Previously, did_you_mean used `msg.end_with?(suggestion)` to check if
its suggestion is already added.
I'm now creating a gem that also modifies Exception's message. This
breaks did_you_mean's duplication check.
This change makes the check use String#include? instead of end_with?.
https://github.com/ruby/did_you_mean/commit/b35e030549
Previously, DidYouMean::Correctable#original_message did
`method(:to_s).super_method.call` to call the original to_s method by
skipping Correctable#to_s.
I'm now creating a gem that prepends another to_s method to NameError,
which confuses the hack. An immediate solution is to replace it with
`method(:to_s).super_method.super_method.call` to skip the two methods.
But it is too ad-hoc.
This changeset uses more extensible approach and allow a prepended
module to declare that they should be skipped by defining a constant
named `SKIP_TO_S_FOR_SUPER_LOOKUP`.
https://github.com/ruby/did_you_mean/commit/8352c154e3
```
.../gems/did_you_mean-1.3.1/lib/did_you_mean/version.rb:2: warning: already initialized constant DidYouMean::VERSION
.../lib/did_you_mean/version.rb:2: warning: previous definition of VERSION was here
```
At the moment, there are some problems with regard to bundler + did_you_mean because of did_you_mean being a bundled gem. Since the vendored version of thor inside bundler and ruby itself explicitly requires did_you_mean, it can become difficult to load it when using Bundler.setup. See this issue: https://github.com/yuki24/did_you_mean/issues/117#issuecomment-482733159 for more details.
Yusuke Endoh
Nobuyoshi Nakada
Yuki Nishijima
Yuki Nishijima
Kazuhiro NISHIYAMA
Kevin Deisz