Issue #21543 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). I think the second line starting with `for ` looks very strange and breaks the flow, also the order is then incorrect: ``` $ ruby test.rb test.rb:6:in 'TestClass#bar': wrong number of arguments (given 1, expected 2) (ArgumentError) for TestClass#foo at test.rb:2 from test.rb:10:in 'TestClass#main' from test.rb:14:in '<main>' ``` but the real backtrace is (as before this change): ``` $ ruby test.rb test.rb:2:in 'TestClass#foo': wrong number of arguments (given 1, expected 2) (ArgumentError) from test.rb:6:in 'TestClass#bar' from test.rb:10:in 'TestClass#main' from test.rb:14:in '<main>' ``` i.e. `bar` calls `foo`. `foo` does not call `bar`, so the proposal seems more confusing than helpful. I think it is very common when getting an exception to have to look one or multiple levels up (in callers). This is normal, and good debugging practice. I think this change is breaking the backtrace by swapping the first two entries in an incorrect order (2 consecutive lines of the backtrace no longer represent a callee-caller pair in that order) and therefore I'm strongly against it. I understand the OP's concern though. I think another way to address it would be to check arguments in the caller instead of callee (big semantics change though), or always hide the callee for ArgumentError (as if it was checked in the caller). But both have a significant downside that then from the backtrace one doesn't know the callee, especially if the call site is polymorphic (may call different methods). The downside is I think so important that the best seems to just keep things as they are. ---------------------------------------- Feature #21543: Point ArgumentError to the call site https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21543#change-114284 * Author: mame (Yusuke Endoh) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- Consider this buggy code: ```ruby def foo(x, y) end foo(1) ``` The resulting error is: ``` $ ruby test.rb test.rb:1:in `foo': wrong number of arguments (given 1, expected 2) (ArgumentError) from test.rb:4:in `<main>' ``` I want this to be: ``` $ ruby test.rb test.rb:4:in `<main>': wrong number of arguments (given 1, expected 2) (ArgumentError) for `foo' at test.rb:1 ``` ## Problem In my experience, the code that needs fixing is almost always the caller, not the callee. In the above case, one would change `foo(1)` to something like `foo(1, 2)`. My typical debugging workflow starts with opening the first location shown in the backtrace. This takes me to the `def` line of the method. However, I can barely remember a single time I've ever had to fix the method definition itself in this scenario. I often find myself sighing, going back to the backtrace, finding the second location (the caller), and opening that file instead. I think this inconvenience is a significant loss of productivity. I understand that the current behavior is designed because developers need to check the callee (the method definition) to see what arguments are required for the fix. However, I believe the primary location in a backtrace should point to the code that is most likely to need modification. There are cases where developers can fix the call site without re-checking the method definition. Even when they do need to check the callee to recall the expected arguments, it feels more natural to first understand "what arguments am I currently passing?" at the call site before asking "what arguments should I be passing?". This workflow makes it easier to spot the mistake. ## Proposal I propose that the backtrace for an ArgumentError should point to the caller's location (the call site) as shown in the above. The location of the callee (the method definition) could instead be included within the error message itself. For a longer backtrace, the output would look like this: ```ruby class TestClass def foo(x, y) end def bar foo(1) end def main bar end end TestClass.new.main ``` ``` $ ruby test.rb test.rb:6:in 'TestClass#bar': wrong number of arguments (given 1, expected 2) (ArgumentError) for TestClass#foo at test.rb:2 from test.rb:10:in 'TestClass#main' from test.rb:14:in '<main>' ``` What do you think of this proposal? I have attached a proof-of-concept patch, though it will require more work before it is merge-ready. ```diff diff --git a/vm_args.c b/vm_args.c index 44be6f54c5..986cb3e4c1 100644 --- a/vm_args.c +++ b/vm_args.c @@ -980,17 +980,7 @@ raise_argument_error(rb_execution_context_t *ec, const rb_iseq_t *iseq, const rb { VALUE at; - if (iseq) { - vm_push_frame(ec, iseq, VM_FRAME_MAGIC_DUMMY | VM_ENV_FLAG_LOCAL, Qnil /* self */, - VM_BLOCK_HANDLER_NONE /* specval*/, (VALUE) cme /* me or cref */, - ISEQ_BODY(iseq)->iseq_encoded, - ec->cfp->sp, 0, 0 /* stack_max */); - at = rb_ec_backtrace_object(ec); - rb_vm_pop_frame(ec); - } - else { - at = rb_ec_backtrace_object(ec); - } + at = rb_ec_backtrace_object(ec); rb_ivar_set(exc, idBt_locations, at); rb_exc_set_backtrace(exc, at); @@ -1000,7 +990,15 @@ raise_argument_error(rb_execution_context_t *ec, const rb_iseq_t *iseq, const rb static void argument_arity_error(rb_execution_context_t *ec, const rb_iseq_t *iseq, const rb_callable_method_entry_t *cme, const int miss_argc, const int min_argc, const int max_argc) { - VALUE exc = rb_arity_error_new(miss_argc, min_argc, max_argc); + VALUE rb_gen_method_name(VALUE owner, VALUE name); + VALUE mname = rb_gen_method_name(cme->owner, rb_id2str(cme->def->original_id)); + const rb_iseq_t *miseq = cme->def->body.iseq.iseqptr; + VALUE file = Qfalse, lineno = 0; + if (miseq) { + file = rb_iseq_path(miseq); + lineno = rb_iseq_first_lineno(miseq); + } + VALUE exc = rb_arity_error_new(miss_argc, min_argc, max_argc, mname, file, lineno); if (ISEQ_BODY(iseq)->param.flags.has_kw) { const struct rb_iseq_param_keyword *const kw = ISEQ_BODY(iseq)->param.keyword; const ID *keywords = kw->table; diff --git a/vm_insnhelper.c b/vm_insnhelper.c index 3aca1bc24f..a5ad2f0562 100644 --- a/vm_insnhelper.c +++ b/vm_insnhelper.c @@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ rb_vm_push_frame_fname(rb_execution_context_t *ec, VALUE fname) /* method dispatch */ static inline VALUE -rb_arity_error_new(int argc, int min, int max) +rb_arity_error_new(int argc, int min, int max, VALUE mname, VALUE file, VALUE lineno) { VALUE err_mess = rb_sprintf("wrong number of arguments (given %d, expected %d", argc, min); if (min == max) { @@ -497,13 +497,19 @@ rb_arity_error_new(int argc, int min, int max) rb_str_catf(err_mess, "..%d", max); } rb_str_cat_cstr(err_mess, ")"); + if (mname) { + rb_str_catf(err_mess, "\nfor %"PRIsVALUE, mname); + if (file) { + rb_str_catf(err_mess, " at %"PRIsVALUE":%"PRIsVALUE, file, lineno); + } + } return rb_exc_new3(rb_eArgError, err_mess); } void rb_error_arity(int argc, int min, int max) { - rb_exc_raise(rb_arity_error_new(argc, min, max)); + rb_exc_raise(rb_arity_error_new(argc, min, max, Qfalse, Qfalse, INT2FIX(0))); } /* lvar */ ``` ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/