Clarify dependency violation message

[derekprior]

What are you trying to accomplish?

I was bothered by a couple of things in the dependency violation message and this change fixes them.

1. "Are we missing an abstraction?" is not helpful context.
2. "Is the code making the reference, and the referenced constant, in the right packages?" was not grammatically correct or clear.

What approach did you choose and why?

I edited the copy and updated the tests.

What should reviewers focus on?

Whether you think this error message is more clear or helpful

Type of Change

• Bugfix
• New feature
• Non-breaking change (a change that doesn't alter functionality - i.e., code refactor, configs, etc.)

Additional Release Notes

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Include any notes here to include in the release description. For example, if you selected "breaking change" above, leave notes on how users can transition to this version.

If no additional notes are necessary, delete this section or leave it unchanged.

Checklist

• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• It is safe to rollback this change.

[gmcgibbon]

This seems clearer to me. Thank you