From: duerst@... Date: 2021-06-24T05:00:53+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:104394] [Ruby master Feature#17930] Add column information into error backtrace Issue #17930 has been updated by duerst (Martin D�rst). mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote in #note-17: > BTW, I'd like to hear opinions from you, especially English native people, about the feature name. I tentatively named it "error_squiggle". Squiggle means a wavy underline used to indicate an error in code. But @pocke said that the feature name should not depend on its output appearance because we may change how to display in future. > > The name is not so important because a casual user will not refer the name directly, but we need to decide it anyway. Do you have any idea about the name? > > * error_emph / error_emphasize > * error_highlight > * error_spotter > * pretty_error > * power_error (respected to https://github.com/ruby/power_assert) I think `error_highlight` might be best. `error_emphasize` is a verb, which is often best for a method name, but not necessarily here. Maybe `error_emphasis` could work. In a strict sense, 'highlight' is also presentation-specific (and also a verb besides being a noun), but in its wider sense, it works very well. ---------------------------------------- Feature #17930: Add column information into error backtrace https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17930#change-92633 * Author: mame (Yusuke Endoh) * Status: Assigned * Priority: Normal * Assignee: mame (Yusuke Endoh) ---------------------------------------- Consider the following code and error. ``` data["data"].first["field"] #=> undefined method `[]` for nil:NilClass ``` There are two possibilities; the variable `data` is nil, or the return value of `first` is nil. Unfortunately, the error message is less informative to say which. This proposal allows to help identifying which method call failed. ``` $ ruby -r ./sample/no_method_error_ext.rb err1.rb err1.rb:2:in `
': undefined method `[]' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError) data["data"].first["field"] ^^^^^^^^^ ``` ## Proposal I'd like to propose a feature to get column information from each `Thread::BacktraceLocation`. Maybe it is good to provide the following four methods: * `Thread::BacktraceLocation#first_lineno` * `Thread::BacktraceLocation#first_column` * `Thread::BacktraceLocation#last_lineno` * `Thread::BacktraceLocation#last_column` These names came from `RubyVM::AbstraceSyntaxTree::Node`'s methods. ## Implementation Here is a proof-of-concept implementation: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/4540 See https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/4540/commits/6ff516f4985826e9f9c5606638001c3c420f7cad for an example usage. (Note that, currently, you need to build ruby with `./configure cflags=-DEXPERIMENTAL_ISEQ_NODE_ID` to enable the feature.) To put it simply, this PR provides only a raw API, `Thread::BacktraceLocation#node_id`. To get actual column information, you need to manually identify `RubyVM::AbstractSyntaxTree::Node` that corresponds to `Thread::BacktraceLocation#node_id`. But it would be arguable to expose "node_id", so I will wrap it as the above four methods if this is accepted. Credit: the original implementation was done by @yui-knk. ## Drawback To use this feature, we need to enable `-DEXPERIMENTAL_ISEQ_NODE_ID` to add "node_id" information (a subtree ID of the original abstract syntax tree) into each byte code instruction. If we provide this feature, the option should be enabled by default. However, the option increases memory consumption. I performed a simple experiment: I created a scaffold app by `rails new`, and measured the memory usage after `rails s`. The result was 97 MB without `-DEXPERIMENTAL_ISEQ_NODE_ID`, and 100 MB with the option enabled. In my opinion, it is not so large, but requiring more gems will increase the difference. I will appriciate it if anyone could provide the actual memory increase in a more practical Rails app. Do you think this feature deserves the memory increase? ---Files-------------------------------- image.png (73.3 KB) -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: