How to report a bug in ruby-1.9.3-p0 that is not present in ruby-1.9.3-head (ruby-1.9.3-p6)

Ruby
1

Hi,

While running cucumber tests on shoes with ruby-1.9.3-p0 (on rvm on
linux
on 32 bit x86),
I may have hit a ruby bug:

/home/peterv/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p0/gems/json-1.6.3/lib/json/common.rb:66:
[BUG] unknown type 0x22 (0xc given)
ruby 1.9.3p0 (2011-10-30 revision 33570) [i686-linux]
…
You may have encountered a bug in the Ruby interpreter or extension
libraries.
Bug reports are welcome.
For details: http://www.ruby-lang.org/bugreport.html

Details here

Cucumber on shoes triggers ruby 1.9.3-p0 bug (but NOT on ruby 1.9.3p6 (2011-12-30 revision 34159) [i686-linux]) · GitHub

I retested on ruby-head (with rvm install ruby-1.9.3-head)

ruby -v #=> ruby 1.9.3p6 (2011-12-30 revision 34159) [i686-linux]

and the bug was not longer triggered.

I wanted to report this bug in the 1.9.3 backport

Overview - Backport193 - Ruby Issue Tracking System

but was greeted by:

“Don’t report issues here.”

So, what is the correct approach I should take?

I am waiting to propose a pull request for shoes to upgrade to ruby
1.9.3
until this issue is fixed.

I read the “How to report bugs in Ruby” on

http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/HowToReport

but I did not see how I should handle this case. This line is closest to
my case:

If you’re reporting a bug in Ruby 1.9 ONLY: [[Ruby 1.9:]]

but I do not understand exactly from it what I should do now.

Thanks,

Peter

2

Peter V. wrote in post #1038848:

Hi,

While running cucumber tests on shoes with ruby-1.9.3-p0 (on rvm on
linux
on 32 bit x86),
I may have hit a ruby bug:

/home/peterv/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p0/gems/json-1.6.3/lib/json/common.rb:66:
[BUG] unknown type 0x22 (0xc given)
ruby 1.9.3p0 (2011-10-30 revision 33570) [i686-linux]
…

The problem is not Ruby 1.9.3-p0 versus 1.9.3-p6, the problem is that
you have an extension is not compiled for Ruby 1.9.2/1.9.3 and somehow
Ruby is trying to load it.

Search Ruby 1.9.2 or 1.9.3 unknown type 0x22 in Google and will find
several occurrences of that.

It doesn’t happen on your fresh Ruby 1.9.3-head because gem and
extensions were freshly compiled for it – not shared with previous
installation.

I recommend you remove existing gems and install them again.

–
Luis L.

3

Peter V. wrote in post #1038946:

I am curious how I got into this situation though … (I was upgrading
in rvm from the default 1.9.2 .rvmrc to test a new 1.9.3 environment
and maybe I made a mistake in that process … I cannot exactly
reproduce my command history).

Did you use rvm upgrade to copy gems from one version to the other?

Gems with C extensions links against Ruby shared library.

The differences between the API, while stated to be compatible (in
relation to the functions exposed), might not be the case with existing
compiled objects.

Cheers,

–
Luis L.

4

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Luis L. [email protected]
wrote:

/home/peterv/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.3-p0/gems/json-1.6.3/lib/json/common.rb:66:

It doesn’t happen on your fresh Ruby 1.9.3-head because gem and
extensions were freshly compiled for it – not shared with previous
installation.

I recommend you remove existing gems and install them again.

Thanks. Indeed, I created a new rvm gemset (with ruby 1.9.3-p0),
bundle installed the gems again and now the tests pass.

I am curious how I got into this situation though … (I was upgrading
in rvm from the default 1.9.2 .rvmrc to test a new 1.9.3 environment
and maybe I made a mistake in that process … I cannot exactly
reproduce my command history).

Thanks again,

Peter

5

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Luis L. [email protected]
wrote:

Peter V. wrote in post #1038946:

I am curious how I got into this situation though … (I was upgrading
in rvm from the default 1.9.2 .rvmrc to test a new 1.9.3 environment
and maybe I made a mistake in that process … I cannot exactly
reproduce my command history).

Did you use rvm upgrade to copy gems from one version to the other?

  1. In recent days, I have not used rvm upgrade.

I have different rubies installed in parallel in rvm, each have many
different
gemsets (e.g. 1.9.2@shoes and 1.9.3@shoes). Each ruby is newly
compiled (by rvm) and each gem is newly compiled (if native) in it’s
gemset.

  1. But, around 1 Nov 2011, I had executed this command

$ rvm upgrade ruby-1.9.3-rc1 ruby-1.9.3

as indicated in my mail of 19 Nov 2011

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/390355

So, that may be related to the problem.

Today (2012-01-01), I spent quite some time trying to reproduce this
problem (re-installing 1.9.3-rc1 and then doing the rvm upgrade to
1.9.3-p0 , but I could not make it fail in this way).

Also, checking the log file

new@ASUS:~/.rvm/log/1.9.3-rc1@shoes/gemset.pristine.log

mentions:

…
Building native extensions. This could take a while…
Restored json-1.6.1
…

so it seems that the rvm upgrade rebuilds the native extensions.

At this time, I am afraid I will not be able to reproduce this issue.

Thanks for your time anyway,

Peter

6

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Peter V.
[email protected]wrote:
…

I wanted to report this bug in the 1.9.3 backport

Overview - Backport193 - Ruby Issue Tracking System

but was greeted by:

“Don’t report issues here.”

So, what is the correct approach I should take?

I think I just saw the answer in an update of issue #5581:

Issue #5581 has been updated by Motohiro KOSAKI.

Status changed from Open to Rejected

Please don’t report new issues to Backport93 project. It only accept
backport request.

So, I propose to document it like this:

On page

Overview - Backport187 - Ruby Issue Tracking System
Overview - Backport193 - Ruby Issue Tracking System

Change the text:

“Don’t report issues here.”

Into:

“Don’t report issues here.
If the issue is not yet resolved in head, report it there.
If a patch is available in head, you may request a backport here.”

Thanks,

Peter