[#108176] [Ruby master Bug#18679] Encoding::UndefinedConversionError: "\xE2" from ASCII-8BIT to UTF-8 — "taf2 (Todd Fisher)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18679 has been reported by taf2 (Todd Fisher).

8 messages 2022/04/05

[#108185] [Ruby master Feature#18683] Allow to create hashes with a specific capacity. — "byroot (Jean Boussier)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18683 has been reported by byroot (Jean Boussier).

13 messages 2022/04/06

[#108198] [Ruby master Feature#18685] Enumerator.product: Cartesian product of enumerators — "knu (Akinori MUSHA)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18685 has been reported by knu (Akinori MUSHA).

8 messages 2022/04/08

[#108201] [Ruby master Misc#18687] [ANN] Upgraded bugs.ruby-lang.org to Redmine 5.0 — "hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18687 has been reported by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).

10 messages 2022/04/09

[#108216] [Ruby master Misc#18691] An option to run `make rbconfig.rb` in a different directory — "jaruga (Jun Aruga)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18691 has been reported by jaruga (Jun Aruga).

14 messages 2022/04/12

[#108225] [Ruby master Misc#18726] CI Error on c99 and c2x — "znz (Kazuhiro NISHIYAMA)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18726 has been reported by znz (Kazuhiro NISHIYAMA).

11 messages 2022/04/14

[#108235] [Ruby master Bug#18729] Method#owner and UnboundMethod#owner are incorrect after using Module#public/protected/private — "Eregon (Benoit Daloze)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18729 has been reported by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).

28 messages 2022/04/14

[#108237] [Ruby master Bug#18730] Double `return` event handling with different tracepoints — "hurricup (Alexandr Evstigneev)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18730 has been reported by hurricup (Alexandr Evstigneev).

8 messages 2022/04/14

[#108294] [Ruby master Bug#18743] Enumerator#next / peek re-use each others stacktraces — sos4nt <noreply@...>

Issue #18743 has been reported by sos4nt (Stefan Schテシテ殕er).

20 messages 2022/04/19

[#108301] [Ruby master Bug#18744] I used Jazzy to generate the doc for my iOS library, but it showed me a bug — "zhaoxinqiang (marc steven)" <noreply@...>

Issue #18744 has been reported by zhaoxinqiang (marc steven).

8 messages 2022/04/20

[ruby-core:108265] [Ruby master Bug#18729] Method#owner and UnboundMethod#owner are incorrect after using Module#public/protected/private

From: "jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans)" <noreply@...>
Date: 2022-04-15 14:51:07 UTC
List: ruby-core #108265
Issue #18729 has been updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans).


Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote in #note-3:
> > I'm not sure if this is a bug, since the current behavior seems intentional.
> 
> Why do you think it might be intentional?
> It sounds like a clear implementation bug to me (which I guess wasn't found until now, or maybe not deemed worth fixing if found by others).

The code deliberates handles ZSUPER methods by looking for the method entry that actually handles the method, instead of using the ZSUPER method entry.  There is no way this is an accidental bug, it's a deliberate implementation choice.

Note that my pull request doesn't change the underlying implementation, it still uses the method entry that actually handles the method.  My pull request only records the necessary metadata so that `owner`/`inspect`/`super_method` return results as if the ZSUPER method entry was used.

----------------------------------------
Bug #18729: Method#owner and UnboundMethod#owner are incorrect after using Module#public/protected/private
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18729#change-97287

* 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:
```
[#<UnboundMethod: B(A)#foo() owner.rb:2>, A, [], [:foo]]
[#<UnboundMethod: B(A)#foo() owner.rb:2>, 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:

```
[#<UnboundMethod: B(A)#foo() owner.rb:2>, A, [], [:foo]]
[#<UnboundMethod: B#foo() owner.rb:2>, B, [:foo], [:foo]]
```



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>

In This Thread