Use native String#end_with?, not the ActiveSupport wrapper

[halo]

What are you trying to accomplish?

I noticed a call to String#ends_with?, which is an ActiveSupport core String extension introduced in 2005.

To reduce dependencies, I suggest using the ruby native String#end_with? (notice the missing "s") method instead. It's been in Ruby at least since 2.7.8.

What approach did you choose and why?

I'm trying to create a gem that has some custom view components. Yet, I found no definite way to define the dependencies for a gem like mine. Some don't require rails at all, some require all of rails (even activejob), some depend only on actionview and actionsupport, the view_component gem itself only requires activesupport and actionview implicitly (I'm not sure why).

Having that in mind, I tried to not depend on the entirety of Rails, and a minimal test setup code like this was sufficient to create a test suite for my components:

# test_helper.rb

# Create a minimal Rails app
require 'view_component/engine'
require 'action_controller'

class MyApplication < Rails::Application; end
Rails.application.routes.draw { resource :home }
class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base; end

# Make the view_component gem boot
require 'view_component/base'
require 'action_controller/test_case'
ViewComponent::Base.config.view_component_path = File.expand_path('../app/components', __dir__)

However, my gem tests didn't pass because of this one call to ends_with? – yet, when I add the following line, all my tests naturally pass:

require 'active_support/core_ext/string/starts_ends_with'

Final thoughts

I know this is just a minimal change and maybe I'm foolish for not requiring all of Rails in my test suite. I'm also fully aware that in the future, I might not be able to use my approach any more, if more dependencies on Rails-internals are implicitly used inside of the view_component gem.

But at the very least, I thought, I'd be able to press the question of a canonical way to create gems that contain view components. If you tell me to load an entire rails dummy app in my test suite instead, then you can disregard this pull request :)

Thank you for your time. It's very exciting to see your gem develop from generation to generation.

[halo]

(I don't think this PR warrants an entry in the CHANGELOG, but it looked like one of the bot checks demanded it)

[Spone]

👍 If the two methods are totally equivalent, I see no reason to keep relying on ActiveSupport.

[BlakeWilliams]

We make no guarantees around the dependency on ActiveSupport, but if there's an easy way to limit that dependency I see no reason not to approve it.

Thanks for the contribution!

[Spone]

Thanks for the very thorough PR description by the way, this is much appreciated and helps a lot when reviewing!