Skip to content

Fix compatibility with power_assert 3.0 on older rubies #329

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
kou merged 1 commit into from
Nov 3, 2025
Merged

Fix compatibility with power_assert 3.0 on older rubies #329

kou merged 1 commit into from
Nov 3, 2025
+6 −0

Conversation

@byroot
Copy link
Contributor

@byroot byroot commented Nov 3, 2025 •
edited by kou
Loading

power_assert 3.0 now uses pattern matching: ruby/power_assert#57.

This causes it to be half defined on Ruby 3.0 and older.

$ bundle exec ruby -Itest test/json/json_coder_test.rb
/Users/byroot/.gem/rubies/3.0.7/gems/test-unit-3.7.0/lib/test/unit/util/backtracefilter.rb:16:in `method': undefined method `start' for class `#<Class:PowerAssert>' (NameError)
	from /Users/byroot/.gem/rubies/3.0.7/gems/test-unit-3.7.0/lib/test/unit/util/backtracefilter.rb:16:in `<module:BacktraceFilter>'
	from /Users/byroot/.gem/rubies/3.0.7/gems/test-unit-3.7.0/lib/test/unit/util/backtracefilter.rb:9:in `<module:Util>'
	from /Users/byroot/.gem/rubies/3.0.7/gems/test-unit-3.7.0/lib/test/unit/util/backtracefilter.rb:8:in `<module:Unit>'
	from /Users/byroot/.gem/rubies/3.0.7/gems/test-unit-3.7.0/lib/test/unit/util/backtracefilter.rb:7:in `<module:Test>'
	from /Users/byroot/.gem/rubies/3.0.7/gems/test-unit-3.7.0/lib/test/unit/util/backtracefilter.rb:6:in `<top (required)>'
	from /Users/byroot/.gem/rubies/3.0.7/gems/test-unit-3.7.0/lib/test/unit/assertions.rb:7:in `require_relative'
	from /Users/byroot/.gem/rubies/3.0.7/gems/test-unit-3.7.0/lib/test/unit/assertions.rb:7:in `<top (required)>'
	from /Users/byroot/.gem/rubies/3.0.7/gems/test-unit-3.7.0/lib/test/unit/testcase.rb:12:in `require_relative'
	from /Users/byroot/.gem/rubies/3.0.7/gems/test-unit-3.7.0/lib/test/unit/testcase.rb:12:in `<top (required)>'
	from /Users/byroot/.gem/rubies/3.0.7/gems/test-unit-3.7.0/lib/test/unit.rb:3:in `require_relative'
	from /Users/byroot/.gem/rubies/3.0.7/gems/test-unit-3.7.0/lib/test/unit.rb:3:in `<top (required)>'
	from /Users/byroot/src/github.com/ruby/json/test/json/test_helper.rb:28:in `require'
	from /Users/byroot/src/github.com/ruby/json/test/json/test_helper.rb:28:in `<top (required)>'
	from test/json/json_coder_test.rb:4:in `require_relative'
	from test/json/json_coder_test.rb:4:in `<main>'

@byroot byroot changed the title Fix compatibility with power_assert 3.0 on olrder rubies Fix compatibility with power_assert 3.0 on older rubies Nov 3, 2025
@byroot
Fix compatibility with power_assert 3.0 on older rubies
4e4b510 
power_assert 3.0 now use pattern matching: ruby/power_assert#57
This cause it to be half defined on Ruby 3.0 and older.
@byroot byroot force-pushed the fix-power-assert-3.0 branch from 12b8dad to 4e4b510 Compare November 3, 2025 08:34
@byroot byroot mentioned this pull request Nov 3, 2025
Closed
byroot added a commit to ruby/json that referenced this pull request Nov 3, 2025
@byroot
Avoid power_assert 3.0 on Ruby 3.0 and older
2b8f853 
Ref: test-unit/test-unit#329
@kou kou mentioned this pull request Nov 3, 2025
Closed
@kou kou merged commit dd28c55 into test-unit:master Nov 3, 2025
36 checks passed
@kou
Copy link
Member

kou commented Nov 3, 2025

Thanks!

@tikkss Could you release a new version?

@kou kou mentioned this pull request Nov 3, 2025
Merged
@tikkss
Copy link
Contributor

tikkss commented Nov 3, 2025

Sure! I'll work on it in a few hours.

