Project

General

Profile

Feature #12655

accessing a method visibility

Added by mathieujobin (Mathieu Jobin) over 3 years ago. Updated 8 months ago.

Status:
Feedback
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
[ruby-core:76732]

Description

Hello,

I took on the task to make the looksee gem work with recent ruby 2.3 and 2.4
unfortunately, some feature were not directly accessible in ruby, so a C extension was made including some of ruby internals.

for ruby 2.2 support, internal.h and method.h was included. for ruby 2.3, I found I needed id_table.h at least. but I did not fully succeeded making it work for 2.3

on a short email thread with koichi san, he suggested it would be better to request ruby to add the necessary public interface to ruby, so looksee does not need internals.

looksee creates these new methods from ruby internals

rb_define_method(mMRI, "internal_superclass", Looksee_internal_superclass, 1);
rb_define_method(mMRI, "internal_class", Looksee_internal_class, 1);
rb_define_method(mMRI, "internal_public_instance_methods", Looksee_internal_public_instance_methods, 1);
rb_define_method(mMRI, "internal_protected_instance_methods", Looksee_internal_protected_instance_methods, 1);
rb_define_method(mMRI, "internal_private_instance_methods", Looksee_internal_private_instance_methods, 1);
rb_define_method(mMRI, "internal_undefined_instance_methods", Looksee_internal_undefined_instance_methods, 1);
rb_define_method(mMRI, "included_class?", Looksee_included_class_p, 1);
rb_define_method(mMRI, "singleton_class?", Looksee_singleton_class_p, 1);
rb_define_method(mMRI, "singleton_instance", Looksee_singleton_instance, 1);
rb_define_method(mMRI, "real_module", Looksee_real_module, 1);
rb_define_method(mMRI, "module_name", Looksee_module_name, 1);

it uses the following macros to find the method visibility and if it has been redefined

UNDEFINED_METHOD_ENTRY_P(me)
METHOD_ENTRY_VISI(me)

Ideally, a ruby method that would return its visibility, should return one of the following value

[:public, :protected, :private, :undefined, :overridden]

we are using other ruby macros to find where the method is define, which module or class.

RCLASS_SUPER(internal_class)
CLASS_OF(object)
RCLASS_M_TBL(klass)
SPECIAL_CONST_P(object)
BUILTIN_TYPE(object)
FL_TEST(singleton_class, FL_SINGLETON)
RCLASS_IV_TBL(singleton_class)
RBASIC(module_or_included_class)->klass

that is mostly it

you can see what I have tried for ruby 2.3
https://github.com/oggy/looksee/pull/36/files#diff-d5ef4b0cfbd5a6712f37dfa7ffbe2130

I'm unable to use rb_id_table_foreach which seems like I would need to import too much of ruby code inside the extension... which I would prefer not including more C into this gem

So I am trying to extract an st_table from the struct rb_id_table* but I am getting a deferencing incomplete type error.

please help.

History

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) over 3 years ago

I think it should be possible to implement locksee in pure-ruby. To me it seems OK to have a way to access visibility of a method.

It is not clear if locksee cannot be implemented without exposing IClass, though.

Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Open to Feedback
  • Description updated (diff)

Mathieu Jobin wrote:

it uses the following macros to find the method visibility and if it has been redefined

UNDEFINED_METHOD_ENTRY_P(me)
METHOD_ENTRY_VISI(me)

I'd love to add the functions, but are they really needed?

Ideally, a ruby method that would return its visibility, should return one of the following value

[:public, :protected, :private, :undefined, :overridden]

I think :overridden doesn't make sense in ruby.
What do you expect by it?

we are using other ruby macros to find where the method is define, which module or class.

RCLASS_SUPER(internal_class)
CLASS_OF(object)
SPECIAL_CONST_P(object)
BUILTIN_TYPE(object)
FL_TEST(singleton_class, FL_SINGLETON)

These would be safe.

RCLASS_M_TBL(klass)
RCLASS_IV_TBL(singleton_class)

It's not recommended to directly access internal members, m_tbl, iv_tbl, etc.

RBASIC(module_or_included_class)->klass

It is preferable to use RBASIC_CLASS() instead of RBASIC()->klass.

that is mostly it

you can see what I have tried for ruby 2.3
https://github.com/oggy/looksee/pull/36/files#diff-d5ef4b0cfbd5a6712f37dfa7ffbe2130

I'm unable to use rb_id_table_foreach which seems like I would need to import too much of ruby code inside the extension... which I would prefer not including more C into this gem

The reason to use id_table seems to collect methods for each visibilities.
What differs from rb_class_public_instance_methods etc?

What you need are rb_class_undefined_instance_methods and
rb_class_singleton_object (provisonal names)?

Updated by oggy (George Ogata) over 3 years ago

Hi,

I'm the original author of looksee.

I agree that we don't need everything in the Looksee extension in ruby. Looksee was written back in 2009 when I think the situation was a little different, but now I believe Module#ancestors should suffice to get the chain of modules.

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

What you need are rb_class_undefined_instance_methods and
rb_class_singleton_object (provisonal names)?

I think this is exactly right. Would you consider exposing these at the ruby level?

Updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) over 3 years ago

We briefly looked at this issue at yesterday's developer meeting and roughly agreed that locksee should be able to be done in pure-ruby.

Sad news is we had no time to have a deeper look at it so what is actually needed was not made clear at the meeting.

Updated by oggy (George Ogata) about 3 years ago

Thanks Shyouhei! I believe I need the 2 methods Nobu has implemented in this patch here to implement Looksee entirely in ruby, which I would love to do. In the latest version of looksee I have reduced the MRI extension down to just these 2 methods, so if this were in trunk I could swap those in & try it.

(Or if you are reluctant to expose these at the ruby level, is there any chance they could be made available to extensions?)

Updated by mathieujobin (Mathieu Jobin) 8 months ago

I know its been two years already.
but do you think we could get those new methods merged into trunk?

Also available in: Atom PDF