I like the idea of ActiveSupport::Concerns but wondering if possible to use in a vanilla Ruby app. Or is it only in a Rails app? I'm thinking of the example using ActiveRecord in a Sinatra app.
Edit
Looks like you can by requiring 'active_support', though I am not sure if any nuance about this doesn't work.
Like:
require 'active_support'
module Printable
include ActiveSupport::Concern
def print
puts "I will print here"
end
end
class User
include Printable
def initialize(name)
#name = name
end
def say_my_name
puts "my name: #{#name}"
end
end
Yes, you can (and it seems like you've discovered how). Much of ActiveSupport is written in a way that it can be added by itself to other projects.
You can even require just Concern with require "active_support/concern"
Opinion
I'm generally against using ActiveSupport::Concern though:
violates Composition Over Inheritance (see Nothing is Something by Sandi Metz)
95% of functionality is provided by vanilla Ruby already, in only 0-3 more lines of code (zero meaning you didn't need Concern at all)
Examples:
The code snippet you've pasted works perfectly fine with a bare Ruby module
Rail's own documentation on Concern explains usage with vanilla Ruby examples of the same length and complexity
In that documentation, it says: "Given a Foo module and a Bar module which depends on the former...", as if you'd want to deal with mixin hell
Related
The question here asks how to extract Rails view helper functions into a gem, and the accept answer is pretty good.
I am wondering - how to do the same for Sinatra? I'm making a gem that has a bunch of helper functions defined in a module, and I'd like to make these functions available to Sinatra views. But whatever I try, I cannot seem to access the functions, I just get a undefined local variable or method error.
So far, my gem structure looks like this (other stuff like gemspec omitted):
cool_gem/
lib/
cool_gem/
helper_functions.rb
sinatra.rb
cool_gem.rb
In cool_gem.rb, I have:
if defined?(Sinatra) and Sinatra.respond_to? :register
require 'cool_gem/sinatra'
end
In helper_functions.rb, I have:
module CoolGem
module HelperFunctions
def heading_tag(text)
"<h1>#{text}</h1>"
end
# + many more functions
end
end
In sinatra.rb, I have:
require 'cool_gem/helper_functions'
module CoolGem
module Sinatra
module MyHelpers
include CoolGem::HelperFunctions
end
def self.registered(app)
app.helpers MyHelpers
end
end
end
This doesn't work. Where am I going wrong?
(And in case you're wondering, yes, I need the helper functions in a separate file. I plan to make the gem compatible with Rails as well, so I want to keep the functions isolated/de-coupled if possible).
You’re mainly just missing the call to Sinatra.register (in cool_gem/sinatra.rb):
require 'sinatra/base'
require 'cool_gem/helper_functions'
module CoolGem
# you could just put this directly in the CoolGem module if you wanted,
# rather than have a Sinatra sub-module
module Sinatra
def self.registered(app)
#no need to create another module here
app.helpers CoolGem::HelperFunctions
end
end
end
# this is what you're missing:
Sinatra.register CoolGem::Sinatra
Now any classic style Sinatra app that requires cool_gem will have the helpers available. If you use the modular style you’ll also need to call register CoolGem::Sinatra inside the Sinatra::Base subclass.
In this case, if you are just providing some helper methods, an easier way might be to just use the helpers method (again in cool_gem/sinatra.rb):
require 'sinatra/base'
require 'cool_gem/helper_functions'
Sinatra.helpers CoolGem::HelperFunctions
Now the methods will be available in classic style apps, and modular style apps will need to call helpers CoolGem::HelperFunctions. This is a bit simpler, but if you are adding methods to the DSL context you will need to use registered as above.
I am just getting started with Ruby on Rails. Coming from the Java world, one thing that I am wondering is how do Ruby/Rails developers find out where methods are actually defined.
I am used to just clicking on the method in Eclipse to find where is is defined even in third party libraries (supposing I have the source code).
A concrete example: I am trying to find out how the Authlogic gem apparently changes the constructor of my User class to require an additional parameter (called :password_confirmation) even though the User class doesn't even inherit from anything related to Authlogic.
Probably I am just overlooking something really obvious here (or maybe I still can't wrap my head around the whole "convention over configuration" thing ;-))
It's slightly difficult to quickly find the method location for dynamic languages like Ruby.
You can use object.methods or object.instance_methods to quickly find out the methods.
If you are using Ruby 1.9, you can do something like this:
object.method(:method_name).source_location
For more information on source_location - click here
The Pry gem is designed precisely for this kind of explorative use-case.
Pry is an interactive shell that lets you navigate your way around a program's source-code using shell-like commands such as cd and ls.
You can pull the documentation for any method you encounter and even view the source code, including the native C code in some cases (with the pry-doc plugin). You can even jump directly to the file/line where a particular method is defined with the edit-method command. The show-method and show-doc commands also display the precise location of the method they're acting on.
Watch the railscast screencast for more information.
Here are some examples below:
pry(main)> show-doc OpenStruct#initialize
From: /Users/john/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.9.2-p180/lib/ruby/1.9.1/ostruct.rb # line 46:
Number of lines: 11
visibility: private
signature: initialize(hash=?)
