Fix issue 20637: Don't offer private type property corrections

[FeepingCreature]

Check whether property is visible locally before offering a correction. Pass through scope to getProperty to enable this.

[dlang-bot]

Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @FeepingCreature! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.
Please verify that your PR follows this checklist:

• My PR is fully covered with tests (you can see the coverage diff by visiting the details link of the codecov check)
• My PR is as minimal as possible (smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones)
• I have provided a detailed rationale explaining my changes
• New or modified functions have Ddoc comments (with Params: and Returns:)

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

---

If you have addressed all reviews or aren't sure how to proceed, don't hesitate to ping us with a simple comment.

Bugzilla references

Auto-close	Bugzilla	Severity	Description
✓	20637	trivial	spelling correction offers private members

Testing this PR locally

If you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR:

dub run digger -- build "master + dmd#10867"

[FeepingCreature]

Errors seem spurious? Someone seems to have committed a broken state.

[Geod24]

This code is really a mess. Half of those properties can't be redefined, the other half can but it doesn't really make sense most of the time (you can redefine offsetof and init).
That search_correct shouldn't really be there, but it just seems to be the last place it gets to for a DotIdExp. Anyway the fix LGTM. For the spurious error, try rebasing on master, the parent of your commit is bea5d22.

[FeepingCreature]

Oh! I'd fetched from origin, not upstream, lol.

[FeepingCreature]

Note that this can be reverted once the issue of private members not printing a proper "private member not accessible" error is fixed.

[Geod24]

Note that this can be reverted once the issue of private members not printing a proper "private member not accessible" error is fixed.

So in this case, why not just go with that fix directly ?
EDIT: I'm happy to go with this diff, but if there's a much more trivial fix that would make this be reverted, why not go with it ? Temporary removing auto-merge to give time for an answer.

[FeepingCreature]

Well, primarily because I don't know how to do it. :P

[Geod24]

Do you have a test case for it ? :)

[FeepingCreature]

Well, if you look at b7f2e63 , reintroducing something like those would be the way to go. I think they were removed in the context of the deprecation and removal of private access being silently tolerated sometimes.

[Geod24]

Let's go with this. It's simple, it works, and has a test case.