Issue #19117 has been updated by byroot (Jean Boussier).

large-scale app development

Yes, the larger the app, the more likely you are to have many methods with the same name in different modules / classes, and the more gems with different file naming conventions.

It is hard to evaluate this kind of UI in the mind. We need to use it.

Agreed. I'm for trying it early in the 3.4 cycle, if we get negative feedback from the community that tries the previews / rcs, we can always change it back before release. Also it's likely (still not 100% decided) we'll be running a 3.4 prerelease sometime around March or April on our monolith, so we can get feedback from hundreds of developers long before the final release. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19117: Include the method owner in backtraces, not just the method name https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19117#change-106369 * Author: byroot (Jean Boussier) * Status: Open * 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/