Dne 10.7.2012 16:12, John5342 napsal(a):
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Vít Ondruch <[email protected]> wrote:
You are right, you can change the $PROGRAM_NAME. I'll make several points
here
* Is there some more reliable way how to detect the script name?
* What is the use case and how widely is this practice used? Can we ignore
this case? Python handler ignores it if I am not mistaken (but we should be
better of course ;)
* ABRT ignores such failure and it just logs something like "Executable
'foo.rb' doesn't belong to any package" into /var/log/messages.
If the Ruby documentation is to be believed you could use
Kernel#caller to get a stack trace which apparently has a set format
including the file name. It is of course swapping a user modifiable
value for something slightly more fragile (it could potentially change
in some future version). Perhaps use the current way and fall back to
Kernel#caller if $0 doesn't resolve to a real file (which would
indicate it has been modified.
None of this of course covers scenarios where user/other code is
loaded from within another program (think rake, thor, etc) but in the
case of an exception, Exception#backtrace is the same format as
Kernel#caller.
John, thank you. Use of the Exception#backtrace is nice idea! Have to
take a look into.
It might be even possible to extract the "latest gem" in the backtrace
and assign the bug to it, but I am not sure if that is good idea, since
the error might be in the gem as well as in its caller. In that case, I
would expect that the library consumer/application author has "more"
knowledge about the library then the library author about the
consumer/application. Thoughts?
Vit
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
