From: "Eregon (Benoit Daloze)" Date: 2022-08-15T11:03:32+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:109481] [Ruby master Bug#18729] Method#owner and UnboundMethod#owner are incorrect after using Module#public/protected/private Issue #18729 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). Also as @ufuk says in https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18435#note-2, owner and instance_methods should be consistent. And they should reflect what is in the actual method table, not hiding some methods like ZSUPER methods which users don't know what they are, but they created a method on that module, hence it should be in the method table. ---------------------------------------- Bug #18729: Method#owner and UnboundMethod#owner are incorrect after using Module#public/protected/private https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18729#change-98649 * Author: Eregon (Benoit Daloze) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * ruby -v: ruby 3.1.1p18 (2022-02-18 revision 53f5fc4236) [x86_64-linux] * Backport: 2.6: UNKNOWN, 2.7: UNKNOWN, 3.0: UNKNOWN, 3.1: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- The #owner should be "the class or module that defines the method". Or in other words, the owner is the module which has the method table containing that method. This generally holds, and it seems very likely this assumption is relied upon (e.g., when decorating a method, undefining it, etc). But the returned value on CRuby is incorrect for this case: ```ruby class A protected def foo :A end end class B < A p [instance_method(:foo), instance_method(:foo).owner, instance_methods(false), A.instance_methods(false)] public :foo p [instance_method(:foo), instance_method(:foo).owner, instance_methods(false), A.instance_methods(false)] end ``` It gives: ``` [#, A, [], [:foo]] [#, A, [:foo], [:foo]] ``` So `UnboundMethod#owner` says `A`, but clearly there is a :foo method entry in B created by `public :foo`, and that is shown through `B.instance_methods(false)`. The expected output is: ``` [#, A, [], [:foo]] [#, B, [:foo], [:foo]] ``` -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: