Hacktoberfest 2026: as issues que os mantenedores marcaram para outubro, abertas e boas para iniciantes. Ver issues do Hacktoberfest

Gem `vendor --dry-run` eject previews `eject_planned` (exit 0) for a hosted gem declared in a `group` block, but the real `vendor` refuses `gemfile_declaration_not_editable` (exit 1)

Fechada
  • Algo errado?
#1,761 2 comentários 0 reações 0 responsáveis Ver no GitHub

Mantenedores costumam responder em até 1 dia

Um pull request relacionado já foi integrado.

  • #1762 de @mikolalysenko — integrado

Avaliação

Dificuldade
4/5
Tempo estimado
3-5 dias
Facilidade para iniciantes
18/100
Tipo de issue
Bug
Clareza
Claramente especificada
Status de atividade
Estagnada
Stack de tecnologia
ruby, rust
Domínio
cli

Direção de pesquisa

Start in crates/socket-patch-cli/src/commands/vendor.rs at the run_eject preview loop (around line 1840), which calls takeover_dry_refusal, and compare it with the per-purl path that calls gem_takeover_refusal before the restore (around line 3307). The regression test is the Driver::ScanVexGroupBlock case in e2e_redirect_gem_build.rs. Done means vendor --dry-run reports a failed event with gemfile_declaration_not_editable and exits 1, matching the wet run. A linked pull request (#1762) is already open, so check it before starting.

Escrita pelo modelo de indexação a partir do texto da issue.

Descrição

agent:claimed agent:triaged bug bughunt pm:bundler priority:p1

[agent] Found by the scheduled Bundler (RubyGems) bug-hunt routine (ledger #316).

Summary

In a hosted Bundler project whose patched gem is declared inside a group … do block, socket-patch vendor --dry-run (the hosted-pins eject) reports the gem as applied with eject_planned and exits 0. The real vendor then refuses the same gem with gemfile_declaration_not_editable, rolls back (eject_rolled_back), and exits 1. scan --mode vendored --dry-run and get <uuid> --mode vendored --dry-run on the same project correctly preview the refusal (#775). Only the plain vendor eject preview misses it.

Impact

CI or a user that gates on vendor --dry-run is told the eject will succeed, but it can never succeed for this project. The wet run is fail-safe: the project stays hosted and the files are byte-identical. So this is a wrong preview, not data loss.

Expected vs actual

  • Expected (CLI_CONTRACT.md, "Eject a hosted project (v5.0)", step 2): "Backend refusals are also previewed against the restored text in memory … (3) --dry-run stops here". The gem declaration refusal is a backend refusal, so the dry run should report a failed event with gemfile_declaration_not_editable and error.code: "eject_refused" (exit 1), as the wet run's outcome does. scan/get --mode vendored already preview it this way.
  • Actual: the dry run returns status: success, one applied event with errorCode: "eject_planned", and exit 0. The wet run returns partialFailure with gemfile_declaration_not_editable plus the eject_rolled_back warning, and exit 1.

Repro

Use the e2e_redirect_gem_build.rs fixture Driver::ScanVexGroupBlock (real gem build, wiremock patch API with mount_vendored_grant). The project's Gemfile looks like this after the hosted scan:

source "https://rubygems.org"
group :default do
  source "<patch-registry>/gem/<org>/<uuid>/" do
    gem "vuln-gem", "1.0.0"
  end
end

The lock is converged, either through CHECKSUMS (Bundler 2.6+) or through a real unfrozen bundle install on a CHECKSUMS-less lock. Then run:

socket-patch vendor --dry-run --json --yes --api-url $API --org org --api-token fake --patch-server-url $API
# exit 0, events: [{action: applied, errorCode: eject_planned}]
socket-patch vendor --json --yes --api-url $API --org org --api-token fake --patch-server-url $API
# exit 1, events: [{action: failed, errorCode: gemfile_declaration_not_editable}], warning eject_rolled_back
socket-patch scan --mode vendored --dry-run --json ...
# previews gemfile_declaration_not_editable (correct)

A minimal scratch test, appended to e2e_redirect_gem_build.rs, reproduced this on each run, using the helpers already in that file:

let fx = redirect_scanned_project("g", Spelling::Gemfile, false, true, None, Driver::ScanVexGroupBlock).await.unwrap();
mount_vendored_grant(&fx).await;
let (conv, install) = fresh_checkout_bundle_install(&fx); // converge the lock
assert!(install.status.success());
// copy Gemfile + Gemfile.lock + .bundle to a new dir, then run `vendor --dry-run` and `vendor` there

Matrix (Linux, Ruby 3.3.6)

Bundler Lock shape vendor --dry-run vendor scan --mode vendored --dry-run
4.0.18 CHECKSUMS (rubygems.org upstream via SOCKET_RUBYGEMS_URL) eject_planned, exit 0 ❌ refused, exit 1, rolled back —
4.0.18 converged by an unfrozen bundle install eject_planned, exit 0 ❌ refused, exit 1, rolled back refusal previewed ✅
2.5.22 converged by an unfrozen bundle install eject_planned, exit 0 ❌ refused, exit 1, rolled back refusal previewed ✅

The logic doesn't depend on the OS, so macOS and Windows weren't probed. For comparison, a gems.rb twin is correctly refused in both the dry run and the wet run (gemfile_not_loaded), and a top-level declaration ejects, installs frozen with the patched bytes, and vendor --reverts cleanly.

First bad commit

It isn't new in #1648. The parent commit 8244b94 behaves the same way, but its contract said the dry run stops before any backend preview. #1648 (b787454) added the "backend refusals are also previewed" promise and the takeover_dry_refusal preview loop, and gems fall through that loop.

Suspect code

  • crates/socket-patch-cli/src/commands/vendor.rs:1840 (the run_eject preview loop) calls takeover_dry_refusal → dispatch_vendor_one with dry_run = true. The gem backend's dry run doesn't evaluate the Gemfile declaration gate, so the outcome isn't Refused. A debug print showed reverted=["Gemfile","Gemfile.lock"], all staged, and an outcome that isn't Refused.
  • The per-purl takeover handles this case by calling gem_takeover_refusal (manifest gate plus gem_vendor_target_preflight) before the restore (vendor.rs:3307), and scan/get use gem_takeover_preview_refusals. run_eject never calls gem_takeover_refusals_for on its pins.

No probe runs: the logic is OS-independent.

Linguagem predominante
Rust
Estrelas
8
Forks
2
Merge médio
19h 12min
PRs com merge (30d)
709

Preparar o ambiente

Primeiros passos

  1. Leia a issue inteira e depois o guia de contribuição do projeto.
  2. Comente na issue dizendo que vai assumir — evita que duas pessoas façam o mesmo trabalho.
  3. Faça um fork do repositório e trabalhe em uma branch.
  4. Abra um pull request que referencie o número da issue.

Mais de SocketDev/socket-patch

Todas as issues de SocketDev/socket-patch

Issues semelhantes

Mais issues de Rust

Receba novas issues na sua caixa de entrada

Um resumo curto de issues do GitHub para quem está começando.