* [PATCH] Update respond_to? calls for second argument. @ 2017-05-21 4:01 Pat Allan 2017-05-21 4:38 ` Eric Wong 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Pat Allan @ 2017-05-21 4:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: clogger-public Rack (since v2) has started explicitly listing the second (optional) argument for respond_to?, which matches the underlying Ruby spec. This patch fixes the calls in both C and Ruby approaches. However, rb_respond_to only accepts a single argument - differing from the Ruby side of things - so perhaps this patch isn't quite perfect (and my C skills are very limited, so the whole thing could use a review). --- ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c | 8 ++++++-- lib/clogger/pure.rb | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c b/ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c index 481dd61..622c98c 100644 --- a/ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c +++ b/ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c @@ -963,8 +963,12 @@ static VALUE clogger_init_copy(VALUE clone, VALUE orig) * used to delegate +:to_path+ checks for Rack webservers that optimize * static file serving */ -static VALUE respond_to(VALUE self, VALUE method) +static VALUE respond_to(int argc, VALUE *argv, VALUE self) { + VALUE method, include_all; + rb_scan_args(argc, argv, "11", &method, &include_all); + if (NIL_P(include_all)) include_all = Qfalse; + struct clogger *c = clogger_get(self); ID id = rb_to_id(method); @@ -1044,7 +1048,7 @@ void Init_clogger_ext(void) rb_define_method(cClogger, "wrap_body?", clogger_wrap_body, 0); rb_define_method(cClogger, "reentrant?", clogger_reentrant, 0); rb_define_method(cClogger, "to_path", to_path, 0); - rb_define_method(cClogger, "respond_to?", respond_to, 1); + rb_define_method(cClogger, "respond_to?", respond_to, -1); rb_define_method(cClogger, "body", body, 0); CONST_GLOBAL_STR(REMOTE_ADDR); CONST_GLOBAL_STR(HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR); diff --git a/lib/clogger/pure.rb b/lib/clogger/pure.rb index 77f81b4..fddfe79 100644 --- a/lib/clogger/pure.rb +++ b/lib/clogger/pure.rb @@ -77,8 +77,8 @@ class Clogger @logger.respond_to?(:fileno) ? @logger.fileno : nil end - def respond_to?(m) - :close == m.to_sym || @body.respond_to?(m) + def respond_to?(method, include_all=false) + :close == method.to_sym || @body.respond_to?(method, include_all) end def to_path -- Pat ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Update respond_to? calls for second argument. 2017-05-21 4:01 [PATCH] Update respond_to? calls for second argument Pat Allan @ 2017-05-21 4:38 ` Eric Wong 2017-05-21 4:54 ` Eric Wong 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Eric Wong @ 2017-05-21 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pat Allan; +Cc: clogger-public Pat Allan <pat@freelancing-gods.com> wrote: > Rack (since v2) has started explicitly listing the second > (optional) argument for respond_to?, which matches the > underlying Ruby spec. This patch fixes the calls in both C and > Ruby approaches. Thanks for noticing this! > However, rb_respond_to only accepts a single argument - > differing from the Ruby side of things - so perhaps this patch > isn't quite perfect (and my C skills are very limited, so the > whole thing could use a review). No worries. I think the following should work: -----8<------ Subject: [PATCH] SQUASH/WIP - use rb_funcallv to handle second respond_to arg While we're at it, avoid mixing declarations and code in case there's still compiler compatibility problems. (We will add a check for -Wdeclaration-after-statement support in a separate commit) --- Also pushed to the respond_to-priv branch at git://bogomips.org/clogger commit 7b3ed7c0bed876efe5298232a49f8542b8b340a0 Do you think you can write a test? No obligation, I can take care of it, too. Thanks again! ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c | 15 +++++++++------ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c b/ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c index 622c98c..daed91a 100644 --- a/ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c +++ b/ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c @@ -965,16 +965,19 @@ static VALUE clogger_init_copy(VALUE clone, VALUE orig) */ static VALUE respond_to(int argc, VALUE *argv, VALUE self) { - VALUE method, include_all; - rb_scan_args(argc, argv, "11", &method, &include_all); - if (NIL_P(include_all)) include_all = Qfalse; - struct clogger *c = clogger_get(self); - ID id = rb_to_id(method); + VALUE method, include_all; + ID id; + rb_scan_args(argc, argv, "11", &method, &include_all); + id = rb_to_id(method); if (close_id == id) return Qtrue; - return rb_respond_to(c->body, id); + + if (argc == 1) + return rb_respond_to(c->body, id); + + return rb_funcallv(c->body, respond_to_id, argc, argv); } /* -- EW ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Update respond_to? calls for second argument. 2017-05-21 4:38 ` Eric Wong @ 2017-05-21 4:54 ` Eric Wong 2017-05-21 5:10 ` Pat Allan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Eric Wong @ 2017-05-21 4:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pat Allan; +Cc: clogger-public Actually, there's also a rb_obj_respond_to API in Ruby 1.9+ which could be used. It's declared in ruby/intern.h which is a grey area as far as continued API support goes, and it's not documented in doc/extension.rdoc, either. However, there is a rubyspec CAPI test for it; and I'm not sure the two-arg form of respond_to? is actually used by real Rack servers. Sidenote: rb_funcall* functions are always a bit slower since they need to go through method lookup before dispatch, and can't benefit from inline method caching, only global method caching. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Update respond_to? calls for second argument. 2017-05-21 4:54 ` Eric Wong @ 2017-05-21 5:10 ` Pat Allan 2017-05-21 5:47 ` [PATCH v2] " Eric Wong 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Pat Allan @ 2017-05-21 5:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Wong; +Cc: clogger-public For reference, here’s the point where Rack became explicit about using the two arguments: https://github.com/rack/rack/commit/5f808aa2099841e5daec6cb772a304797879ce6c I’m not quite sure where to start with a test, I’m afraid - so if you’re able to take care of that, that’d be brilliant. As for the C internals - I’m reading what you’ve noted, and I’m understanding at a basic level, but you’ve got the deep knowledge here, so I’m very happy to go with your decisions :) > On 21 May 2017, at 2:54 pm, Eric Wong <e@80x24.org> wrote: > > Actually, there's also a rb_obj_respond_to API in Ruby 1.9+ > which could be used. It's declared in ruby/intern.h which is a > grey area as far as continued API support goes, and it's not > documented in doc/extension.rdoc, either. > > However, there is a rubyspec CAPI test for it; and I'm not sure > the two-arg form of respond_to? is actually used by real Rack > servers. > > > Sidenote: rb_funcall* functions are always a bit slower since > they need to go through method lookup before dispatch, and can't > benefit from inline method caching, only global method caching. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] Update respond_to? calls for second argument. 2017-05-21 5:10 ` Pat Allan @ 2017-05-21 5:47 ` Eric Wong 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Eric Wong @ 2017-05-21 5:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pat Allan; +Cc: clogger-public Pat Allan <pat@freelancing-gods.com> wrote: > For reference, here’s the point where Rack became explicit about using the two arguments: > https://github.com/rack/rack/commit/5f808aa2099841e5daec6cb772a304797879ce6c Thanks! It looks like I never noticed that since I always have Clogger at the outermost layer (to give the most accurate timings), so BodyProxy would never see it. > I’m not quite sure where to start with a test, I’m afraid - so > if you’re able to take care of that, that’d be brilliant. OK, done (see below) > As for the C internals - I’m reading what you’ve noted, and > I’m understanding at a basic level, but you’ve got the deep > knowledge here, so I’m very happy to go with your decisions :) No worries, feel free to ping me (+cc ruby-core) if you need Ruby C API help. Also, I guess rb_obj_respond_to should be documented as a public API in Ruby. Do you think you can open an issue on https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ about it that effect? I