> I got to thinking that something subtle changed between rails 2.3.x > and 2.3.5 which I don't know about.
What was the other version you're upgrading from? > I am troubleshooting a weird scenario where a rails app works on one > machine's environment but fails on another machine. The error is: > "uninitialized constant REXML::Document" Could you paste a full stacktrace into gist.github.com so we can see where it's happening > It is easily solved by adding require 'rexml/document' to the > appropriate source file. But the mystery is, why is that line not > ALWAYS needed? This is a bug, at a guess it's pulling in the rexml expansion fix when you're using an alternative XmlMini backend. > So my question is, is there a mechanism similar to dependencies.rb > that under certain circumstances implicitly would do the 'require'? > > --- > > (Another theory is that some totally different gem has a 'requre rexml/ > document' in it, and that totally different gem is missing on the non- > working setup, and for some reason the absence of that gem is not > causing it's own error. but I doubt that theory.) > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-c...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > > > > -- Cheers Koz
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-c...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
