Add missing 'havingValue="true"' for '*.enabled' to keep consistency

[quaff]

No description provided.

[philwebb]

This shouldn't be necessary, at least if the javadoc is to be believed:

The string representation of the expected value for the properties. If not specified, the property must not be equal to {@code false}.

@quaff Have you found this isn't the case?

[quaff]

This shouldn't be necessary, at least if the javadoc is to be believed:

The string representation of the expected value for the properties. If not specified, the property must not be equal to {@code false}.

@quaff Have you found this isn't the case?

I guess many people would not read this javadoc, they would change true to false instead of removing it by intuition.
What if people really want some property to match explicit false?
However, I think it should keep consistency since other *.enabled conditions are restricted to havingValue="true".

[wilkinsona]

This has the potential to be a breaking change. As such, I'm not sure it's worth making. If it is, it would have to go in 3.5 at the earliest. If we do decide to make a change like this we may want to consider some options for avoiding the re-introduction of the problem.