rules_ruby icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
rules_ruby copied to clipboard

"warning: already initialized constant" with rack gem

Open jfirebaugh opened this issue 4 years ago • 6 comments

Minimal reproduction: repro.zip

If you run bazel run :main in this workspace, you will get output which includes the following:

INFO: Build options --cxxopt, --incompatible_strict_action_env, and --legacy_external_runfiles have changed, discarding analysis cache.
DEBUG: /private/var/tmp/_bazel_johnfirebaugh/1c33c885364b1c1481b2fccb2257d6ac/external/bazelruby_rules_ruby/ruby/private/toolchains/ruby_runtime.bzl:99:14: Found local Ruby SDK version '2.6.6' which matches requested version '2.6.6'
INFO: Analyzed target //:main (0 packages loaded, 283 targets configured).
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //:main up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/main
INFO: Elapsed time: 0.244s, Critical Path: 0.03s
INFO: 3 processes: 3 internal.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 3 total actions
INFO: Build completed successfully, 3 total actions
/private/var/tmp/_bazel_johnfirebaugh/1c33c885364b1c1481b2fccb2257d6ac/external/bundle/lib/ruby/2.6.0/gems/rack-2.2.3/lib/rack.rb:17: warning: already initialized constant Rack::HTTP_HOST
/private/var/tmp/_bazel_johnfirebaugh/1c33c885364b1c1481b2fccb2257d6ac/execroot/__main__/bazel-out/darwin-fastbuild/bin/main.runfiles/bundle/lib/ruby/2.6.0/gems/rack-2.2.3/lib/rack.rb:17: warning: previous definition of HTTP_HOST was here
/private/var/tmp/_bazel_johnfirebaugh/1c33c885364b1c1481b2fccb2257d6ac/external/bundle/lib/ruby/2.6.0/gems/rack-2.2.3/lib/rack.rb:18: warning: already initialized constant Rack::HTTP_PORT
/private/var/tmp/_bazel_johnfirebaugh/1c33c885364b1c1481b2fccb2257d6ac/execroot/__main__/bazel-out/darwin-fastbuild/bin/main.runfiles/bundle/lib/ruby/2.6.0/gems/rack-2.2.3/lib/rack.rb:18: warning: previous definition of HTTP_PORT was here
[snip many more warnings of the same form]

I debugged a bit by placing a puts caller inside rack.rb. It gets required via two call stacks:

  • First directly via main.rb:1, resolved as <outputBase>/execroot/__main__/bazel-out/darwin-fastbuild/bin/main.runfiles/bundle/lib/ruby/2.6.0/gems/rack-2.2.3/lib/rack.rb
  • Second via a require_relative in rack/session/abstract/id.rb, resolved as <outputBase>/external/bundle/lib/ruby/2.6.0/gems/rack-2.2.3/lib/rack.rb:20

It appears that require_relative is resolving the require relative to the resolved symlink location in bazel's external directory, rather than the runfiles location where the direct require was resolved to.

jfirebaugh avatar May 24 '21 00:05 jfirebaugh

I found this upstream issue with symlinked directories, which was fixed, but it seems Ruby still has issues when require and require_relative are mixed with symlinked files.

mkdir a
echo "require_relative 'b'" > a/a.rb
echo "p 'b loaded'" > a/b.rb
mkdir b
ln -s ../a/a.rb b
ln -s ../a/b.rb b
echo "$: << File.expand_path('../b', __FILE__); require 'b'; require 'a'" > c.rb
ruby c.rb

This results in "b loaded" being printed twice.

jfirebaugh avatar May 24 '21 15:05 jfirebaugh

I opened a new upstream issue: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17885.

jfirebaugh avatar May 24 '21 16:05 jfirebaugh

Great thanks for reporting it.

I agree this is a Ruby issue, not the rules. In general I've been avoiding require_relative in my open source gems because of similar issues with resolution caching.

Does it make sense to keep this open, or can we close this issue?

kigster avatar Jul 08 '21 18:07 kigster

Do you think there's any possibility of working around the issue within rules_ruby? As it stands, at least one rather essential gem in the Ruby ecosystem uses require_relative extensively (rack), and there doesn't seem to be much momentum around getting the upstream issue resolved. It seems like the status quo would limit the adoption of rules_ruby and it might be worth avoiding filesystem structures that trigger the issue. (I ask this not knowing much about the internal constraints of rules_ruby, so I'm also prepared to accept that it isn't feasible or would be too much work.)

jfirebaugh avatar Sep 07 '21 17:09 jfirebaugh

So the result is that it breaks anything that relies on rack?

Any chance you could submit a new example under the examples/rack that would fail as you describe?

kigster avatar Sep 08 '21 17:09 kigster

Looking for additional core maintainers: https://github.com/bazelruby/rules_ruby/discussions/146

kigster avatar May 10 '23 17:05 kigster