[ruby-core:104024] [Ruby master Feature#17883] Load bundler/setup earlier to make `bundle exec ruby -r` respect Gemfile

Issue #17883 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).


Sorry for repeating myself again, but I don't think the current behavior of RUBYOPT is wrong.
Command-line arguments are what a user passed explicitly, so it is natural to me to prioritize them over RUBYOPT.
The issue is that RUBYOPT is not what Bundler expected to be. But it does not mean RUBYOPT is wrong.


> The BUNDLE_BIN_PATH environment variable is something I had considered to remove in the future

BUNDLE_BIN_PATH is just an example. You can use any other name you like.

BTW, I noticed that my patch could be even much simpler. If you like `BUNDLER_SETUP`:

```diff
diff --git a/lib/rubygems.rb b/lib/rubygems.rb
index 3585defd2d..65f34d8812 100644
--- a/lib/rubygems.rb
+++ b/lib/rubygems.rb
@@ -1366,3 +1366,7 @@ def default_gem_load_paths
 require 'rubygems/core_ext/kernel_warn'

 Gem.use_gemdeps
+
+require "bundler/setup" if ENV["BUNDLER_SETUP"]
```


> I tend to believe this feature should have never existed in the first place.

I agree with this. To speak of extremes, if Bundler had been a built-in feature of Ruby, we would not need `bundle exec` at all.

(This is off-topic: Nowadays, many people are using Bundler, so it might be a good time to enable Bundler by default? We can start it with `require "bundler/setup" unless ENV["NO_BUNDLER"]` :-)

----------------------------------------
Feature #17883: Load bundler/setup earlier to make `bundle exec ruby -r` respect Gemfile
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17883#change-92162

* Author: mame (Yusuke Endoh)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------
To reproduce the issue, prepare a Gemfile and run `bundle install --path=vendor/bundle`.

```
$ cat Gemfile
source "https://rubygems.org"
gem "activesupport"

$ bundle install --path=vendor/bundle
```

`Kernel#require` respects the Gemfile correctly.

```
$ bundle exec ruby -e 'require "active_support"'
```

However, `bundle exec ruby -ractive_support -e ''` does not.

```
$ bundle exec ruby -ractive_support -e ''
<internal:/home/mame/work/ruby/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:85:in `require': cannot load such file -- active_support (LoadError)
        from <internal:/home/mame/work/ruby/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb>:85:in `require'
```

We can work around the issue by explicitly passing `-rbundler/setup` before `-ractive_support`, but this is very confusing to me. The same issue was discussed in StackOverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59623068/correct-way-to-combine-bundle-exec-and-ruby-r

---

Here is my analysis. `bundle exec` sets `RUBYOPT=-rbundler/setup` which replaces `Kernel#require` with bundler's own definition. `-e 'require "active_support"'` correctly triggers bundler's definition. However, `-ractive_support` is evaluated before `RUBYOPT=-rbundler/setup` is evaluated, so it triggers rubygems' require definition which does not know `vendor/bundle` directory.

This is caused by the interpretation order of `RUBYOPT` and command-line arguments.

```
$ RUBYOPT=-r./a ruby -r./b -e ''
:b
:a
```

For compatibility, I don't think that changing the order is a good idea. IMO, it would be good for ruby interpreter to provide Bundler something special, because Bundler is now bundled with Ruby.

My naive idea is to make the interpreter load `ENV["BUNDLE_BIN_PATH"] + "../../lib/bundler/setup"` before any other `-r` options if `BUNDLE_BIN_PATH` is defined. Or another new dedicated environment variable that `bundle exec` sets may work (for example, `RUBY_BUNDLER_SETUP` or something).

@deivid @nobu What do you think?



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

Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>