Improve variable type name request

[adisonlampert]

Description

ruby#790fixesthis issue. In this issue, the debugger raises the error:

#<ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (given 0, expected 1)>

I took a look at the repository this error was occurring in to figure out what was causing it. Essentially, this ArgumentError is coming from the self.name function having the parameter value which is not provided when klass.name is called here, causing an exception.

In ruby#790, if there is an exception when trying to get the class name, the variable's type is set to "<Error: #{e.message} (#{e.backtrace.first}>".

My first commit adds three tests that test this functionality:

1. A test overriding the name method. The type should be an error message that begins with <Error: wrong number of arguments (given 0, expected 1) .
2. A test overriding the to_s method. The type should be the same error as 1.
   • In order to test this, I had to override the name method and return nil because the type_name method checks klass.name first and without overriding the method to return nil, the test does not trigger klass.to_s
3. A test overriding the class method. This was added in because M_CLASS.bind_call(obj) is used rather than obj.class so adding a test to ensure the class name is being set appropriately and not raising an error is useful.

I noticed that rather than catching an exception and setting the type to an error message, it would be better to use M_NAME.bind_call(klass) to get the type name as this does not call klass.name so there would be no error. This is an approach that is used by Tapioca here.

In my second commit, I implemented this approach. I updated the tests from my first commit to reflect the new changes including removing the to_s test as this method is no longer being used. You can see the type is now Foo instead of an error message. This is more correct.

[vinistock]

I think we can use the same pattern as above.

[vinistock]

Instead of using this or, can't we always invoke to_s?

[st0012]

type_name should already return a String so to_s may not be necessary?

[adisonlampert]

Yeah, everything appears to be working fine when I use just type_name. Does that make the to_s test unnecessary?

[st0012]

Now that we don't call to_s anymore, do we still need this test?

[st0012]

Yeah I think it's good to open a PR upstream now. Just a reminder that the PR description should be concise but mention:

• What's the behavioural difference with examples (e.g. parts of the response content)
• Why it's better