From: "byroot (Jean Boussier)" Date: 2022-11-11T23:37:59+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:110712] [Ruby master Feature#19117] Include the method owner in backtraces, not just the method name Issue #19117 has been updated by byroot (Jean Boussier). > 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. Yes. I didn't mention it because I thought it was implied. The idea is to use the exiting common syntax for fully qualified method names. ---------------------------------------- Feature #19117: Include the method owner in backtraces, not just the method name https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19117#change-100053 * 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: