January 2024 - ruby-core - ml.ruby-lang.org

[ruby-core:116063] [Ruby master Bug#20159] Prism assertion failure even if it is executed with --parser=parse.y
by tompng (tomoya ishida) 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

Issue #20159 has been reported by tompng (tomoya ishida). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20159: Prism assertion failure even if it is executed with --parser=parse.y https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20159 * Author: tompng (tomoya ishida) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.4.0dev (2024-01-07T16:23:58Z master 8b86d6f0c1) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Prism fails to parse this code with assertion failed. Reported at https://github.com/ruby/prism/issues/1616 ~~~ruby <<A+% A ~~~ Ruby exits with assertion failed even if it's run with option `--parser=parse.y` ~~~ # ruby -v ruby 3.4.0dev (2024-01-07T16:23:58Z master 8b86d6f0c1) [x86_64-linux] # (echo "<<A+%"; echo "A") > a.rb # ruby --parser=parse.y a.rb ruby: prism/util/pm_newline_list.c:42: pm_newline_list_append: Assertion `list->size == 0 || newline_offset > list->offsets[list->size - 1]' failed. qemu: uncaught target signal 6 (Aborted) - core dumped Aborted ~~~ `eval` will correclty result in SyntaxError, `require` and `load` exits with assertion failed. ~~~ruby # irb irb(main):001> eval File.read('a.rb') (irb):1:in `eval': (eval at (irb):1):1: unterminated string meets end of file (SyntaxError) irb(main):002> load 'a.rb' prism/util/pm_newline_list.c:42: pm_newline_list_append: Assertion `list->size == 0 || newline_offset > list->offsets[list->size - 1]' failed. qemu: uncaught target signal 6 (Aborted) - core dumped Aborted ~~~ -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 5

[ruby-core:116080] shadow.so: undefined symbol: rb_tainted_str_new2
by Jay Mav 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

Hello Ruby-Shadow owners and Ruby Dev Team, On Linux, using Ruby 3.2.2, getting shadow.so: undefined symbol: rb_tainted_str_new2 with ruby-shadow-ruby32-2.5.1.gem. The following code in this gem uses rb_tainted_str_new2: pwd/shadow.c:59: rb_tainted_str_new2(entry->pw_name), /* sp_namp */ pwd/shadow.c:60: rb_tainted_str_new2(entry->pw_passwd), /* sp_pwdp, encryped password */ pwd/shadow.c:69: rb_tainted_str_new2(entry->pw_class), /* sp_loginclass, user access class */ shadow/shadow.c:37: rb_tainted_str_new2(entry->sp_namp), shadow/shadow.c:38: rb_tainted_str_new2(entry->sp_pwdp), It needs to be fixed similar to ruby-odbc's: https://github.com/vhermecz/ruby-odbc/commit/c38d182863b907f9ce55d2dfeb9bd8… Can we get the ruby-shadow-ruby32 patched to resolve this issue? Thanks.

2 1

[ruby-core:116104] [Ruby master Bug#20167] Code execution isn't recorded in Ractor
by shia (Sangyong Sim) 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

Issue #20167 has been reported by shia (Sangyong Sim). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20167: Code execution isn't recorded in Ractor https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20167 * Author: shia (Sangyong Sim) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: 3.3.0 * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- ## reproduction code ```ruby # frozen-string-literal: true require "coverage" Coverage.start require_relative "./some_lib" # # some_lib.rb # class C # def hoge(i) # i # end # end r = Ractor.new do loop do v = Ractor.receive ret_v = C.new.hoge(v) Ractor.yield ret_v end end 2.times do |i| r << i r.take end Coverage.result.each do |file, lines| if file.include?("some_ractor_lib") if lines == [1, 1, 2, nil, nil] puts "OK" else puts "expected: [1, 1, 2, nil, nil]" puts "actual: #{lines.inspect}" end end end ``` ## Target ruby version 3.2.0+ affected -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 1

[ruby-core:116105] [Ruby master Feature#16137] Add === to UnboundMethod
by okuramasafumi (Masafumi OKURA) 09 Jan '24

09 Jan '24

Issue #16137 has been updated by okuramasafumi (Masafumi OKURA). Now that we have had pattern match for a while, I agree with Eregon, we can utilize it more rather than adding new methods. I cannot change its status so I hope someone will do so instead of me. ---------------------------------------- Feature #16137: Add === to UnboundMethod https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16137#change-106100 * Author: okuramasafumi (Masafumi OKURA) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- # Abstract `UnboundMethod` class should have `=== ` so that it can be used in case statement. # Background `Method` class has `===` method so that we can do something like: ``` ruby require 'prime' case 11 when Prime.method(:prime?) then :prime end ``` However, we cannot do something like this: ```ruby positive = Integer.instance_method(:positive?) case 11 when positive then :positive end ``` # Proposal Add `===` method to `UnboundMethod` class. # Implementation Minimal implementation in Ruby could be: ```ruby class UnboundMethod def ===(other) bind(other).call end end ``` # Summary `===` for `UnboundMethod` can improve readability in case statement. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:116044] [Ruby master Misc#20156] C99 updates
by kddnewton (Kevin Newton) 08 Jan '24

