Fix a false positive for Lint/Debugger when methods containing different method chains

[ydah]

This PR is fix a false positive for Lint/Debugger when methods containing different method chains.

Motivation

I don't think that methods such as p.do_something for example should be an offense of this cop. I think it would be better to make it a violation only if it is an exact match, including the method chain, but what do you think?

This PR will result in the following

# bad
p 'foo'
foo(p 'foo')
p(p 'foo')

# good
p.do_something # <--- Before the change, it is a bad code
Foo.p

---

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.

[bbatsov]

Yeah, I agree that's an improvement. Thanks!

[hartator]

Thanks for all the work @ydah. Good job and it's deeply appreciated. ❤️

This has immediately created an issue on our end unfortunately. We use Lint/Debugger to catch potential forgotten binding.pry. However, we also do have legitimate utility scripts that uses p and pp to add some verbosity to their outputs. These are not forgotten and are on purpose.

Maybe it makes sense to move p and pp outside of Lint/Debugger? To something like Lint/DebuggerPrints? And keep Lint/Debugger only for REPLs?

[koic]

p and pp were added for debugging methods that call inspect (not to_s) internally.
#11518

[hartator]

p and pp were added for debugging methods that call inspect (not to_s) internally.
#11518

Why not catching .inspect as well then? Following this logic, .inspect should be also used only for debugging and shouldn't be in a production codebase. However, there are out there legitimate use cases of this as well. I would believe this opens up a bad rabbit hole.

Can you guys reconsider? The current implementation will make us remove Lint/Debugger as a linter unfortunately.

[koic]

I reconsidered based on some feedback and opened #11564. Thank you.

[hartator]

I reconsidered based on some feedback and opened #11564. Thank you.

Thank you. 👍