# 1.9 require problem **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [September 2, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-require-problem/194353 "2010-09-02T22:07:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d2c977/32.png) [@byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/byrnejb)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-require-problem/194353/1 "2010-09-02T22:07:32Z")
As of this morning I am just starting to work with Ruby 1.9. I note that there seems to be some behaviour change between 1.8 and 1.9 with respect to require. Specifically, I have this construct. #!/usr/bin/env ruby require File.dirname( **FILE** ) + ‘/…/lib/deploy/pg\_access\_setup’ PGAccessSetup::Main.new(ARGV).execute With ruby 1.8 this works exactly as I desire. With ruby 1.9.2-p0 I get this behaviour instead: internal:lib/rubygems/custom\_require:29:in `require': no such file to load -- bin/../lib/deploy/pg_access_setup (LoadError) from :29:in`require’ from bin/pg\_access\_setup:3:in `’ I have spent some time googling for answers to this and I have checked this forum’s archives for hints. I am either using the wrong terms or not understanding what I am reading. Whatever the matter is, I cannot decipher what the difference is. If anyone here can tell me what I need to change to get this to work under Ruby 1.9 AND Ruby 1.8 I would be most obliged, ---
**Author:** ![byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d2c977/32.png) [@byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/byrnejb)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-require-problem/194353/2 "2010-09-02T22:29:24Z")
James B. wrote: > As of this morning I am just starting to work with Ruby 1.9. I note > that there seems to be some behaviour change between 1.8 and 1.9 with > respect to require. > . . . > > If anyone here can tell me what I need to change to get this to work > under Ruby 1.9 AND Ruby 1.8 I would be most obliged, I discover that if I do this: require File.expand\_path( File.dirname( **FILE** ) + ‘/…/lib/deploy/pg\_access\_setup’) Then the problem is resolved. However, I do not understand why this is now necessary or what benefit accrues from introducing this change in behaviour between 1.8 and 1.9. ---
**Author:** ![byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d2c977/32.png) [@byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/byrnejb)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-require-problem/194353/3 "2010-09-02T22:50:54Z")
On 09/02/2010 10:32 PM, James B. wrote: > require File.expand\_path( > File.dirname( **FILE** ) + ‘/…/lib/deploy/pg\_access\_setup’) You can as well modify $: or set RUBYLIB in the environment. > Then the problem is resolved. However, I do not understand why this is > now necessary or what benefit accrues from introducing this change in > behaviour between 1.8 and 1.9. Maybe it’s not so much a change in behavior or rather a changed default setting of $:. Kind regards robert ---
**Author:** ![byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d2c977/32.png) [@byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/byrnejb)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-require-problem/194353/4 "2010-09-02T22:57:56Z")
On Sep 2, 5:32 pm, James B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > require File.expand\_path( > File.dirname( **FILE** ) + ‘/…/lib/deploy/pg\_access\_setup’) > > Then the problem is resolved. However, I do not understand why this is > now necessary or what benefit accrues from introducing this change in > behaviour between 1.8 and 1.9. $LOADED\_FEATURES now tracks files with full paths to avoid requires with File.dirname( **FILE** ) load the same file twice. ---
**Author:** ![byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d2c977/32.png) [@byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/byrnejb)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-require-problem/194353/5 "2010-09-03T15:41:19Z")
Luis L. wrote: > On Sep 2, 5:32�pm, James B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > require File.expand\_path( > > File.dirname( **FILE** ) + ‘/…/lib/deploy/pg\_access\_setup’) > > > > Then the problem is resolved. However, I do not understand why this is > > now necessary or what benefit accrues from introducing this change in > > behaviour between 1.8 and 1.9. > > $LOADED\_FEATURES now tracks files with full paths to avoid requires > with File.dirname( **FILE** ) load the same file twice. I see. Is there some reason that require does not issue an error that an absolute path was not provided instead of just reporting that it cannot find the file? The error message that is presently given simply reports the path used by require and does so in such a way that the necessity to provide an absolute path is not evident at all. The fact that an ls -l of the path reported together with the .rb extension will actually find the file required adds to the confusion. I understand the intent of the change. And I take it that require\_relative was provided to maintain the old behaviour. However, this situation does seem to require a little more in the way of an explicit explanation of the probable cause of the errors which inevitably result from using 1.8 code with 1.9. ---
**Author:** ![byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d2c977/32.png) [@byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/byrnejb)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-require-problem/194353/6 "2010-09-03T16:08:34Z")
James B. wrote: > I understand the intent of the change. And I take it that > require\_relative was provided to maintain the old behaviour. However, > this situation does seem to require a little more in the way of an > explicit explanation of the probable cause of the errors which > inevitably result from using 1.8 code with 1.9. OK. This is not good. If I try to use require\_relative I discover that backtracks in the directory tree are ignored. For instance, given this code: #!/usr/bin/env ruby lib\_path = File.dirname( **FILE** ) + ‘/…/lib/forex/hll\_forex\_ca\_feed’ puts lib\_path puts("Library file found? " + (File.file?(lib\_path + ‘.rb’)).to\_s) require\_relative lib\_path HLLForexCAFeed::Main.new(ARGV).execute I would expect that the file ./bin/…/lib/forex/hll\_forex\_ca\_feed.rb would be found. Instead, when I run this program I see this: $ bin/forex bin/…/lib/forex/hll\_forex\_ca\_feed Library file found? true bin/forex:9:in `require_relative': no such file to load -- /home/byrnejb/Software/Development/Projects/proforma.git/bin/lib/forex/hll_forex_ca_feed (LoadError) from bin/forex:9:in` Note that the path determined by require\_relative: home/byrnejb/Software/Development/Projects/proforma.git/bin/lib/forex/hll\_forex\_ca\_feed) does not accommodate the /…/ portion of the relative path provided. It simply discards it. In my opinion, the path should read: home/byrnejb/Software/Development/Projects/proforma.git/lib/forex/hll\_forex\_ca\_feed or home/byrnejb/Software/Development/Projects/proforma.git/bin/…/lib/forex/hll\_forex\_ca\_feed Is this intended behaviour? ---
**Author:** ![byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/d2c977/32.png) [@byrnejb](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/byrnejb)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-require-problem/194353/7 "2010-09-03T16:16:01Z")
James B. wrote: > OK. This is not good. If I try to use require\_relative I discover that > backtracks in the directory tree are ignored. For instance, given this > code: Now I discover something even worse. If I change the the lib\_path by adding an additional /… then the thing works. That I do not understand. $ bin/forex bin/…/…/lib/forex/hll\_forex\_ca\_feed Library file found? false $ If this is intended behaviour then I do not understand why the additional /… is necessary. As it stands, if this is intended, then it means that writing code to work with 1.8 and 1.9 ruby that uses require\_relative will need different relative paths to the same file.