New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Untodoed evil hack in Backtrace.pm #6395
Comments
From @AlexDanielIt goes like this: # now *that's* an evil hack Creating a ticket so that it does not fall through the cracks. |
From @toolforger
I think the whole concept of defining what's "interesting" in a 1) It cannot handle non-runtime code that one might want to filter. Maybe it's smarter to have a function annotation (i.e. a trait, I If a trait is not the way to go, one could deal at least with (5) by # Functions in this file will not show up in backtraces. I think line 148 has the same kind of evilness (decide what to do
|
The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open' |
From @geekosaurOn Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Joachim Durchholz <jo@durchholz.org> wrote:
So does Perl 6, actually; there's some discussion in the spec, and possibly -- |
From @toolforgerAm 17.07.2017 um 09:32 schrieb Brandon Allbery:
Do you mean that the Perl6 spec considers this to be evil, too?
Is my understanding correct: That we're looking at a chicken-and-egg |
From @jnthnOn Sun, 16 Jul 2017 23:49:55 -0700, jo@durchholz.org wrote:
The filenames end in .nqp. A Perl 6 users will be hugely unlikely to create such files.
The code in question is implemented in NQP, which doesn't have a generalized traits mechanism. As to disabling the filtering mechanism, that's entirely possible today with --ll-exception. The code in question is producing backtraces that will contain things relevant to a Perl 6 user, using these heuristics to filter out implementation guts that will almost certainly always be a distraction. Is it beautiful code? No. It's been a pretty good heuristic to date, however. |
From @geekosaurOn Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 4:20 AM, Joachim Durchholz <jo@durchholz.org> wrote:
Yes. This is an acknowledged hack to provide the functionality when it
That's my read, but jnthn's observation that this lives in NQP-land also (This is not the first chicken-and-egg problem we've had. The setting needs -- |
From @toolforgerAm 17.07.2017 um 11:34 schrieb jnthn@jnthn.net via RT:
Ahh, may bad, this being NQP files flew right by me and I didn't see it. I retract the traits idea - adding that just for this issue might be a I'd still like to see the dependency documented in the filtered files. |
From @AlexDanielI don't think this ticket needs so much discussion… It's basically about implementing the damn thing properly (and coming up with a way to do it along the way). On 2017-07-16 21:17:22, alex.jakimenko@gmail.com wrote:
|
From @zoffixznetOn Mon, 17 Jul 2017 08:33:12 -0700, alex.jakimenko@gmail.com wrote:
What problems does the current implementation have? What problem is the ticket wishes to be solved? |
From @AlexDanielI think the purpose of the ticket was stated clearly in the first message. Feel free to change the comment in the source code to “This is a hack but there's no point to improve it” and close the ticket. To me it felt like the intention was to improve this part later, but no TODO comment was left, so we have this ticket. If I am being wrong, then yeah. On 2017-07-17 09:18:29, cpan@zoffix.com wrote:
|
From @zoffixznetOn Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:25:26 -0700, alex.jakimenko@gmail.com wrote:
We peek at the filename in many places in Backtrace class. The "evil hack" |
@zoffixznet - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved' |
From @geekosaurOn Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Joachim Durchholz via RT <
7. When Perl 6 gets used on the web, someone *will* find a way to abuse -- |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#131757 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT131757$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: