January 2025 - ruby-core - ml.ruby-lang.org

[ruby-core:120694] [Ruby master Bug#21039] Ractor.make_shareable breaks block semantics (seeing updated captured variables) of existing blocks
by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) 21 Aug '25

21 Aug '25

Issue #21039 has been reported by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). ---------------------------------------- Bug #21039: Ractor.make_shareable breaks block semantics (seeing updated captured variables) of existing blocks https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21039 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open * Assignee: ko1 (Koichi Sasada) * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN, 3.4: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- ```ruby def make_counter count = 0 nil.instance_exec do [-> { count }, -> { count += 1 }] end end get, increment = make_counter reader = Thread.new { sleep 0.01 loop do p get.call sleep 0.1 end } writer = Thread.new { loop do increment.call sleep 0.1 end } ractor_thread = Thread.new { sleep 1 Ractor.make_shareable(get) } sleep 2 ``` This prints: ``` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 ``` But it should print 1..20, and indeed it does when commenting out the `Ractor.make_shareable(get)`. This shows a given block/Proc instance is concurrently broken by `Ractor.make_shareable`, IOW Ractor is breaking fundamental Ruby semantics of blocks and their captured/outer variables or "environment". It's expected that `Ractor.make_shareable` can `freeze` objects and that may cause some FrozenError, but here it's not a FrozenError, it's wrong values being read. I think what should happen instead is that `Ractor.make_shareable` should create a new Proc and mutate that. However, if the Proc is inside some other object and not just directly the argument, that wouldn't work (like `Ractor.make_shareable([get])`). So I think one fix would to be to only accept Procs for `Ractor.make_shareable(obj, copy: true)`. FWIW that currently doesn't allow Procs, it gives `<internal:ractor>:828:in 'Ractor.make_shareable': allocator undefined for Proc (TypeError)`. I think the only other way, and I think it would be a far better way would be to not support making Procs shareable with `Ractor.make_shareable`. Instead it could be some new method like `isolated { ... }` or `Proc.isolated { ... }` or `Proc.snapshot_outer_variables { ... }` or so, only accepting a literal block (to avoid mutating/breaking an existing block), and that would snapshot outer variables (or require no outer variables like Ractor.new's block, or maybe even do `Ractor.make_shareable(copy: true)` on outer variables) and possibly also set `self` since that's anyway needed. That would make such blocks with different semantics explicit, which would fix the problem of breaking the intention of who wrote that block and whoever read that code, expecting normal Ruby block semantics, which includes seeing updated outer variables. Related: #21033 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18243#note-5 Extracted from https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21033#note-14 -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

7 24

[ruby-core:117216] [Ruby master Bug#20346] FiberScheduler.unblock not called by Thread#join when Thread body contains Ractor.take
by forthoney (Seong-Heon Jung) 21 Aug '25

21 Aug '25

Issue #20346 has been reported by forthoney (Seong-Heon Jung). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20346: FiberScheduler.unblock not called by Thread#join when Thread body contains Ractor.take https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20346 * Author: forthoney (Seong-Heon Jung) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- When using a `Ractor.take` inside a different thread, `Thread#join` on the thread running `Ractor.take` fails to call `FiberScheduler.unblock`. The below code can replicate this behavior ```ruby require "async" class RactorWrapper def initialize @ractor = Ractor.new do Ractor.recv # Ractor doesn't start until explicitly told to # Do some calculations fib = ->(x) { x < 2 ? 1 : fib.call(x - 1) + fib.call(x - 2) } fib.call(20) end end def take_async @ractor.send(nil) Thread.new { @ractor.take }.join.value end end Async do |task| 10000.times do |i| task.async do RactorWrapper.new.take_async puts i end end end ``` The above code deadlocks, and when we leave a debugging print statement inside of `Async`'s scheduler's `block` and `unblock` method, we can confirm that we only call `Scheduler.block`, and never `Scheduler.unblock` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 3

[ruby-core:112206] [Ruby master Bug#19407] 2 threads taking from current ractor will hang forever
by luke-gru (Luke Gruber) 21 Aug '25

