Report of incorrect/extraneous fields should not suggest already present fields

[jfmengels]

module Main exposing (a)

type alias A = { foo : ()}

a : A
a = { foo = (), foo2 = () }

The code above gives the following error:

Something is off with the body of the `a` definition:

6| a = { foo = (), foo2 = () }
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The body is a record of type:

    { foo : (), foo2 : () }

But the type annotation on `a` says it should be:

    A

Hint: Seems like a record field typo. Maybe foo2 should be foo?

Hint: Can more type annotations be added? Type annotations always help me give
more specific messages, 

The first hint suggests foo2 should be foo. But we know we already have foo in the record, so this hint is not very helpful.

I suggest to remove the already present fields from the list of fields to suggest. If there are fields remaining, then we could suggest those instead (Maybe foo2 should be abcd). If there are none remaining, meaning that this field is an unexpected extraneous field, then we could suggest to remove it instead.

Additional details

I often run into this problem with using (extensible) records as phantom types, like in the following example:

module Main exposing (..)

type Thing requirements = Thing

init : Thing { unrelated : () }
init = Thing

withFoo : Thing a -> Thing { a | hasCalledWithFoo : () }
withFoo _ = Thing

finalize : Thing { a | hasCalledWithFoo : () } -> ()
finalize _ = ()

-- Is OK
someThingThatWorks =
  init
  |> withFoo
  |> finalize
  

-- Is OK
someThingThatDoesNotWork =
  init
  -- |> withFoo
  |> finalize

(Ellie)

This gives the following error message

This function cannot handle the argument sent through the (|>) pipe:

23|   init
24|   -- |> withFoo
25|   |> finalize
         ^^^^^^^^
The argument is:

    Thing { unrelated : () }

But (|>) is piping it to a function that expects:

    Thing { a | hasCalledWithFoo : (), unrelated : () }

Hint: Seems like a record field typo. Maybe hasCalledWithFoo should be
unrelated?

Hint: Can more type annotations be added? Type annotations always help me give
more specific messages, and I think they could help a lot in this case!

This is not really helpful, because I already have unrelated. What I'd like to know as a user (or rather, what I'd like to convey to the user as the designer of the API), is that hasCalledWithFoo is missing and should be added (somehow).

Unrelated note

The second hint does not really help here either, but I have no suggestion on how to improve this, and is not the point I wanted to raise here.