Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrochkind1 | Hacker News Reader

If anyone else who hasn't yet abandoned ruby wants to suppress ruby-language-level warnings, this gem is super helpful: https://github.com/jeremyevans/ruby-warning

Personally, I'm really happy that 2.7/3.0 is the biggest backwards change ruby has had in years, and still wasn't really that bad, was pretty easy to update codebases for. I'm happy that ruby committers are taking avoiding breaking changes pretty seriously.

(the deprecation warnings are part of a standard of making what breaking changes do occur easier to handle, I don't think I'd agree with removing them. In this case, gitlab would have had to change their code for 3.0 with or without the warnings in 2.7; the warnings helped them do so reliably. There may be ways to make them less annoying without being less useful. I do think the breaking changes themselves should be kept as infrequent as feasible. )

View on HN

Article author here, and also GitLab team member.

If you peek into the source code, I was actually inspired by the ruby-warning gem, and have directly credited it (https://gitlab.com/search?group_id=9970&project_id=278964&re...) :)

Also in Ruby 2.7.2, these warnings that were introduced in 2.7.0 were suppressed by default after feedback from the community.

One thing to note is that because these warnings are runtime, you really need a very comprehensive test suite to find them all. Even then logging such warnings when running in production is probably a good idea.

Agree the Ruby 2.7 => 3.0 change has been handled quite well by the core Ruby team. The kwargs warning is one part of the larger effort to get GitLab onto Ruby 3.0. You can follow along at https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/5149.

Agreed. One of the things I like about both Ruby and Rails is how well deprecations and changes are managed. Significant changes occur over multiple versions with really good prewarning.

> the deprecation warnings are part of a standard of making what breaking changes do occur easier to handle, I don't think I'd agree with removing them

What's wrong with an error that has the deprecation warning in, for the version that it breaks? I'm all for being informed, I just don't agree that it has to be baked into an interpreter and shown to me every time I run it. Write a blog post, put it in the change log or the README, I read those as I do the logs where it's incredibly irritating.

And thanks for the tip about the gem.

> What's wrong with an error that has the deprecation warning in, for the version that it breaks?

I don't understand what you mean? Isn't that what happened?

> Write a blog post, put it in the change log or the README

So, a) not everyone will see that, but b) that doesn't help you find anywhere in your code (possibly including in dependencies) that will break when you upgrade ruby, which you need to do.

But I agree it can be annoying when there isn't anything you can do about it or you aren't ready to do anything about it. One way that might help is allowing you to toggle such warnings on or off. That third party gem that does allow you to do that albeit a bit hackily.

Anyway, if you move to another language, come back after a couple years and let us know if you were more or less happy with their breaking change scenarios! :)

> > What's wrong with an error that has the deprecation warning in, for the version that it breaks?

> I don't understand what you mean? Isn't that what happened?

There are no errors in a version preceding the change, only warnings. There will be errors and possibly warnings in a version after the change. I don't want to see this stuff prior to upgrade.

> a) not everyone will see that

Why is that the problem of everyone else? They should take their job more seriously and read the change log.

> b) that doesn't help you find anywhere in your code (possibly including in dependencies) that will break when you upgrade ruby, which you need to do.

No, running it under the new version will. If there's a need to be ready ahead of time then, for example, the Ruby team could add these warnings as a compile time flag. They had a compile time flag to remove the warnings in a previous release, so it can be done.

> Anyway, if you move to another language, come back after a couple years and let us know if you were more or less happy with their breaking change scenarios! :)

I'm enjoying Crystal, for many reasons, and I'll be looking at Elixir too. Not sure I can entirely replace Ruby with them but I don't use it for any new projects now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com