Issue #20968 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) wrote in #note-13:
It should not be displayed. I don't care much if it exists. It should be decided according to the demand and implementation easiness.
FWIW, I am pretty sure TruffleRuby will never do that change. It would hide crucial information for both users and implementation developers, as I detailed above. We tried it in TruffleRuby, it was bad for both users and devs, we learned from it. It's like hiding crucial debugging information from segfault reports, who would want that? To be frank, I think it's shortsighted to do anything about this now. The problem of hiding will naturally become more evident as more of the Ruby core library is defined in Ruby. `Primitive.attr! :c_trace` can be used on `Array#fetch_values`, I don't really care about that specific one (except obviously we wouldn't hide it on TruffleRuby). But in general I think it's clearly a mistake to hide those backtrace entries which are helpful to understand behavior. It's like silently swallowing exceptions, it wastes tons of time in debugging for little value. It's also not the Ruby VM's job to hide frames, it should show all of them to ease debugging. Test frameworks might choose to filter stacktraces or display them differently, that's fine, and it's easy. All the test frameworks that I know and filter also provide an option to opt out of that filtering, proving that it's sometimes necessary to have the full stacktrace. There are no practical problems with it (just people learning about it/getting used to it because it was less common). In fact `<internal` exists since at least Ruby 2.3, probably even before. A common example, from Ruby 3.0 is `Kernel#tap` (AFAIK nobody ever complained or got confused about it): ``` $ ruby -e 'tap { raise "oops" }' -e:1:in `block in <main>': oops (RuntimeError) from <internal:kernel>:90:in `tap' from -e:1:in `<main>' ``` The suggested change would result in: ``` $ ruby -e 'tap { raise "oops" }' -e:1:in `block in <main>': oops (RuntimeError) from -e:1:in `tap' from -e:1:in `<main>' ``` which is no better and would make debugging far worse if there are multiple `<internal` frames. --- I'll give another example where the proposed change hurts understandability: Suppose Method#call is defined in Ruby code, then this change proposes to go from: ``` ... from bar.rb:1:in 'Bar#bar' from foo.rb:1:in 'block in Foo#foo' from <internal:kernel>:90:in 'Kernel#tap' from <internal:method>:111:in 'Method#call' from foo.rb:1:in 'Foo#foo' ... ``` to ``` ... from bar.rb:1:in 'Bar#bar' from foo.rb:1:in 'block in Foo#foo' from <internal:method>:111:in 'Method#call' from foo.rb:1:in 'Foo#foo' ... ``` So now Method#call can call a block directly? No, it's just the stacktrace betraying you by hiding crucial information. (there are more examples which don't even need methods to move from C to Ruby in previous comment https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20968#note-6) ---------------------------------------- Misc #20968: `Array#fetch_values` unexpected method name in stack trace https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20968#change-112320 * Author: koic (Koichi ITO) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- It seems that the current Ruby implementation is displaying unexpected method name in stack trace. ## Expected Similar to `Hash#fetch_values`, the method name `Array#fetch_values` is expected to be displayed in the stack trace. ```console $ ruby -e '{k: 42}.fetch_values(:unknown)' -e:1:in 'Hash#fetch_values': key not found: :unknown (KeyError) from -e:1:in '<main>' $ ruby -e '[1].fetch_values(42)' -e:1:in 'Array#fetch_values': index 42 outside of array bounds: -1...1 (IndexError) from -e:1:in '<main>' ``` ## Actual The stack trace displays the `Array#fetch` method, which user is not aware of, along with the `<internal.array>` stack trace. ```console $ ruby -e '[1].fetch_values(42)' <internal:array>:211:in 'Array#fetch': index 42 outside of array bounds: -1...1 (IndexError) from <internal:array>:211:in 'block in Array#fetch_values' from <internal:array>:211:in 'Array#map!' from <internal:array>:211:in 'Array#fetch_values' from -e:1:in '<main>' ``` It likely requires an approach such as implementing it in C, as suggested in https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/11555. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/