21 Aug '25

Issue #19407 has been reported by luke-gru (Luke Gruber). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19407: 2 threads taking from current ractor will hang forever https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19407 * Author: luke-gru (Luke Gruber) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Backport: 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- In the current implementation of Ractors, it's possible to `take` from the current ractor. This could be useful when co-ordinating threads: ```ruby t = Thread.new do obj = Ractor.current.take p obj # do some work with obj end t0 = Thread.new do obj = Ractor.current.take p obj # do some work with obj end Ractor.yield :go ``` However it hangs forever: ```ruby t = Thread.new do obj = Ractor.current.take p obj end t0 = Thread.new do obj = Ractor.current.take p obj end sleep 0.5 ``` Should "self-take" be disabled, or was it designed to allow it but this is just a bug? -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 2

[ruby-core:120073] [Ruby master Feature#20925] Allow boolean operators at beginning of line to continue previous line
by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) 20 Aug '25

20 Aug '25

Issue #20925 has been reported by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20925: Allow boolean operators at beginning of line to continue previous line https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20925 * Author: Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I would like for this to become accepted syntax: condition1 || condition2 condition1 && condition2 condition1 or condition2 condition1 and condition2 This is similar to how method chaining on the second line was added in Ruby 1.9 expr .method And it has the same advantage: when you have a multi-line expression, instead of hunting for the dot or boolean operator at the end of line1, it's right there at the beginning of line2, making the structure very obvious and readable. Please contrast: request.secret_key_base.present? && request.encrypted_signed_cookie_salt.present? && request.encrypted_cookie_salt.present? && request.use_authenticated_cookie_encryption request.secret_key_base.present? && request.encrypted_signed_cookie_salt.present? && request.encrypted_cookie_salt.present? && request.use_authenticated_cookie_encryption The first expression must rely on indentation to communicate the multi-line nature of the condition, and even then it's not as immediately obvious as the second expression, where we can see easily and immediately that this is a multi-line `&&` condition. This syntax is also similar to how a trailing comma is allowed in arrays and hashes (and method calls since Ruby 1.9), with the same advantage. It makes for a cleaner diff when you add an element to the array/hash/conditional. Taking the previous example, imagine we are adding the condition `&& request.use_authenticated_cookie_encryption`. Now contrast the diff between the two styles: request.secret_key_base.present? && request.encrypted_signed_cookie_salt.present? && - request.encrypted_cookie_salt.present? + request.encrypted_cookie_salt.present? && + request.use_authenticated_cookie_encryption request.secret_key_base.present? && request.encrypted_signed_cookie_salt.present? && request.encrypted_cookie_salt.present? + && request.use_authenticated_cookie_encryption Based on the above I would say this syntax is natural and consistent with existing Ruby syntactical elements, and would greatly improve code readability. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

7 10

[ruby-core:115438] [Ruby master Misc#20013] Travis CI status
by jaruga (Jun Aruga) 15 Aug '25

15 Aug '25

Issue #20013 has been reported by jaruga (Jun Aruga). ---------------------------------------- Misc #20013: Travis CI status https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20013 * Author: jaruga (Jun Aruga) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- I would like to use this ticket to manage our activities to report Travis CI status. Because there is Travis CI status page provided by Travis CI. However, even when the page shows ok, I actually see infra issues. https://www.traviscistatus.com/ I would share my activities and report the Travis CI status on the ticket. The ticket's status is not closed until we stop using Travis CI. The easiest option to fix the Travis infra issue is to email Travis CI support `support _AT_ travis-ci.com`. You can check [this ruby/ruby Travis CI wiki page](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/wiki/CI-Servers#travis-ci) for details. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

2 50

[ruby-core:116382] [Ruby master Feature#20205] Enable `frozen_string_literal` by default
by byroot (Jean Boussier) 10 Aug '25