Create a new OpenStruct object. The optional hash, if given, will
generate attributes and values. For example.
require 'ostruct'
hash = { "country" => "Australia", :population => 20_000_000 }
data = OpenStruct.new(hash)
p data # -> <OpenStruct country="Australia" population=20000000>
By default, the resulting OpenStruct object will have no attributes.
pry(main)>
You can also look up sourcecode with the show-method command:
pry(main)> show-method OpenStruct#initialize
From: /Users/john/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.9.2-p180/lib/ruby/1.9.1/ostruct.rb # line 46:
Number of lines: 9
def initialize(hash=nil)
#table = {}
if hash
for k,v in hash
#table[k.to_sym] = v
new_ostruct_member(k)
end
end
end
pry(main)>
See http://pry.github.com for more information :)
None of people advising Pry gem mentionned the method called find-method, which is probably what author was looking for.
Here's the example:
pry(main)> find-method current_user
Devise::Controllers::Helpers
Devise::Controllers::Helpers#current_user
WebsocketRails::ConnectionAdapters::Base
WebsocketRails::ConnectionAdapters::Base#current_user_responds_to?
Then, you can browse the method code by following #banister's tips.
You could use something like pry. See its railscast also.
There are several ways to change an existing class. E.g. if you want to modify the String class write:
class String
def my_custom_method
puts "hello!"
end
end
But there are other options like mixing in modules or adding/modifying methods by using meta-programming.
Anyhow, having some object you can always:
puts obj.methods.inspect
Either do it in your code or use the debugger.
The other option is to read the code. In particular you should read the gem's unit tests (./spec, ...). There are quite a lot of authors stating that unit tests make documentation obsolete.
In Ruby you can also add both class and instance methods to a given class by using mixins.
Essentially if you have a module you can add its methods to a given class using both include and extend class methods. A brief example on how those works is the following
Module A
def foo
"foo"
end
end
Module B
def bar
"bar"
end
end
Class YourClass
include A
extend B
end
p YourClass.new.foo # gives "foo" because the foo method is added as instance method
p YourClass.bar # gives "baz" because the bar method is added as class method
Because Ruby is a dynamic language, these statements can be used everywhere. So to come to your question there is no need to extend an authlogic class to get its methods. Many plugins uses this instruction when loaded
ActiveRecord::Base.send :include, ModuleName
In this way they tell to every AR object to include some plugin defined module and you get all the methods in AR objects.
Another technique used by many acts_as plugins is to include their modules only when the acts_as call is used in the base class.
Other useful references
What is the difference between include and extend in Ruby?
A quick tutorial about mixins
I have a collection of parsers that differ significantly in logic, but have the exact same methods and outputs.
I have devised somewhat of a master Rake and I am curious if what I have come up with could lead to some unexpected or weird behavior.
Essentially my parse.rake looks something like:
require 'app/models/provider'
require 'config/environment.rb'
Provider.all.each do |provider|
require "lib/tasks/#{provider.name}.rb"
Kernel.const_get(provider.name).provider = provider
namespace provider.name do
task :provider_task do #Parse method
Kernel.const_get(provider.name).provider_task()
end
end
end
Since classes are constants in ruby, Kernel.const_get is what I used to access class methods from a varname. My classes look like (ABC.rb):
Class ABC
cattr_accessor :provider
def self.provider_task()
#Parse and add stuff to environment
end
end
With this setup, I can easily invoke rake ABC:provider_task to run a specific parser. Also the cattr_accessor allows me to easily refer to the actual provider model. Thoughts?
I have used this with no issues for a few weeks. After reviewing with some colleagues, I found a few who previously used a similar approach with no issues. Only potential danger is naming conflicts with your ruby classes.
I've tried reading through various blog posts that attempt to explain alias_method_chain and the reasons to use it and not use it. In particular, I took heed to:
http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2006/4/26/new-in-rails-module-alias_method_chain
and
http://yehudakatz.com/2009/03/06/alias_method_chain-in-models/
I still do not see any practical use for alias_method_chain. Would anyone be able to explain a few things.
1 - is it still used at all?
2 - when would you use alias_method_chain and why?
1 - is it still used at all?
Apparently yes, alias_method_chain() is still used in Rails (as of version 3.0.0).
2 - when would you use
alias_method_chain and why?
(Note: the following is largely based on the discussion of alias_method_chain() in Metaprogramming Ruby by Paolo Perrotta, which is an excellent book that you should get your hands on.)
Let's start with a basic example:
class Klass
def salute
puts "Aloha!"
end
end
Klass.new.salute # => Aloha!
Now suppose that we want to surround Klass#salute() with logging behavior. We can do that what Perrotta calls an around alias:
class Klass
def salute_with_log
puts "Calling method..."
salute_without_log
puts "...Method called"
end
alias_method :salute_without_log, :salute
alias_method :salute, :salute_with_log
end
Klass.new.salute
# Prints the following:
# Calling method...
# Aloha!
# ...Method called
We defined a new method called salute_with_log() and aliased it to salute(). The code that used to call salute() still works, but it gets the new logging behavior as well. We also defined an alias to the original salute(), so we can still salute without logging:
Klass.new.salute_without_log # => Aloha!
