Fix defined? to not call const_missing
#2309
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This was previously broken because we used a defined instruction that was calling `const_missing` and thus did not set the constant. We now use the new `ConstLookupFailureMode::Raise` to ensure that the lookup for the constant raises which in turn leads to the constant being assigned correctly.
seven1m
approved these changes
Nov 8, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This fixes
defined?to not callconst_missingif it was implemented, so that missing constants actually return nil.Additionally this fixes conditional constant write operations, because those relied on the behavior of
defined?.I also upstreamed the test from
natalie/defined_test.rbto ruby/spec#1215