rdp / backtracer Goto Github PK

irb(main):003:0> Object.constants.grep /SCRIPT/i
=> [:ScriptError, :RUBY_DESCRIPTION]
irb(main):004:0> require 'backtracer'
=> true
irb(main):005:0> Object.constants.grep /SCRIPT/i
=> [:ScriptError, :RUBY_DESCRIPTION, :SCRIPT_LINES__]

I like what you're doing here. Always thought the backtrace could be made more useful. It occurs to me that it can be hard to decide what exactly one should show in a backtrace, you never know what the developer wants to see, and providing everything can be an overload. That led to to think it would be cool if the backtrace did provide everything, but in YAML, and then we could pipe that to a filter command to see it in different ways, even write our own filters. We might have somthing like:

ruby -rbacktracer myscript.rb 2>&1 | backtracer -i locals

/home/rdp/prod/allgems_prod_copy/lib/allgems/App.rb in load_gem_spec
haml :load, :layout => false
end

    private

    def load_gem_spec(gem, version=nil)
        version ||= get_latest(gem)
        raise 'failed gem' unless version
        Specer.get_spec(gem, version)
    end

    # gem:: name of the gem
    # Returns the latest version of the given gem or nil
    def get_latest(gem)
        AllGems.db[:versions].join(:gems, :id => :gem_id

E:/installs/ruby191p376/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.1/gems/backtracer-0.7.2/lib/backtracer.rb:32: warning: global variable `$no_code_line_numbers' not initialized

C:/installs/ruby19_mingw/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.1/gems/backtracer-0.6.1/lib/backtracer.rb:32:in `block in ': undefined method`set_backtrace' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError)
C:/installs/ruby19_mingw/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.9.1/rubygems.rb:827:in `report_activate_error': Could not find RubyGem whichr (>= 0) (Gem::LoadError)
        from C:/installs/ruby19_mingw/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.9.1/rubygems.rb:261:in`activate'
        from C:/installs/ruby19_mingw/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.9.1/rubygems.rb:68:in `gem'
        from :273:in`push_gem_version_on_load_path'
        from internal:gem_prelude:14:in `gem'
        from c:/cygwin/bin/whichr:18:in`'

yup

guess not yet...

and other permutations, if anybody cares +1 this

yes indeed it is

I doubt it