Fix a false positive for Lint/RedundantRequireStatement

[koic]

Follow up #11099 (comment)

This PR fixes a false positive for Lint/RedundantRequireStatement when using PP.pp.

---

Before submitting the PR make sure the following are checked:

• The PR relates to only one subject with a clear title and description in grammatically correct, complete sentences.
• Wrote good commit messages.
• Commit message starts with [Fix #issue-number] (if the related issue exists).
• Feature branch is up-to-date with master (if not - rebase it).
• Squashed related commits together.
• Added tests.
• Ran bundle exec rake default. It executes all tests and runs RuboCop on its own code.
• Added an entry (file) to the changelog folder named {change_type}_{change_description}.md if the new code introduces user-observable changes. See changelog entry format for details.

[bobf]

@koic Tried your branch on my project, works when require 'pp' is in the same file as PP.pp usage, but in my case I require all dependencies for my gem in the gem's root (i.e. lib/my_gem.rb, and PP.pp is called in lib/my_gem/my_module/my_class.rb).

Is this intended behaviour ? I prefer to keep all require statements in the same place when building a gem, since all namespace will be impacted regardless of where the require call happens.

Edit: Real world examples if that's helpful:
https://github.com/bobf/rspec-documentation/blob/main/lib/rspec_documentation.rb#L20
https://github.com/bobf/rspec-documentation/blob/main/lib/rspec_documentation/formatters/ruby.rb#L20

[bbatsov]

@bobf Hmm, that's a bit tricky for that particular cop. Perhaps it's just best to stick to the disable and we can ignore this PR together as it only adds complexity for little added value. I'd suggest enhancing the cop documentation to highlight better its limitations instead.

@koic Any thoughts?

[bbatsov]

I'm leaning towards just ignoring the additional problem, as it's outside of RuboCop's scope. I'm wondering if we should just ignore the special handing for PP.pp altogether.

[bobf]

@bbatsov It's no bother for me to add a rubocop:disable directive on this one use case, it's only the second time I've ever deliberately required pp so I can definitely live with this being an exceptional case. If anything it clarifies that I'm doing it deliberately so somebody reading the code might assume that I'm doing something slightly unusual.

[koic]

For now, the implementation of this PR appears simple and seems capable of preventing false positives for PP.pp within the same file.

I'd suggest enhancing the cop documentation to highlight better its limitations instead.

Yes, I can certainly enhance the documentation. However, I'm wondering if it would be better to set AutoCorrect: false along with mentioning it in the documentation.

[bbatsov]

Yes, I can certainly enhance the documentation. However, I'm wondering if it would be better to set AutoCorrect: false along with mentioning it in the documentation.

Not a bad idea.

[bbatsov]

I'll merge this in its current state, as I'm about the cut a release. The rest of the stuff we discussed can happen later.