@rhenium rhenium mentioned this pull request Nov 3, 2025
Closed
@kou kou mentioned this pull request Nov 3, 2025
Merged
@Earlopain
Copy link

Earlopain commented Nov 4, 2025

Is there a reason why power_assert has no required_ruby_version? This removes the power_assert module but requiring it seems to have other side effects. In the ruby/prism test suite on Ruby 2.7, a class new method is suddenly not defined anymore https://github.com/ruby/prism/actions/runs/19042061678/job/54381447951?pr=3704

I confirmed this locally, skipping the power_assert require entirely from test-unit resolves this error. Skipping power_assert 3.0.0 does fix this as well obviously.

Earlopain added a commit to Earlopain/prism that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2025
@Earlopain
Skip power_assert 3.0 on Ruby < 3.1`
c660035 
It requires Ruby 3.1 but declares no `required_ruby_version`.
Ref: test-unit/test-unit#329 (comment)
@Earlopain Earlopain mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2025
Closed
@byroot
Copy link
Contributor Author

byroot commented Nov 4, 2025

Is there a reason why power_assert has no required_ruby_version?

It would be preferable, unfortunately that ship has sailed. Now that power_assert 3.0.0 has been released with no ruby version requirement, bundler will inevitably try to install it.

@Earlopain
Copy link

Earlopain commented Nov 4, 2025

Well, yeah. It's unfortunate that bundler will always land on 3.0.0 in case of conflict but that at least makes it more obvious that something is not entirely right once more time has passed and new versions have been released.

I will open a PR.

Earlopain added a commit to Earlopain/power_assert that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2025
@Earlopain
Declare required_ruby_version to be Ruby 3.1
8d77453 
This is only documented in the Readme.

3.0.0 now depends on pattern matching, which is invalid syntax on 2.7.
The `test-unit` gem depends on `power_assert` and tries to handle that by catching `SyntaxError`:
https://github.com/test-unit/test-unit/blob/edfa50cf4fef5521f34dca1995c1c8f3efe77d7b/lib/test/unit/assertions.rb#L12-L18
That seems to have worked ok previously but now it leaves the `PowerAssert` module behind,
among other things. `test-unit` cleans that up via test-unit/test-unit#329
but there are other side-effects it can do nothing about.

For example, an undefined `new` method:
> /Users/runner/hostedtoolcache/Ruby/2.7.8/arm64/lib/ruby/gems/2.7.0/gems/onigmo-0.1.0/lib/onigmo/node.rb:27:in `private_class_method': undefined method `new' for class `#<Class:Onigmo::Node>' (NameError)
> Did you mean?  next

Now, bundler will always fall back to 3.0.0 even if this gets released as 3.0.0.
But eventually it will help for future version bumps.
@Earlopain Earlopain mentioned this pull request Nov 4, 2025
Closed
@Earlopain
Copy link

Earlopain commented Nov 4, 2025

ruby/power_assert#61

@eregon
Copy link

eregon commented Nov 4, 2025

It would be preferable, unfortunately that ship has sailed. Now that power_assert 3.0.0 has been released with no ruby version requirement, bundler will inevitably try to install it.

Maybe this would be a good case to yank that version since it causes known problems? (after releasing 3.0.1 or so with the proper required_ruby_version of course)

@byroot
Copy link
Contributor Author

byroot commented Nov 4, 2025

I'm generally against yanking as it tend to cause even more issues.

@byroot byroot deleted the fix-power-assert-3.0 branch November 4, 2025 09:31
@Earlopain
Copy link

Earlopain commented Nov 4, 2025

Yes, I hate yanking (as implemented). It causes problems for everyone that already upgraded and didn't have issues in the first place or already worked around it.

At one point you were able to still install even yanked gems which would be fine for this but I understand why they changed it. "soft-yanking" for cases like this would be great, I never encountered one where the gem had to actually be removed completely.

@eregon
Copy link

eregon commented Nov 5, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Maybe it's time for test-unit to stop depending on power_assert: ruby/power_assert#61 (comment)
I think very few people use assert { ... } anyway (edited).

@Earlopain
Copy link

Earlopain commented Nov 5, 2025

I think very few people use plain assert anyway.

plain assert with a block. I don't think it does anything otherwise.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@byroot @kou @tikkss @Earlopain @eregon