Bug #4487: require_relative fails in an eval'ed file

• Status: Closed
• Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
• Target version: -
• ruby -v: -

[rogerdpack (Roger Pack)]

=begin
Hello all.

$cat eval_me1.rb
eval(File.read('eval_me2.rb'), binding, File.expand_path('./eval_me2.rb'))
$cat eval_me2.rb
require_relative 'eval_me1.rb'
$ ruby eval_me1.rb
C:/dev/ruby/faster_require/spec/eval_me2.rb:1:in require_relative': cannot infer basepath (LoadError) from C:/dev/ruby/faster_require/spec/eval_me2.rb:1:in '
from eval_me1.rb:1:in eval' from eval_me1.rb:1:in '

I suppose was assuming that if eval included a filename, then require_relative would work from within it. Perhaps I am mistaken?
Thanks!
-r
=end

[naruse (Yui NARUSE)]

• Status changed from Open to Assigned
• Assignee set to mame (Yusuke Endoh)

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

• ruby -v changed from ruby 1.9.3dev (2011-03-04 trunk 31024) [i386-mingw32] to -

Hello,

 $cat eval_me1.rb
 eval(File.read('eval_me2.rb'), binding, File.expand_path('./eval_me2.rb'))
 $cat eval_me2.rb
 require_relative 'eval_me1.rb'
 $ ruby eval_me1.rb
 C:/dev/ruby/faster_require/spec/eval_me2.rb:1:in require_relative': cannot infer basepath (LoadError)        from C:/dev/ruby/faster_require/spec/eval_me2.rb:1:in '
       from eval_me1.rb:1:in eval'        from eval_me1.rb:1:in '

I suppose was assuming that if eval included a filename, then require_relative would work from within it. Perhaps I am mistaken?

I think your expectation is reasonable, though I personally dislike
the eval's feature to fake filepath.

The following patch makes require_relative use the given file path.
I'm afraid if I should include this patch in 1.9.3 because I can't
estimate the impact of this patch. What do you think?

diff --git a/vm_eval.c b/vm_eval.c
index 7df7f5f..3710401 100644
--- a/vm_eval.c
+++ b/vm_eval.c
@@ -1007,7 +1007,7 @@ eval_string_with_cref(VALUE self, VALUE src,
VALUE scope, NODE cref, const char
/ make eval iseq */
th->parse_in_eval++;
th->mild_compile_error++;

• iseqval

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

• Assignee changed from mame (Yusuke Endoh) to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)

Related to #4352.

I need matz's judgment.

--
Yusuke Endoh [e-mail]

[LTe (Piotr Niełacny)]

=begin
If in irb we can execute

(({load("file.rb")}))

why we can't

(({require_relative("file")}))

Ruby just return exception (LoadError: cannot infer basepath). Unfortunately, this is a 'lie' because ruby can recognize basepath.
=end

[shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)]

=begin

@LTe sorry, I can't get it. load loads from $LOAD_PATH, while require_relative requires from relative path. They are different.

=end

[LTe (Piotr Niełacny)]

@shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) yes I agree but load method tries to load file from relative path. When load method can't find file in relative path it loads from $LOAD_PATH. The same can be done by require_relative (recognize path).

https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/139

[shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)]

=begin
@LTe I'd rather ask you "require_relative loads something relative from WHAT?"

Obviously it is not relative from your mind :)

Current require_relative loads relative from where the require_relative command is written. So when in IRB sessions, it fails to infer where it is beacuse the command is written in a non-file (console).

OTOH load loads from process PWD, which is possible in IRB.

So the point is, if you want require_relative to work on an IRB session, you have to define "from where require_relative should search relativeness".
=end

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) wrote:

Current require_relative loads relative from where the require_relative command is written. So when in IRB sessions, it fails to infer where it is beacuse the command is written in a non-file (console).

OTOH load loads from process PWD, which is possible in IRB.

So the point is, if you want require_relative to work on an IRB session, you have to define "from where require_relative should search relativeness".

From the process current working directory I guess, especially since you almost always launch IRB from a terminal.

Personally I'm doing require './myfile' which is not the most elegant, but if you don't have completion in IRB, that's shorter to type.

Otherwise, there's always the option to do irb -I. and use plain require.

[naruse (Yui NARUSE)]

Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:

shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) wrote:

Current require_relative loads relative from where the require_relative command is written. So when in IRB sessions, it fails to infer where it is beacuse the command is written in a non-file (console).

OTOH load loads from process PWD, which is possible in IRB.

So the point is, if you want require_relative to work on an IRB session, you have to define "from where require_relative should search relativeness".

From the process current working directory I guess, especially since you almost always launch IRB from a terminal.

Personally I'm doing require './myfile' which is not the most elegant, but if you don't have completion in IRB, that's shorter to type.

Otherwise, there's always the option to do irb -I. and use plain require.

require_relative is introduced to avoid accidentally require a malicious file on the current working directory.
So it can't be acceptable.
Use require or load on such case.

[shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)]

naruse (Yui NARUSE) wrote:

require_relative is introduced to avoid accidentally require a malicious file on the current working directory.
So it can't be acceptable.
Use require or load on such case.

I'm not pretty sure about this. Is there a chance for a (proposed behaviour of) require_relative to require a malicious file on the current directory?

Because you are on an IRB session and intentionally emitting require_relative (not require), I doubt the danger you say.

[naruse (Yui NARUSE)]

shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe) wrote:

naruse (Yui NARUSE) wrote:

require_relative is introduced to avoid accidentally require a malicious file on the current working directory.
So it can't be acceptable.
Use require or load on such case.

I'm not pretty sure about this. Is there a chance for a (proposed behaviour of) require_relative to require a malicious file on the current directory?

Because you are on an IRB session and intentionally emitting require_relative (not require), I doubt the danger you say.

• irb is not the only user of eval.
• A user won't always use require_relative intentionally.
• There is a suitable another way: require './myfile'

With those reason, I don't think require_relative should be changed.

[Eregon (Benoit Daloze)]

naruse (Yui NARUSE) wrote:

Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:

From the process current working directory I guess, especially since you almost always launch IRB from a terminal.

require_relative is introduced to avoid accidentally require a malicious file on the current working directory.
So it can't be acceptable.
Use require or load on such case.

I see, you're right.
Indeed, with this in mind I think it's not worth changing, and the actual require_relative behavior is clearer (relative to "this file" directory, if there is no accurate "this file", just #raise).

[ko1 (Koichi Sasada)]

• Assignee changed from matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) to mame (Yusuke Endoh)

mame-san, please ask matz.

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

• Subject changed from require_relative fails in an eval'ed file to require_relative fails in an eval'ed file
• Assignee changed from mame (Yusuke Endoh) to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
• Target version set to 2.6

[Conrad.Irwin (Conrad Irwin)]

This bug also affects pry: https://github.com/pry/pry/issues/880. Our use-case is slightly different because we are doing TOPLEVEL_BINDING.eval("some code", "/absolute/path.rb").

I think that when an absolute path is set in eval, then require_relative should use it.

[julik (Julik Tarkhanov)]

This is actually very pertinent for Rack as well, because currently config.ru does not support require_relative which is very counterintuitive.

[mame (Yusuke Endoh)]

• Status changed from Assigned to Closed

Now, it works. I'm unsure who changed the behavior... Anyway, closing.