Call a block passed rake_tasks method in the self context

[kennyj]

When I run rake_test.rb, I had some warnings. The reproduce step is

$ cd railties
$ bundle exec ruby -Itest:lib:../activesupport/lib:../actionpack/lib test/application/rake_test.rb --name=test_initializers_are_executed_in_rake_tasks
...
WARNING: Global access to Rake DSL methods is deprecated.  Please include
    ...  Rake::DSL into classes and modules which use the Rake DSL methods.
WARNING: DSL method Class#task called at /home/kennyj/rails/railties/tmp/app/config/application.rb:58:in `block in <class:Application>'
...

We call the global scope task method (deprecated method) in rake_test.rb
Briefly we must call extend Rake::DSL only,
but I think that the cause of problem is located another.

In load_tasks method, we call extend Rake::DSL. But It seems that we have another context when executing rake_tasks.

182     def load_tasks(app=self)
183       extend Rake::DSL if defined? Rake::DSL
184       self.class.rake_tasks.each { |block| block.call(app) }

This is related to #1174.

If this is a specification, I'll fix a tastcase.

[josevalim]

What if we did:

self.class.send :include, Rake::DSL if defined? Rake::DSL

Instead of:

extend Rake::DSL if defined? Rake::DSL

This should add Rake::DSL to the whole inheritance chain so we could skip instance_exec.

[kennyj]

I think it is better than extend and self.class.send :include too.

Do you say below code?

    def load_tasks(app=self)
      self.class.send :include, Rake::DSL if defined? Rake::DSL
      self.class.rake_tasks.each { |block| block.call(app) }
      ...

but, I saw the warnings still.

    def load_tasks(app=self)
      self.class.send :include, Rake::DSL if defined? Rake::DSL
      self.class.rake_tasks.each { |block| self.instance_exec(app, &block) }
      ...

The above code looks fine.

(I'm not good at English, sorry if wrong.)

[josevalim]

if we still need to use instance_exec, it is not much help. please let me think and check if i can find other alternatives. thanks for your contributions!!

[josevalim]

@kennyj thanks, i have merged the patch with instance_exec. We already use instance_exec in the following lines, so i have decided to go with the same pattern. Thanks a lot!