10 Aug '25

Issue #20205 has been reported by byroot (Jean Boussier). ---------------------------------------- Feature #20205: Enable `frozen_string_literal` by default https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20205 * Author: byroot (Jean Boussier) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- ### Context The `frozen_string_literal: true` pragma was introduced in Ruby 2.3, and as far as I'm aware the plan was initially to make it the default for Ruby 3.0, but this plan was abandoned because it would be too much of a breaking change without any real further notice. According to Matz, he still wishes to enable `frozen_string_literal` by default in the future, but a reasonable migration plan is required. The main issue is backward compatibility, flipping the switch immediately would break a lot of code, so there must be some deprecation period. The usual the path forward for this kind of change is to emit deprecation warnings one of multiple versions in advance. One example of that was the Ruby 2.7 keyword argument deprecation. It was quite verbose, and some users were initially annoyed, but I think the community pulled through it and I don't seem to hear much about it anymore. So for frozen string literals, the first step would be to start warning when a string that would be frozen in the future is mutated. ### Deprecation Warning Implementation I implemented a quick proof of concept with @etienne in https://github.com/Shopify/ruby/pull/549 In short: - Files with `# frozen_string_literal: true` or `# frozen_string_literal: false` don't change in behavior at all. - Files with no `# frozen_string_literal` comment are compiled to use `putchilledstring` opcode instead of regular `putstring`. - This opcode mark the string with a user flag, when these strings are mutated, a warning is issued. Currently the proof of concept issue the warning at the mutation location, which in some case can make locating where the string was allocated a bit hard. But it is possible to improve it so the message also include the location at which the literal string was allocated, and learning from the keyword argument warning experience, we can record which warnings were already issued to avoid spamming users with duplicated warnings. As currently implemented, there is almost no overhead. If we modify the implementation to record the literal location, we'd incur a small memory overhead for each literal string in a file without an explicit `frozen_string_literal` pragma. But I believe we could do it in a way that has no overhead if `Warning[:deprecated] = false`. ### Timeline The migration would happen in 3 steps, each step can potentially last multiple releases. e.g. `R0` could be `3.4`, `R1` be `3.7` and `R2` be `4.0`. I don't have a strong opinion on the pace. - Release `R0`: introduce the deprecation warning (only if deprecation warnings enabled). - Release `R1`: make the deprecation warning show up regardless of verbosity level. - Release `R2`: make string literals frozen by default. ### Impact Given that `rubocop` is quite popular in the community and it has enforced the usage of `# frozen_string_literal: true` for years now, I suspect a large part of the actively maintained codebases in the wild wouldn't see any warnings. And with recent versions of `minitest` enabling deprecation warnings by default (and [potentially RSpec too](https://github.com/rspec/rspec-core/issues/2867)) the few that didn't migrate will likely be made compatible quickly. The real problem of course are the less actively developed libraries and applications. For such cases, any codebase can remain compatible by setting `RUBYOPT="--disable=frozen_string_literal"`, and so even after `R2` release. The flag would never be removed any legacy codebase can continue upgrading Ruby without changing a single line of cod by just flipping this flag. ### Workflow for library maintainers As a library maintainer, fixing the deprecation warnings can be as simple as prepending `# frozen_string_literal: false` at the top of all their source files, and this will keep working forever. Alternatively they can of course make their code compatible with frozen string literals. Code that is frozen string literal compatible doesn't need to explicitly declare it. Only code that need it turned of need to do so. ### Workflow for application owners For application owners, the workflow is the same than for libraries. However if they depend on a gem that hasn't updated, or that they can't upgrade it, they can run their application with `RUBYOPT="--disable=frozen_string_literal"` and it will keep working forever. Any user running into an incompatibility issue can set `RUBYOPT="--disable=frozen_string_literal"` forever, even in `4.x`, the only thing changing is the default value. And any application for which all dependencies have been made fully frozen string literal compatible can set `RUBYOPT="--enable=frozen_string_literal"` and start immediately removing magic comment from their codebase. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

21 74

[ruby-core:111789] [Ruby master Feature#19333] Setting (Fiber Local|Thread Local|Fiber Storage) to nil should delete value in order to avoid memory leaks.
by ioquatix (Samuel Williams) 06 Aug '25

