Rails Ruby on Rails → 3.0.2

Comments and changes to this ticket

• 

  Rohit Arondekar June 6th, 2010 @ 03:06 AM

  Upgrading to i18n 0.4.1 fixed 9 errors.

  However the stack too deep errors still remain. I suspect these are related to test/unit. The error is thrown by the assert methods. Version of Ruby => ruby 1.9.2dev (2010-06-06 revision 28184) [x86_64-linux]

• 

  Rizwan Reza June 6th, 2010 @ 09:28 AM

  • Milestone cleared.
  • Tag set to “actionpack”
  • State changed from “new” to “resolved”

  This commit fixes it: http://github.com/rails/rails/commit/35ae42be4f9e23ae954e4705276b46...

  Let us know if otherwise.

• 

  Rohit Arondekar June 7th, 2010 @ 01:57 AM

  That commit fixes 9 errors. 35 errors still remain and I think these are caused by test/unit. The error is thrown by the assert methods.

  Version of Ruby: ruby 1.9.2dev (2010-06-06 revision 28184)

  Pastie of errors => http://pastie.org/994401

• 

  Ryan Bigg June 7th, 2010 @ 02:21 AM

  • State changed from “resolved” to “open”
• 

  Rizwan Reza June 7th, 2010 @ 02:39 AM

  • no changes were found...
• 

  Rizwan Reza June 7th, 2010 @ 02:40 AM

  • Tag changed from “actionpack” to “activesupport, ruby-1.9.2”
• 

  Ryan Bigg June 8th, 2010 @ 04:05 AM

  Seemingly fixed by http://github.com/rails/rails/commit/0042f4166f783085eb909d69d542b5..., but that is a bit of a hack.

• 

  Rizwan Reza June 8th, 2010 @ 04:06 AM

  • State changed from “open” to “resolved”

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Florian Aßmann June 9th, 2010 @ 08:27 AM

  The problem is, imho, caused because of the way compar.c calls the spaceship:

  static VALUE
  cmp_eq(VALUE *a)
  {
      VALUE c = rb_funcall(a[0], cmp, 1, a[1]);
      ...
  
  ruby-1.9.2-head >
    BrokenComparable = Module.new { def ==(other) self <=> other end }
    BrokenClass = Class.new { include BrokenComparable }
    BrokenClass.new == nil
  SystemStackError: stack level too deep
  

  The current implementation of the spaceship operator ...

  static VALUE
  rb_mod_cmp(VALUE mod, VALUE arg)
  {
      *snip*
      cmp = rb_class_inherited_p(mod, arg);
      ...
  

  ... tries to lookup the method in the parent classes but fails because it's actually implemented in the Kernel module:

  ruby-1.9.2-head > Object.instance_methods(false)
   => [] 
  ruby-1.9.2-head > Object.superclass.instance_methods(false)
   => [:==, :equal?, :!, :!=, :instance_eval, :instance_exec, :__send__] 
  ruby-1.9.2-head > Object.superclass.superclass.methods(false)
   => [] 
  ruby-1.9.2-head > Object.superclass.superclass.class.instance_methods(false)
   => [:to_i, :to_f, :to_s, :to_a, :inspect, :&, :|, :^, :nil?, :to_r, :rationalize, :to_c] 
  ruby-1.9.2-head > Object.superclass.superclass.class.superclass.instance_methods(false)
   => [] 
  ruby-1.9.2-head > Object.superclass.superclass.class.superclass.superclass.instance_methods(false)
   => [:==, :equal?, :!, :!=, :instance_eval, :instance_exec, :__send__] 
  ...
  
  ruby-1.9.2-head > Kernel.instance_methods(false)
   => [:nil?, :===, :=~, :!~, :eql?, :hash, :<=>, :class, :singleton_class, :clone, :dup, :initialize_dup, :initialize_clone, :taint, :tainted?, :untaint, :untrust, :untrusted?, :trust, :freeze, :frozen?, :to_s, :inspect, :methods, :singleton_methods, :protected_methods, :private_methods, :public_methods, :instance_variables, :instance_variable_get, :instance_variable_set, :instance_variable_defined?, :instance_of?, :kind_of?, :is_a?, :tap, :send, :public_send, :respond_to?, :respond_to_missing?, :extend, :display, :method, :public_method, :define_singleton_method, :__id__, :object_id, :to_enum, :enum_for]
  

  But I'm neither familiar with C nor the ruby source so this is just a guess.

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  Luke van der Hoeven June 9th, 2010 @ 03:58 PM

  • Assigned user cleared.

  Fix/Hack: http://github.com/rails/rails/commit/0042f4166f783085eb909d69d542b5... actually seems to be breaking functionality. I get the following error when I try to run beta4 with the changes in the diff above: http://gist.github.com/431583

  Should the undef actually be added if we aren't really sure what it does or how it works? Especially if it break something here.

  Also, whats odd is if I call an action that doesn't rely on the comparator, and then revisit the offending action, it works fine.

  Side note, I am using ruby 1.9.1. Have not tested with 1.9.2

• 

  Jeremy Kemper October 15th, 2010 @ 11:01 PM

  • Milestone set to “3.0.2”
  • Importance changed from “” to “Low”

  [bulk edit]

• You flagged this item as spam.
  

  learn italian online May 20th, 2011 @ 01:23 AM

  For learn italian online those of you that were fortunate enough to catch some or all of our video project – below learn a language is a breakdown of the films that were submitted. rosetta stone We were very impressed with the amount of submissions rosetta stone spanish – as well as their diversity and quality.

  • 211211124jkhgghjghjg.jpg 49.1 KB