Update to RSpec 3

Sorry for jumbo PR. This is sorely needed for some upcoming work.

Used transpec to update most of the files. The major exceptions are covering the changes to `pending`. Generally, I use `pending` if an `:if` was supplied, and `skip` if a filter was given or `pending` was not given a block.

\cc @opscode/client-engineers 
Additionally, I don't think RSpec 3 has 'be_false'.
On Oct 29, 2014 10:46 PM, "Claire McQuin" <claire@getchef.com> wrote:

> In short, my answer is "the spec wasn't written correctly in the first
> case" and it will be updated.
> On Oct 29, 2014 10:44 PM, "Claire McQuin" <claire@getchef.com> wrote:
>
>> RSpec 2's be_true and be_false marchers were changed in RSpec 3 to
>> be_truthy and be_falsey to more correctly reflect the matcher's actual
>> behavior.
>>
>> All that aside, yes a more accurate test would be for the exact boolean
>> 'be true' and 'be false'.
>> On Oct 29, 2014 5:42 PM, "Tyler Ball" <notifications@github.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In spec/functional/dsl/reboot_pending_spec.rb:
>>>
>>> > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ def registry_safe?
>>> >      describe "when there is nothing to indicate a reboot is pending" do
>>> >        it "should return false" do
>>> >          pending "Found existing registry keys" unless registry_safe?
>>> > -        expect(recipe.reboot_pending?).to be_false
>>> > +        expect(recipe.reboot_pending?).to be_falsey
>>>
>>> If there was already an existing correctly written expectation,
>>> shouldn't we leave this alone? In this case it looks like the method is
>>> meant to return true or false, so the be_false expectation seems
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> —
>>> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
>>> <https://github.com/opscode/chef/pull/2324/files#r19582371>.
>>>
>>