[Fix #623] Skip method shadowing check if attr is not sym or str for ReadWriteAttribute

[nvasilevski]

Closes #623

Fixes rubocop exceptions like:

undefined method `value' for s(:lvar, :column):RuboCop::AST::Node

for read/write methods used within a method and using non-string or non-symbol argument names
for example:

def do_the_read
  read_attribute(ATTR_NAME)
end

So I decided to skip the "shadowing" check if we can't explicitly know the attribute name.

Later we may want to exclude cases like this because it's also shadowing and should be fairly easy to detect this one. But for now I decided to fix the exception and consider an improvement in a separate PR

    def define_date_column_writer(column, value)
      define_method("#{column}=") do |value|
        # currently a violation
        write_attribute(column, value)
      end
    end

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.
• The PR relates to only one subject with a clear title
  and description in grammatically correct, complete sentences.
• If this is a new cop, consider making a corresponding update to the Rails Style Guide.

[pirj]

Unrelated to this PR.
Wondering, why we need to check all ancestors, or is it sufficient to check if the first one:

• exists
• matches the name

[nvasilevski]

Actually you are right, we do indeed interested in the first def ancestor
I guess any? is an implicit way of checking both exists and matches the way
Let me try to make it more explicit!

[nvasilevski]

Really good catch, I've changed it! Thanks ❤️

[pirj]

Perfect, thank you!

Would you please add a changelog entry?

[koic]

Can you use method??

Suggested change

	enclosing_method.method_name.to_s == shadowing_method_name
	enclosing_method.method?(shadowing_method_name)

[nvasilevski]

Yep, that works! Thanks!

[nvasilevski]

Added a changelog entry

[koic]

Can you write to the following instead of editing the changelog directly?

• 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.

[nvasilevski]

Done, sorry, should have done it from the beginning
CI seems to be read because of some github actions being down?

[koic]

It may be a GitHub Actions incident. I'll take a look and merge if it works. Thank you!

[koic]

It may be this one.
https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/cypv026dr23w

[koic]

Thanks!