Issue #17930 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).


Thank you for suggestions about the name. For the record, @pocke and @naruse like "pretty_error". I'll bring this to the next dev-meeting and ask @matz to pick up.


Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote in #note-21:
> How about using a "core" `.rb` file at the root of the repo, and define the methods/classes under an internal module?

It was a possible alternative approach that I had considered, but the gem-based approach was accepted in the previous dev-meeting. If it is a gem, we can allow users to update it by "gem update error_highlight" or something. As I said, we will have to adjust the underline location after the 3.1 release, so the update capabilty will be useful for a while. After the specification becomes stable, we might remove the gem and make the feature truly built in the core.

----------------------------------------
Feature #17930: Add column information into error backtrace
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17930#change-92649

* 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 `<main>': 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: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>