From: "Eregon (Benoit Daloze)" Date: 2022-11-11T10:01:36+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:110702] [Ruby master Feature#19117] Include the method owner in backtraces, not just the method name Issue #19117 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). Agreed the better default Module#inspect is a mostly separate thing (matching across processes is too difficult IMHO, and there might be multiple modules created on the same file:line so we need to show the ID anyway). It's also fairly rare to have anonymous modules on the stack. I think the one thing we should do is special handling of singleton classes to use the `.` notation instead, since that improves readability quite a bit. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19117: Include the method owner in backtraces, not just the method name https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19117#change-100044 * Author: byroot (Jean Boussier) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- ``` 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 `
' ``` 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 `
' ``` 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/ Unsubscribe: