When I start a new Rails application, I often use certain parameters to rails new like --skip-spring or --skip-turbolinks.
I understand I can put these in ~/.railsrc, but when using multiple dev computers, it can be a bit tedious to keep railsrc files in sync across all of them.
Can I use application templates to add these parameters to the generator? That would be great, because application templates can be referenced by a url and downloaded on the fly.
(Also I know I can use templates to make changes after the application is created, so I can remove spring or turbolinks or whatever, but it would be much nicer to never generate the app that way.)
To answer my own question after looking into how this works, I think the short answer is that it's not possible to add generator parameters from an application template to rails new itself. The reason is that the template code only runs when the application is already generated.
Related
I have surfed a couple of hours through the web but couldn't find any articles/walkthroughs/comparisons touching erb integration of webpacker. I've found 1 question, unfortunately, the author haven't read docs attentively and the answer was right there, so - no any additional info there.
I have seen plenty of articles about vue and react, but nobody says a word about erb. However, it's quite clear why using react/vue/else similiar, it is not with erb.
The theme is quite vast and I expect a little hate towards me, so I'd ask two related questions (but if you have something to tell more about it - that's appreciated).
As I understand - it's vanilla (plain) js (maybe with a flavour of jQuery) caring just about dom and styling, with all the preprocessing made by rails. If it is so why not just continue using sprockets?
And what are the reasons to choose it instead of some react/vue/else framework?
You may use both : a vanilla JS framework (React, Vue ...) and some erb files. I find it interesting to setup my constant and other configuration variables within a .js.erb file that is generated by my Rails app when building the js app.
Things I like to put in this erb files :
schemas of my api, generated by my serializers
constants, like enum
values to be used in forms
To generalize, you can put anything owned by the backend that will not change at run time
this save you a couple API calls to retrieve this data. However, I tend to stop doing this as your JS app and Rails become tightly coupled and you can't use the sources of your JS app outside the Rails app
There's every chance I've approached this entirely in the wrong way which might be why I'm struggling to find an answer, as is typically the way with Rails.
For clarity, I'm referring to the -m option of "rails new", eg.
rails new [new-project] -m [this is where my template goes]
I've created a project/application template to speed up the creation of a specific project type, with the view that further projects/products will have their own template also.
The template adds in the relevant gems and does a bit of housework to tidy up the output of the gem installation (moving JS/CSS files to /vendors, for example) as well as copying over a generator that gives the option to expand the project further.
I'm struggling to understand if there is a way to test that the project template is working as expected and copying the correct files.
Have I approached this in the correct manner, and is there a way to test project/application templates?
Edit - Further research is suggesting that an Engine may be a better solution. Is that accurate?
A Rails Engine is a way to package some application or application subset so that it is easy to share with other applications. Basically, if you have some models and controllers that can be shared by multiple applications, you can use an Engine. This sounds a lot like what you described as a project template. Engines can be packaged as gems, gems can automatically behave as Engines, include rake tasks, hook into Rails initialization, and more, so why not take advantage of Other People's Work if you can?
I wanted to try out Angularjs. However, I have been trouble deciding on where I should located my angular app.
I am using Rails framework for the backend. I have seen tutorials where the entire angular app lives under the assets/javascript folder.
I was wondering if instead of living within the assets/javascript folder, I could make it live outside my rails directory entirely. That way, I can potentially separate my backend and front end entirely. (Is this recommended?).
I believe the asset pipeline also precompiles a lot of the assets. If I were to separate out the angularjs asset, would I need to precompile the assets somehow?
Thanks
I've been working through a similar set of questions. There are some good tools that allow you to integrate AngularJS directly into your rails asset pipeline, and they to me look good if you want just a little bit of Angular.
However, if you want a full Angular front-end, aka a single page web app, I think you'll eventually be limited by compatibility and some of the tooling. I feel like the Rails gems won't quite keep up with Angular, and so you'll be into version conflicts. I've also seen more and more tooling for Angular as a standalone, and I very much like the ng-boilerplate project template. I also like much of the testing tooling such as karma, and I haven't really sorted out a way to integrate karma with rails.
For that reason, I eventually decided that I'd keep the two separate. Initially, I did that through creating a rails application and a separate angular application (separate directories). I used ng-boilerplate as the framework for the angular end. I wrote a tutorial on that. This eventually got a bit frustrating, and I wrote some more thoughts on it, the main annoyance was that I had two git repositories and it was annoying to keep them in synch. It's also sort of annoying working with an IDE across two directories. I've ended up shifting to rails and angular being in the same folder, and they seem to play nice, as each uses different directories within that project.
In this current structure, I'm using the grunt setup that came with ng-boilerplate to minify all the code, package it and also run karma unit testing. I haven't yet nailed the end-to-end testing, but it's on my list. I've found this to be a relatively productive work environment. My chosen structure for my pages, controllers and karma test cases has some repeated code (I'm choosing not to factor it out to maintain readability). I'm planning to extend the rails scaffold generator to create the javascript framework for me - so when I create a persons rails scaffold, it will also create a persons angularjs scaffold for me. I'll update here if and when I do that work.
EDIT: I've completed the scaffolding work as well, which allows rails to automatically generate the angularJS elements when you generate the rails models/controllers etc. The blog post is here: http://technpol.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/rails-generator-to-generate-angular-views/
You could use a grunt based workflow:
How to manage AngularJS workflow with lots of script files
http://newtriks.com/2013/06/11/automating-angularjs-with-yeoman-grunt-and-bower/
If you start with a decoupled frontend, use mocks at first so you can stay within angular and not lose focus switching between backend and frontend logic. An advantage of building a single page application is that you can develop it independently of the backend api. See (http://docs.angularjs.org/api/ngMockE2E.$httpBackend) for information about mocking http responses.
We have been using AngularJS with our Rails application, in a way where we have been using Rails ERB templates, but switch over to using ng directive as and when required.
For this above setup we have used bower/bower-rails gem, which lets us use bower to manage the angular packages and their dependencies. We commit this into our repo, in the javascripts directory, and is taken care of by the Rails asset pipeline.
This setup has worked well for us considering we have above 50-50 % split of our views between the ERB templates and Angularjs.
More about this setup in the links below:
http://angular-rails.com/bootstrap.html
http://pete-hamilton.co.uk/2013/07/13/angularjs-and-rails-with-bower/
http://start.jcolemorrison.com/setting-up-an-angularjs-and-rails-4-1-project/
There are many advantages of separating out your api service (rails in this case) and your frontend components. As we do for ios/android apps, angular client can live on its own as a separate entity. It will be a static website that can be deployed on s3 or any static website host. It just needs to communicate with your api service. You could setup CORS to make it possible.
Some advantages of this workflow
You could use rails-api, which is a subset of rails application. If you are just going to use rails to build apis, it doesnt make sense to have all functionality that a complete rails app provides. Its lightweight, faster and inclined more towards building API first arch than a MVC arch.
You could use yeoman angular-generator to generate an angular app and make the most of grunt & bower to manage build (concat,uglify,cdnify etc) and dependencies (angular modules).
Deployments will become flexible. You won't need to depend on one to push the other.
If you ever plan to change your backend stack (eg rails to play/revel), you would not need to worry about your client components.
By splitting the development of the frontend and the Rails backend you could distribute the work over two development teams and keep the application as a whole very extensible.
There is also one downside to this approach.
By having the applications in two separate repositories, you can’t easily have a full integration test. So you will have to test the apps separately. You could mock your apis to test angular app.
We have been using this approach and would recommend others the same.
Less dependency & more productivity.
I'm new to both Ruby on Rails and Locomotive CMS, but I'm just starting to create my first site with them.
I've got the engine running in a full Rails app (I'm going to need to deploy it on our own server later on). But it's just spitting out the 'Template' content defined through the admin interface, without any other template/content around it.
I can 'fix' it by shoving the html for the whole page in through this input field. But that's not right, surely? The Getting Started guide talks of putting the templates in the filesystem, at something like: Pages/index/first page. "All pages are inherited from index". I have an index.liquid under views/pages but it's not picking that up... (I've tried a couple of other locations too).
I'm sure this is a dumb question, but please could someone tell me where to put my template in the file system? Or how to point Locomotive to pick it up from the right place?
(I did get the file system liquid template working by defining it through the Rails way, with a route, a controller and adding a liquid template initializer I found here. But then it's missing the variables that should come from the CMS content).
I'm loading the site using bundle exec unicorn_rails. And I'm using Rails v3.2.13, Ruby v1.9.3 and Locomotive_cms v2.2.2.
Thanks!
I'm Didier from LocomotiveCMS.
LocomotiveCMS is a little bit different from the other CMS, in a sense, we offer a tool named Wagon to manage your site locally without having to install mongodb, rails and some other components.
Another huge benefit is that you can write your templates in HAML and your CSS in SASS/ SCSS or Less (we embedded Compass as well) and with our preferred texts editor (editing a whole site in a browser is a nightmare).
That's a nice eco-system in order to be super efficient when it comes to develop a LocomotiveCMS site.
Once you're done with your local work, you can deploy your site to a remote LocomotiveCMS engine in a similar way you push your application to Heroku. Actually, pushing a site will create the back-office for the final end user.
I suggest you to read that page.
http://doc.locomotivecms.com/guides/get-started/requirements
and this one too
http://www.locomotivecms.com/tour
Our message is still not clear on our official website but believe me, we are working to make it better.
Hope it will help you !
Didier
I'm a happy user of RoR but have one complaint. When I do script/generate scaffold it automatically generates all my files and places them in their proper folders. However, all the different scaffolds I've created name their view files the same.
I have a bunch of index.html.erb view files and when I have them open in my text editor, it's almost impossible to tell what controller they're related to.
I'd like to change the default naming scheme of the scaffold command to name the individual files to contain their view folder name. So, instead of index.html.erb, use index.home.html.
Is there a way to do this, or am I stuck? What solutions to the multiple files with the same name problem have you Rails developers discovered?
Thanks!
You're going to be fighting the Rails' conventions by going down that path and Rails works best when you work with it rather than against it. A core part of the philosophy of Rails is that there are a set of conventions that once learned make it easy to find your way around any Rails application.
Instead of trying to redefine how Rails works, I would recommend taking advantage of the features offered by your text editor or IDE for quickly navigating to the correct view template. For example, the Rails bundle within TextMate on the Mac lets you quickly open the view file associated with a particular model and there's a plugin for Vim that provides an equivalent feature.