A Ruby gem that suggests corrections for typos in method names, class names, and other errors.
did_you_mean is a Ruby gem that automatically suggests corrections for typos in method names, class names, variable names, and other common coding errors. It integrates with Ruby's exception system to provide helpful "Did you mean?" suggestions when errors like NameError or NoMethodError occur, saving developers time debugging simple spelling mistakes.
Ruby developers of all levels who want faster debugging and reduced frustration from typos, particularly useful for those working in REPLs like irb or building applications where misspelled identifiers are common.
Developers choose did_you_mean because it's built into Ruby (since 2.3), requires no setup, and provides instant, context-aware suggestions that reduce debugging time. Its unique selling point is seamless integration with Ruby's core exception system, making typo correction a native part of the development experience.
The gem that has been saving people from typos since 2014
Open-Awesome is built by the community, for the community. Submit a project, suggest an awesome list, or help improve the catalog on GitHub.
Since Ruby 2.3, did_you_mean is included by default and requires no setup, automatically providing suggestions when exceptions occur, as stated in the installation section.
It covers a wide range of common Ruby errors including NameError, NoMethodError, KeyError, and LoadError, with detailed examples in the README for each type.
Designed for minimal overhead, it includes benchmarking rake tasks like 'bundle exec rake benchmark:ips:jaro' to measure and ensure efficiency during exception handling.
Can be disabled via command-line flags or environment variables for debugging, and exposes DidYouMean::SpellChecker for custom dictionary-based corrections, as shown in the examples.
Only applicable to Ruby projects, so developers in multi-language stacks or other ecosystems cannot use it, limiting its cross-platform utility.
Suggestions rely on string similarity algorithms like Jaro and Levenshtein, which may not always provide correct matches for complex or context-specific typos, as hinted in the benchmarking section.
In rare cases, incorrect suggestions could distract developers, and the added text to error messages might clutter output in verbose logging or testing scenarios.