06 Aug '25

Issue #19333 has been reported by ioquatix (Samuel Williams). ---------------------------------------- Feature #19333: Setting (Fiber Local|Thread Local|Fiber Storage) to nil should delete value in order to avoid memory leaks. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19333 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- As it stands, Fiber Locals, Thread Locals and Fiber Storage have no way of deleting key-value associations. ```ruby 100.times do |i| name = :"variable-#{i}" Thread.current[name] = 10 end ``` Because of this, dynamically generated associations can leak over time. This is worse for things like Threads that might be pooled (or maybe an argument against user-space pooling). In any case, having a way to delete those associations would allow application code to at least delete the associations when they no longer make sense. I propose that assigning `nil` to "locals" or "storage" should effectively delete them. e.g. ```ruby 100.times do |i| name = :"variable-#{i}" Thread.current[name] = 10 Thread.current[name] = nil # delete association end ``` A more invasive alternative would be to define new interfaces like `Thread::Local`, `Fiber::Local` and `Fiber::Storage::Local` (or something) which correctly clean up on GC. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 9

[ruby-core:114590] [Ruby master Bug#19857] Eval coverage is reset after each `eval`.
by ioquatix (Samuel Williams) 05 Aug '25

05 Aug '25

Issue #19857 has been reported by ioquatix (Samuel Williams). ---------------------------------------- Bug #19857: Eval coverage is reset after each `eval`. https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19857 * Author: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ioquatix (Samuel Williams) * Backport: 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- It seems like `eval` based coverage is reset every time eval is invoked. ```ruby #!/usr/bin/env ruby require 'coverage' def measure(flag) c = Class.new c.class_eval(<<~RUBY, "foo.rb", 1) def foo(flag) if flag puts "foo" else puts "bar" end end RUBY return c.new.foo(flag) end Coverage.start(lines: true, eval: true) # Depending on the order of these two operations, different computation is calculated, because the evaluation of the code is considered different, even if the content/path is the same. measure(false) measure(true) p Coverage.result ``` Further investigation is required. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 20

[ruby-core:119401] [Ruby master Bug#20776] [PRISM] Pattern matching syntax error message
by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 28 Jul '25

28 Jul '25

Issue #20776 has been reported by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). ---------------------------------------- Bug #20776: [PRISM] Pattern matching syntax error message https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20776 * Author: nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) * Status: Open * Backport: 3.1: UNKNOWN, 3.2: UNKNOWN, 3.3: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- Syntax error is fine, but is really expecting end-of-input there? ``` $ ruby -v -e '1 => $g' ruby 3.4.0dev (2024-10-01T14:59:58Z master 169a5ee99e) +PRISM [arm64-darwin23] -e:1: warning: possibly useless use of a variable in void context -e: -e:1: syntax errors found (SyntaxError) > 1 | 1 => $g | ^~ unexpected global variable, expecting end-of-input | ^~ expected a pattern expression after `=>` 2 | ``` And the line 2 is **not** in the input. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

3 4

[ruby-core:120617] [Ruby master Feature#21028] Method for finding why an object isn't Ractor shareable
by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) 25 Jul '25

25 Jul '25

Issue #21028 has been reported by tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson). ---------------------------------------- Feature #21028: Method for finding why an object isn't Ractor shareable https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21028 * Author: tenderlovemaking (Aaron Patterson) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- `Ractor.shareable?` is easy to use, but if it returns false I would like to be able to figure out what object is causing the data structure to _not_ be Ractor shareable. The context is that I'm trying to make some complex data structures in Rails deeply frozen. If they are deeply frozen they _should_ be Ractor shareable, but `Ractor.shareable?` is returning `false` and it's hard for me to figure out _why_. I would like a method that would either return all unshareable references, or a method that takes a block and unshareable references are yielded to the block. A method like `Ractor.unshareable_references?` or maybe `Ractor.shareable?(obj) { |not_shareable_obj| }` would be very helpful for discovering why an object is not shareable. Thanks! -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

4 6