Feature #15554

Updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada) almost 5 years ago

# Abstract 

 Warn or raise an ArgumentError if block is passed to a method which does not use a block. 
 In other words, detect "block user methods" implicitly and only "block user methods" can accept a block. 

 # Background 

 Sometimes, we pass a block to a method which ignores the passed block accidentally. 

 def my_open(name) 

 # user hopes it works as Kernel#open which invokes a block with opened file. 
 my_open(name){|f| important_work_with f } 
 # but simply ignored... 

 To solve this issue, this feature request propose showing warnings or raising an exception on such case. 

 Last developer's meeting, matz proposed `&nil` which declares this method never receive a block. It is explicit, but it is tough to add this `&nil` parameter declaration to all of methods (do you want to add it to `def []=(i, e, &nil)`?). 
 (I agree `&nil` is valuable on some situations) 

 # Spec 

 ## Define "use a block" methods 

 We need to define which method accepts a block and which method does not. 

 * (1) method has a block parameter (`&b`) 
 * (2) method body has `yield' 
 * (3) method body has `super` (ZSUPER in internal terminology) or `super(...)` 
 * (4) method body has singleton method (optional) 

 (1) and (2) is very clear. I need to explain about (3) and (4). 

 (3). `super` (ZSUPER) passes all parameters as arguments. So there is no surprise that which can accept `block`. 
 However `super(...)` also passes a block if no explicit block passing (like `super(){}` or `super(&b)`) are written. 
 I'm not sure we need to continue this strange specification, but to keep compatibility depending this spec, I add this rule. 

 (4). surprisingly, the following code invoke a block: 

 def foo 
   class << 

 foo{ p :ok } #=> :ok 


 I'm also not sure we need to keep this spec, but to allow this spec, I added (4) rule. 
 Strictly speaking, it is not required, but we don't keep the link from singleton class ISeq to lexical parent iseq now, so I added it. 

 ## Exceptional cases 

 A method called by `super` doesn`t warn warning even if this method doesn't use a block. 
 The rule (3) can pass blocks easily and there are many methods don`t use a block. 

 So my patch ignores callings by `super`. 

 ## corner cases 

 There are several cases to use block without (1)-(4) rules. 

 ### `` without a block 

 Now it was deprecated. r66772 [Bug#15539] for this issue. 

 ### `block_given?` 

 `block_given?` expects block, but I believe we use it with `yield` or a block parameter. 
 If you know the usecase without them, please tell us. 

 ### `yield` in `eval` 

 We can't know `yield` (or (3), (4) rule) in an `eval` evaluating string at calling time. 

 def foo 

 foo{} # at calling time, 
       # we can't know the method foo can accept a block or not. 

 So I added a warning to use `yield` in `eval` like that: `test.rb:4: warning: use yield in eval will not be supported in Ruby 3.` 

 Workaround is use a block parameter explicitly. 

 def foo &b 

 foo{ p :ok } 

 # Implementation 

 Strategy is: 

 * [compile time] introduce `iseq::has_yield` field and check it if the iseq (or child iseq) contains `yield` (or something) 
 * [calling time] if block is given, check `iseq::has_yield` flag and show warning (or raise an exception) 

 On this patch, now it raises an error to make it easy to detect. 
 It is easy to switch to show the warning. 

 # Evaluation and discussion 

 I tried to avoid ruby's tests. 

 Here is a patch. 

 There are several patterns to avoid warnings. 

 ## tests for `block_given?`, `` (and similar) without block 

 Add a dummy block parameter. 
 It is test-specific issue. 

 ## empty `each` 

 Some tests add `each` methods do not `yield`, like: `def each; end`. 
 Maybe test-specific issue, and adding a dummy block parameter. 

 ## Subtyping / duck typing 

 This `parse` method doesn't use `yield`, but other sub-type's `parse` methods use. 

 ## `super` with `new` method 

 This method override `Class#new` method and introduce a hook with block (yield a block in this hook code). 

 In this method, call `super` and it also passing a block. However, called `initialize` doesn't use a block. 


 ## Change robustness 

 This change reduce robustness for API change. 

 `Delegator` requires to support `__getobj__` for client classes. 
 Now `__getobj__` should accept block but most of `__getobj__` clients do not call given block. 

 This is because of delegator.rb's API change. 

 Nobu says calling block is not required (ignoring a block is no problem) so it is not a bug for delegator client classes. 

 ## Found issues. 

 [ 2945/20449] Rinda::TestRingServer#test_do_reply = 0.00 s 
   1) Error: 
 ArgumentError: passing block to the method "with_timeout" (defined at /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rinda/test_rinda.rb:787) is never used. 
     /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rinda/test_rinda.rb:635:in `test_do_reply' 

 [ 2946/20449] Rinda::TestRingServer#test_do_reply_local = 0.00 s 
   2) Error: 
 ArgumentError: passing block to the method "with_timeout" (defined at /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rinda/test_rinda.rb:787) is never used. 
     /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rinda/test_rinda.rb:657:in `test_do_reply_local' 

 [10024/20449] TestGemRequestSetGemDependencyAPI#test_platform_mswin = 0.01 s 
   3) Error: 
 ArgumentError: passing block to the method "util_set_arch" (defined at /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/lib/rubygems/test_case.rb:1053) is never used. 
     /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rubygems/test_gem_request_set_gem_dependency_api.rb:655:in `test_platform_mswin' 

 [10025/20449] TestGemRequestSetGemDependencyAPI#test_platforms = 0.01 s 
   4) Error: 
 ArgumentError: passing block to the method "util_set_arch" (defined at /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/lib/rubygems/test_case.rb:1053) is never used. 
     /home/ko1/src/ruby/trunk/test/rubygems/test_gem_request_set_gem_dependency_api.rb:711:in `test_platforms' 

 These 4 detection show the problem. `with_timeout` method (used in Rinda test) and `util_set_arch` method (used in Rubygems test) simply ignore the given block. 
 So these tests are simply ignored. 

 I reported them. ( 

 ## raise an error or show a warning? 

 At least, Ruby 2.7 should show warning for this kind of violation with `-w`. 
 How about for Ruby3?