admit I'm a bit clumsy when it comes to browsers, even with w3m :x Here's the version I'll push out and release: ------8<------- From: Pat Allan <pat@freelancing-gods.com> Subject: [PATCH] Update respond_to? calls for second argument. Rack (since v2) has started explicitly listing the second (optional) argument for respond_to?, which matches the underlying Ruby spec. This patch fixes the calls in both C and Ruby approaches. [ew: add test, use rb_obj_respond_to if available] --- ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c | 17 +++++++++++++---- ext/clogger_ext/extconf.rb | 1 + lib/clogger/pure.rb | 4 ++-- test/test_clogger_to_path.rb | 9 +++++++++ 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c b/ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c index 481dd61..fdc23e3 100644 --- a/ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c +++ b/ext/clogger_ext/clogger.c @@ -963,14 +963,23 @@ static VALUE clogger_init_copy(VALUE clone, VALUE orig) * used to delegate +:to_path+ checks for Rack webservers that optimize * static file serving */ -static VALUE respond_to(VALUE self, VALUE method) +static VALUE respond_to(int argc, VALUE *argv, VALUE self) { struct clogger *c = clogger_get(self); - ID id = rb_to_id(method); + VALUE method, include_all; + ID id; + rb_scan_args(argc, argv, "11", &method, &include_all); + id = rb_to_id(method); if (close_id == id) return Qtrue; - return rb_respond_to(c->body, id); + +#ifdef HAVE_RB_OBJ_RESPOND_TO + return rb_obj_respond_to(c->body, id, RTEST(include_all)); +#endif + if (argc == 1) + return rb_respond_to(c->body, id); + return rb_funcallv(c->body, respond_to_id, argc, argv); } /* @@ -1044,7 +1053,7 @@ void Init_clogger_ext(void) rb_define_method(cClogger, "wrap_body?", clogger_wrap_body, 0); rb_define_method(cClogger, "reentrant?", clogger_reentrant, 0); rb_define_method(cClogger, "to_path", to_path, 0); - rb_define_method(cClogger, "respond_to?", respond_to, 1); + rb_define_method(cClogger, "respond_to?", respond_to, -1); rb_define_method(cClogger, "body", body, 0); CONST_GLOBAL_STR(REMOTE_ADDR); CONST_GLOBAL_STR(HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR); diff --git a/ext/clogger_ext/extconf.rb b/ext/clogger_ext/extconf.rb index 523b314..b2c0891 100644 --- a/ext/clogger_ext/extconf.rb +++ b/ext/clogger_ext/extconf.rb @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ begin have_func('rb_thread_call_without_gvl', 'ruby/thread.h') have_func('rb_thread_blocking_region', 'ruby.h') have_func('rb_thread_io_blocking_region', 'ruby.h') + have_func('rb_obj_respond_to', 'ruby/intern.h') create_makefile('clogger_ext') rescue Object => err warn "E: #{err.inspect}" diff --git a/lib/clogger/pure.rb b/lib/clogger/pure.rb index 77f81b4..fddfe79 100644 --- a/lib/clogger/pure.rb +++ b/lib/clogger/pure.rb @@ -77,8 +77,8 @@ class Clogger @logger.respond_to?(:fileno) ? @logger.fileno : nil end - def respond_to?(m) - :close == m.to_sym || @body.respond_to?(m) + def respond_to?(method, include_all=false) + :close == method.to_sym || @body.respond_to?(method, include_all) end def to_path diff --git a/test/test_clogger_to_path.rb b/test/test_clogger_to_path.rb index b437695..f74b991 100644 --- a/test/test_clogger_to_path.rb +++ b/test/test_clogger_to_path.rb @@ -14,6 +14,10 @@ class MyBody < Struct.new(:to_path, :closed) def close self.closed = true end + +private + def privtest + end end class TestCloggerToPath < Test::Unit::TestCase @@ -59,6 +63,11 @@ class TestCloggerToPath < Test::Unit::TestCase status, headers, body = app.call(@req) assert_instance_of(Clogger, body) check_body(body) + + assert ! body.respond_to?(:privtest) + assert body.respond_to?(:privtest, true) + assert ! body.respond_to?(:privtest, false) + assert logger.string.empty? assert_equal tmp.path, body.to_path body.close -- EW ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-05-21 5:47 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-05-21 4:01 [PATCH] Update respond_to? calls for second argument Pat Allan 2017-05-21 4:38 ` Eric Wong 2017-05-21 4:54 ` Eric Wong 2017-05-21 5:10 ` Pat Allan 2017-05-21 5:47 ` [PATCH v2] " Eric Wong
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://yhbt.net/clogger.git/ This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).