How do I get ruby to print a full backtrace instead of a truncated one?

RubyExceptionStack Trace

Ruby Problem Overview


When I get exceptions, it is often from deep within the call stack. When this happens, more often than not, the actual offending line of code is hidden from me:

tmp.rb:7:in `t': undefined method `bar' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError)
        from tmp.rb:10:in `s'
        from tmp.rb:13:in `r'
        from tmp.rb:16:in `q'
        from tmp.rb:19:in `p'
        from tmp.rb:22:in `o'
        from tmp.rb:25:in `n'
        from tmp.rb:28:in `m'
        from tmp.rb:31:in `l'
         ... 8 levels...
        from tmp.rb:58:in `c'
        from tmp.rb:61:in `b'
        from tmp.rb:64:in `a'
        from tmp.rb:67

That "... 8 levels..." truncation is causing me a great deal of trouble. I'm not having much success googling for this one: How do I tell ruby that I want dumps to include the full stack?

Ruby Solutions


Solution 1 - Ruby

Exception#backtrace has the entire stack in it:

def do_division_by_zero; 5 / 0; end
begin
  do_division_by_zero
rescue => exception
  puts exception.backtrace
  raise # always reraise
end

(Inspired by Peter Cooper's Ruby Inside blog)

Solution 2 - Ruby

You could also do this if you'd like a simple one-liner:

puts caller

Solution 3 - Ruby

This produces the error description and nice clean, indented stacktrace:

begin				
 # Some exception throwing code
rescue => e
  puts "Error during processing: #{$!}"
  puts "Backtrace:\n\t#{e.backtrace.join("\n\t")}"
end

Solution 4 - Ruby

IRB has a setting for this awful "feature", which you can customize.

Create a file called ~/.irbrc that includes the following line:

IRB.conf[:BACK_TRACE_LIMIT] = 100

This will allow you to see 100 stack frames in irb, at least. I haven't been able to find an equivalent setting for the non-interactive runtime.

Detailed information about IRB customization can be found in the Pickaxe book.

Solution 5 - Ruby

One liner for callstack:

begin; Whatever.you.want; rescue => e; puts e.message; puts; puts e.backtrace; end

One liner for callstack without all the gems's:

begin; Whatever.you.want; rescue => e; puts e.message; puts; puts e.backtrace.grep_v(/\/gems\//); end

One liner for callstack without all the gems's and relative to current directory

begin; Whatever.you.want; rescue => e; puts e.message; puts; puts e.backtrace.grep_v(/\/gems\//).map { |l| l.gsub(`pwd`.strip + '/', '') }; end

Solution 6 - Ruby

This mimics the official Ruby trace, if that's important to you.

begin
  0/0  # or some other nonsense
rescue => e
  puts e.backtrace.join("\n\t")
       .sub("\n\t", ": #{e}#{e.class ? " (#{e.class})" : ''}\n\t")
end

Amusingly, it doesn't handle 'unhandled exception' properly, reporting it as 'RuntimeError', but the location is correct.

Solution 7 - Ruby

Almost everybody answered this. My version of printing any rails exception into logs would be:

begin
	some_statement
rescue => e
	puts "Exception Occurred #{e}. Message: #{e.message}. Backtrace:  \n #{e.backtrace.join("\n")}"
    Rails.logger.error "Exception Occurred #{e}. Message: #{e.message}. Backtrace:  \n #{e.backtrace.join("\n")}"
end

Solution 8 - Ruby

I was getting these errors when trying to load my test environment (via rake test or autotest) and the IRB suggestions didn't help. I ended up wrapping my entire test/test_helper.rb in a begin/rescue block and that fixed things up.

begin
  class ActiveSupport::TestCase
    #awesome stuff
  end
rescue => e
  puts e.backtrace
end

Solution 9 - Ruby

[examine all threads backtraces to find the culprit]
Even fully expanded call stack can still hide the actual offending line of code from you when you use more than one thread!

Example: One thread is iterating ruby Hash, other thread is trying to modify it. BOOM! Exception! And the problem with the stack trace you get while trying to modify 'busy' hash is that it shows you chain of functions down to the place where you're trying to modify hash, but it does NOT show who's currently iterating it in parallel (who owns it)! Here's the way to figure that out by printing stack trace for ALL currently running threads. Here's how you do this:

# This solution was found in comment by @thedarkone on https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/24627
rescue Object => boom

    thread_count = 0
    Thread.list.each do |t|
      thread_count += 1
      err_msg += "--- thread #{thread_count} of total #{Thread.list.size} #{t.object_id} backtrace begin \n"
      # Lets see if we are able to pin down the culprit
      # by collecting backtrace for all existing threads:
      err_msg += t.backtrace.join("\n")
      err_msg += "\n---thread #{thread_count} of total #{Thread.list.size} #{t.object_id} backtrace end \n"
    end

    # and just print it somewhere you like:
    $stderr.puts(err_msg)

    raise # always reraise
end

The above code snippet is useful even just for educational purposes as it can show you (like x-ray) how many threads you actually have (versus how many you thought you have - quite often those two are different numbers ;)

Solution 10 - Ruby

You can also use backtrace Ruby gem (I'm the author):

require 'backtrace'
begin
  # do something dangerous
rescue StandardError => e
  puts Backtrace.new(e)
end

Attributions

All content for this solution is sourced from the original question on Stackoverflow.

The content on this page is licensed under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

Content TypeOriginal AuthorOriginal Content on Stackoverflow
QuestionSniggerfardimungusView Question on Stackoverflow
Solution 1 - RubyGarethView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 2 - Rubyuser47322View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 3 - RubyBenView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 4 - RubyrobinluckeyView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 5 - RubyDorianView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 6 - Rubyandroid.weaselView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 7 - RubyVasanth SaminathanView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 8 - RubyRyan AngillyView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 9 - RubyDmitry ShevkoplyasView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 10 - Rubyyegor256View Answer on Stackoverflow