08 Jan '24

Issue #20156 has been reported by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). ---------------------------------------- Misc #20156: C99 updates https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20156 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Now that we require Visual Studio 2015 and Oracle Developer Studio 12.5, we can do a couple of things to clean up: * We should be able to remove our custom `stdbool.h` (added in VS2015 and Oracle SS 12.3) * Remove our usage of `__restrict` for Windows (added in VS2015) * Remove our custom `va_copy` (added in VS2015) Just notating, a couple of things that we _can_ use now: * snprintf * size_t printf format specifier (%z) I'm happy to do this work, but I wanted to open this ticket in case there is something besides Visual Studio or Oracle Solaris Studio that I would have missed for one of our compilation targets. Are there any other targets that do not fully implement C99? -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 2

[ruby-core:116060] [Ruby master Feature#18285] NoMethodError#message uses a lot of CPU/is really expensive to call
by headius (Charles Nutter) 07 Jan '24

07 Jan '24

Issue #18285 has been updated by headius (Charles Nutter). Also fixes my issue from 2014: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9725 I'm glad we finally have dealt with this one. ---------------------------------------- Feature #18285: NoMethodError#message uses a lot of CPU/is really expensive to call https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18285#change-106058 * Author: ivoanjo (Ivo Anjo) * Status: Closed * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Hello there! I'm working at Datadog on the ddtrace gem -- https://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-rb and we ran into this issue on one of our internal testing applications. I also blogged about this issue in <https://ivoanjo.me/blog/2021/11/01/nomethoderror-ruby-cost/>. ### Background While testing an application that threw a lot of `NoMethodError`s in a Rails controller (this was used for validation), we discovered that service performance was very much impacted when we were logging these exceptions. While investigating with a profiler, the performance impact was caused by calls to `NoMethodError#message`, because this Rails controller had a quite complex `#inspect` method, that was getting called every time we tried to get the `#message` from the exception. ### How to reproduce ```ruby require 'bundler/inline' gemfile do source 'https://rubygems.org' gem 'benchmark-ips' end puts RUBY_DESCRIPTION class GemInformation # ... def get_no_method_error method_does_not_exist rescue => e e end def get_runtime_error raise 'Another Error' rescue => e e end def inspect # <-- expensive method gets called when calling NoMethodError#message Gem::Specification._all.inspect end end NO_METHOD_ERROR_INSTANCE = GemInformation.new.get_no_method_error RUNTIME_ERROR_INSTANCE = GemInformation.new.get_runtime_error Benchmark.ips do |x| x.config(:time => 5, :warmup => 2) x.report("no method error message cost") { NO_METHOD_ERROR_INSTANCE.message } x.report("runtime error message cost") { RUNTIME_ERROR_INSTANCE.message } x.compare! end ``` ### Expectation and result Getting the `#message` from a `NoMethodError` should be no costly than getting it from any other exception. In reality: ``` ruby 3.0.2p107 (2021-07-07 revision 0db68f0233) [x86_64-linux] no method error message cost 115.390 (± 1.7%) i/s - 580.000 in 5.027822s runtime error message cost 6.938M (± 0.5%) i/s - 35.334M in 5.092617s Comparison: runtime error message cost: 6938381.6 i/s no method error message cost: 115.4 i/s - 60130.02x (± 0.00) slower ``` ### Suggested solutions 1. Do not call `#inspect` on the object on which the method was not found (see <https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/e0915ba67964d843832148aeca29a1f8244ca7b1/…>) 2. Cache result of calling `#message` after the first call. Ideally this should be done together with suggestion 1. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:116003] [Ruby master Bug#20146] Code using Ractor with env `RUBY_MAX_CPU=1` ends with unreachable
by shia (Sangyong Sim) 07 Jan '24

07 Jan '24

Issue #20146 has been reported by shia (Sangyong Sim). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20146: Code using Ractor with env `RUBY_MAX_CPU=1` ends with unreachable https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20146 * Author: shia (Sangyong Sim) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.4.0dev * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- ## Reproducible code ```rb # sample-code.rb Ractor.new { 1 } ``` ```bash RUBY_MAX_CPU=1 ruby sample-code.rb # This will not end with exit code 0 RUBY_MAX_CPU=2 ruby sample-code.rb # This ends with exit code 0 as expected ``` ## Expected process with RUBY_MAX_CPU=1 exits successfully as same as RUBY_MAX_CPU more than 1. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 2

[ruby-core:115984] [Ruby master Misc#20107] Update required Oracle Solaris Studio version to 12.5
by kddnewton (Kevin Newton) 06 Jan '24

