Puma error

[costajob]

I get this error when running this simple app in Puma 3.5.2 and Rack 1.5.5:

Puma caught this error: uninitialized constant Rack::PATH_INFO
Did you mean?  Pathname (NameError)
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/rack-app-5.2.0/lib/rack/app/request_configurator.rb:13:in `path_info'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/rack-app-5.2.0/lib/rack/app/request_configurator.rb:6:in `configure'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/rack-app-5.2.0/lib/rack/app/singleton_methods/rack_interface.rb:6:in `call'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/rack-1.5.5/lib/rack/builder.rb:138:in `call'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/rack-1.5.5/lib/rack/urlmap.rb:65:in `block in call'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/rack-1.5.5/lib/rack/urlmap.rb:50:in `each'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/rack-1.5.5/lib/rack/urlmap.rb:50:in `call'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/puma-3.5.2/lib/puma/configuration.rb:225:in `call'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/puma-3.5.2/lib/puma/server.rb:569:in `handle_request'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/puma-3.5.2/lib/puma/server.rb:406:in `process_client'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/puma-3.5.2/lib/puma/server.rb:271:in `block in run'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/2.3.0/gems/puma-3.5.2/lib/puma/thread_pool.rb:116:in `block in spawn_thread'

It seems the ::Rack::PATH_INFO constants is not defined in Rack.
Am i missing something?

[costajob]

Hi! by the way ;)

[adamluzsi]

Hello @costajob , this is caused because one of the frameworks in the repository lock the rack version on "1.5.5" in your repository, and on that version the Rack project used hard coded strings in env hash lookup instead of freezed strings under constants.

I made a pull request for you, and added backward compatibility for those constants in the project.

Happy coding! :)

[adamluzsi]

Please verify, that everything is in order and you can play around with your new toy. :)

[costajob]

Hello @adamluzsi, thanks for pointing out, it works like a charm now!
RackApp is also pretty performant in this micro-benchmark, falling within the first three ones ;)
Regards

[adamluzsi]

thank you @costajob :)
The number one priority for the project is to keep it stable this performance even for larger endpoint numbers. I'm closing this issue than, have a great day! :)