So, salute() is now called salute_without_log(). If we want logging, we can call either salute_with_log() or salute(), which are aliases of the same method. Confused? Good!
According to Perrotta, this kind of around alias is very common in Rails:
Look at another example of Rails
solving a problem its own way. A few
versions ago, the Rails code contained
many instances of the same idiom: an
Around Alias (155) was used to add a
feature to a method, and the old
version of the method was renamed to
something like
method_without_feature(). Apart from
the method names, which changed every
time, the code that did this was
always the same, duplicated all over
the place. In most languages, you
cannot avoid that kind of duplication.
In Ruby, you can sprinkle some
metaprogramming magic over your
pattern and extract it into its own
method... and thus was born
alias_method_chain().
In other words, you provide the original method, foo(), and the enhanced method, foo_with_feature(), and you end up with three methods: foo(), foo_with_feature(), and foo_without_feature(). The first two include the feature, while the third doesn't. Instead of duplicating these aliases all around, alias_method_chain() provided by ActiveSupport does all the aliasing for you.
alias_method_chain has been deprecated in Rails 5 in favour of Module#prepend.
Pull request: https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/19434
Changelog: https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/b292b76c2dd0f04fb090d49b90716a0e6037b41a/guides/source/5_0_release_notes.md#deprecations-4
I'm not sure if it's gone out of style with Rails 3 or not, but it is still actively used in versions before that.
You use it to inject some functionality before (or after) a method is called, without modifying any place that calls that method. See this example:
module SwitchableSmtp
module InstanceMethods
def deliver_with_switchable_smtp!(mail = #mail)
unless logger.nil?
logger.info "Switching SMTP server to: #{custom_smtp.inspect}"
end
ActionMailer::Base.smtp_settings = custom_smtp unless custom_smtp.nil?
deliver_without_switchable_smtp!(mail = #mail)
end
end
def self.included(receiver)
receiver.send :include, InstanceMethods
receiver.class_eval do
alias_method_chain :deliver!, :switchable_smtp
end
end
end
That's an addition to ActionMailer to allow swapping out of the SMTP settings on each call to deliver!. By calling alias_method_chain you are able to define a method deliver_with_switchable_smtp! in which you do your custom stuff, and call deliver_without_switchable_smtp! from there when you're done.
alias_method_chain aliases the old deliver! to your new custom method, so the rest of your app doesn't even know deliver! now does your custom stuff too.
is it used at all?
Seems so. It's a common practice among Rails developers
when would you use alias_method_chain and why?
Despite the warnings, alias_method_chain is still the main strategy used when injecting functionality to an existing method, at least was in Rails 2.x and is followed by many people extending it. Yehuda ought to remove alias_method_chain from rails 3.0 to say from his posts and comments in Rails tickets. It is still used by many extensions that add custom behavior at certain points of the execution, such as loggers, error reporters, benchmarking, data injection, etc.
IMO, the best alternative is to include a module, thus you have decoration over delegation. (For example, follow example 4 in this post). That way you can alter the objects even individually if you'd like, without polluting the class' methods. The downside to this is that the method lookup chain increases for each module you inject, but this is what modules are for anyway.
Very interesting question, will keep a look on what other people think about it.
I'm trying to add a function that will be accessible throughout all parts of my program. I want something like:
def GlobalFunctions.my_function(x,y)
puts x + y
end
to be accessible for all models. Specifically I am trying to use a function like this in my seeds.rb file but I am most likely going to be reusing the code and don't want any redundancy. Now I know I can make a simple class, but I could also make a module. What are some reasons to go in either direction? And once I've decided on which type to use, how do I make it accessible throughout the whole program?
I have tried a module, but I keep getting " Expected app/[module file] to define [ModuleName]"
You'd define a class for something you'll want to make instances of. In this case, a module would probably be better, as modules basically just group code together:
module GlobalFunctions
def self.my_function(x,y)
puts x+y
end
end
GlobalFunctions.my_function(4,5) # => 9
Alternatively, you could define it on Kernel, and then just call it anywhere. Kernel is where methods like puts are defined.
def Kernel.my_function(x,y)
puts x + y
end
my_function(4,5) # => 9
Adding methods to Kernel (answer from PreciousBodilyFluids) is usually considered a bad smell and can lead to some really hard to find bugs in large projects.
It's much more accepted to relevantly namespace the code and put in to /lib/.
class Formatting
def self.bold(str)
return "<strong>#{str}</strong>"
end
end
You can then:
require 'formatting'
puts Formatting.bold("text")
or
require 'formatting'
include Formatting
puts bold("text")
It'll be clear to anyone who comes to the code later what you're using too. If you're using Rails you won't need the require.
PreciousBodilyFluids is correct, and if this GlobalFunctions is part of a RoR project, you may want to name the file global_functions.rb and place it in the lib/ directory to help you avoid the error message you posted at the end of your question.