use hspec.
• Update tests to match x-common.
• Rename Color(Black,White) to Mark(Cross,Nought)
• Patch the example and the stub solutions to use the new names.

Related to #211.

Now all the tests match x-common almost exactly. The only difference is that I kept the expected value as an ADT, not a String containing X or O.

Also, I had to change the ADT to have more meaningful names - how would anyone know that X was Black - so I borrowed them from Tic-tac-toe's Wikipedia page. The alternative would be to use X and O, but I'm not sure if it is a good idea to have single letter data constructors.

I can change the ADT if someone comes with better names.
Also, considering that we are breaking compatibility with old submissions, we could rename resultFor.

Updated (3 commits)

• Rewrite tests to use hspec with fail-fast.
• Update tests to match x-common.
• Rename Color(Black,White) to Mark(Cross,Nought).
• Rename responseFor to winner.

[petertseng]

I do like the Black/White -> Cross/Nought change since I kept having to look at the README to remember which was which when I was doing this problem. I agree that the long names are slightly more desirable than X/O (single letter are harder to search for, maybe there are other reasons!)

I usually would have liked to put the Black/White -> Cross/Nought in its own commit, but in this case it would mean changing lines in the old tests that then promptly get replaced, so this way of doing it is not unwarranted.

What would you like for resultFor? winner?

[rbasso]

I do like the Black/White -> Cross/Nought change since I kept having to look at the README to remember which was which when I was doing this problem.

The fact that the board uses X and O - both in README.md and canonical-data.json - but the text in README.md explicitly call them Black and White is confusing.

I'm not sure if I should have changed that here, because I removed all the references to colors in the exercise. Maybe it's a decision to be taken to x-common...

Should we open an issue about it there?

I usually would have liked to put the Black/White -> Cross/Nought in its own commit

You are right! I'll rewrite it, as a little punishment for my lack of discipline! 😄

What would you like for resultFor? winner?

I just had the feeling that resultFor was not good, but had no suggestion.
winner seems perfectly clear to me, and makes it obvious why it is a `Maybe. Nice choice!

I'm gonna change it in a separate commit.

[petertseng]

I'm not sure if I should have changed that here, because I removed all the references to colors in the exercise. Maybe it's a decision to be taken to x-common...

Should we open an issue about it there?

Seems good. You probably have to do it as I will be occupied for a few hours.

[rbasso]

Opened exercism/problem-specifications#380.

[rbasso]

Thanks for the review!

Rewrote the PR in 3 separated commits, @petertseng.

[petertseng]

👍