[ruby-core:116818] [Ruby master Feature#19117] Include the method owner in backtraces, not just the method name

17 Feb 2024

      Issue #19117 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).

@Dan0042 I think `block in` should stay because those must be calls and have their own frame semantically.

The quotes are around the `block in` (on master), which makes sense because that's the name of the "thing being called".
I.e. the block is being called, the surrounding method might not be on the stack at all, e.g.:
```
$ ruby -e 'def m = proc { raise }; m.call'
-e:1:in 'block in Object#m': unhandled exception
	from -e:1:in '<main>'
```

----------------------------------------
Feature #19117: Include the method owner in backtraces, not just the method name
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19117#change-106841

* Author: byroot (Jean Boussier)
* Status: Closed
* Priority: Normal
* Target version: 3.4
----------------------------------------
```
module Foo
  class Bar
    def inspect
      1 + '1'
    end
  end
end

p Foo::Bar.new
```

This code produce the following backtrace:

```
/tmp/foo.rb:4:in `+': String can't be coerced into Integer (TypeError)
	from /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `inspect'
	from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `p'
	from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `<main>'
```

This works, but on large codebases and large backtraces the method name isn't always all that revealing, most of the time you need to open many of the locations listed in the backtrace to really understand what is going on.

I propose that we also include the owner name:

```
/tmp/foo.rb:4:in `Integer#+': String can't be coerced into Integer (TypeError)
	from /tmp/foo.rb:4:in `Foo::Bar#inspect'
	from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `Kernel#p'
	from /tmp/foo.rb:9:in `<main>'
```

I believe that in many case it would allow to much better understand the backtrace without having to jump back and forth between it and the source code.

This is inspired by @ivoanjo 's `backtracie` gem: https://github.com/ivoanjo/backtracie

-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/