06 Jan '24

Issue #20107 has been reported by kddnewton (Kevin Newton). ---------------------------------------- Misc #20107: Update required Oracle Solaris Studio version to 12.5 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20107 * Author: kddnewton (Kevin Newton) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Per https://www.oracle.com/us/assets/lifetime-support-hardware-301321.pdf and https://www.oracle.com/a/ocom/docs/support/advanced-customer-support/solari…, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.4 are all end-of-life for "extended support". We should drop these old compilers from our support suite for Ruby 3.4.0 so that we can use more of C99. Specifically, in conjunction with bumping to Visual Studio 2015, I believe this means we can now rely on `stdbool.h`, the `restrict` keyword, `va_copy`, `snprintf`, and the `%zu` printf specifier all functioning as expected. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 6

[ruby-core:116035] [Ruby master Feature#14602] Version of dig that raises error if a key is not present
by edmz (Ed Mz) 05 Jan '24

05 Jan '24

Issue #14602 has been updated by edmz (Ed Mz). Following what @mame explained about Matz expectations, I would like to (*humbly*) suggest another option: * `dig_expected` (and a my +1 to `dig_strict`) ---------------------------------------- Feature #14602: Version of dig that raises error if a key is not present https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14602#change-106033 * Author: amcaplan (Ariel Caplan) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- Currently, if I have a hash like this: ~~~ ruby { :name => { :first => "Ariel", :last => "Caplan" } } ~~~ and I want to navigate confidently and raise a KeyError if something is missing, I can do: ~~~ ruby hash.fetch(:name).fetch(:first) ~~~ Unfortunately, the length of the name, combined with the need to repeat the method name every time, means most programmers are more likely to do this: ~~~ ruby hash[:name][:first] ~~~ which leads to many unexpected errors. The Hash#dig method made it easy to access methods safely from a nested hash; I'd like to have something similar for access without error protection, and I'd think the most natural name would be Hash#dig!. It would work like this: ~~~ ruby hash = { :name => { :first => "Ariel", :last => "Caplan" } } hash.dig!(:name, :first) # => Ariel hash.dig!(:name, :middle) # raises KeyError (key not found: :middle) hash.dig!(:name, :first, :foo) # raises TypeError (String does not have #dig! method) ~~~ -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0

[ruby-core:116034] [Ruby master Feature#18035] Introduce general model/semantic for immutability.
by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) 05 Jan '24

05 Jan '24

Issue #18035 has been updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme). I understand the advantages of immutability, but I worry about the overall direction this is taking us. So I'll just quote something @mame wrote previously, as it reflects my own opinion. mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #16153#note-6: > I'm against making Ruby immutable by default. One of the most important properties of Ruby is dynamics. Ruby has allowed users to change almost anything in run time: dynamically (re)defining classes and methods (including core builtin ones), manipulating instance variables and local variables (via Binding) through encapsulation, etc. These features are not recommended to abuse, but they actually bring big flexibility: monkey-patching, DRY, flexible operation, etc. However, blindly freezing objects may spoil this usefulness. > > It is a bit arguable if this flexibility limits performance. Some people say that it is possible to make Ruby fast with the flexibility kept (TruffleRuby proves it). That being said, I admit that the flexibility actually limits performance in the current MRI, and that we have no development resource to improve MRI so much in near future. I think that my proposal #11934 was one possible way to balance the flexibility and performance. Anyway, we need to estimate how much Ruby can be faster if the flexibility is dropped. If it becomes 10 times faster, it is worth considering of course. If it becomes 10 percent faster, it does not pay (in my opinion). ---------------------------------------- Feature #18035: Introduce general model/semantic for immutability. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18035#change-106031 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- It would be good to establish some rules around mutability, immutability, frozen, and deep frozen in Ruby. I see time and time again, incorrect assumptions about how this works in production code. Constants that aren't really constant, people using `#freeze` incorrectly, etc. I don't have any particular preference but: - We should establish consistent patterns where possible, e.g. - Objects created by `new` are mutable. - Objects created by literal are immutable. We have problems with how `freeze` works on composite data types, e.g. `Hash#freeze` does not impact children keys/values, same for Array. Do we need to introduce `freeze(true)` or `#deep_freeze` or some other method? Because of this, frozen does not necessarily correspond to immutable. This is an issue which causes real world problems. I also propose to codify this where possible, in terms of "this class of object is immutable" should be enforced by the language/runtime, e.g. ```ruby module Immutable def new(...) super.freeze end end class MyImmutableObject extend Immutable def initialize(x) @x = x end def freeze return self if frozen? @x.freeze super end end o = MyImmutableObject.new([1, 2, 3]) puts o.frozen? ``` Finally, this area has an impact to thread and fiber safe programming, so it is becoming more relevant and I believe that the current approach which is rather adhoc is insufficient. I know that it's non-trivial to retrofit existing code, but maybe it can be done via magic comment, etc, which we already did for frozen string literals. Proposed PR: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/4879 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

1 0