Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Will it be any issues if I let my app in development mode forever? It works fine like that and if I change to production mode it gives some errors and I don't have the time or expertise to solve them.
So, if I make some adjustments to the development mode (like allow caching etc) will it run slower than in production? There will be additional issues?
Thanks!
One more problem is when you get error messages they will be logged but not rendered to the user, instead the static error page from your public directory will be used in case of production environment.
If you getting error in migration then create a empty database using development environment and after creating database with development mode use it as production database. This will easily solve your problem.
As you noticed, there are things like caching which are disabled in development mode.
Checking out the config environment files (and docs and source code) should reveal more.
But you should probably try to figure out the production issues. Database configuration and migrations could be part of this, depending on the particular errors you're seeing.
Related
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
What is advantage of using docker in local machine for running app?
And difference without using do docker.
Reproducibility. No more "works on my machine".
Furthermore, we can deploy all our dependencies (relational database, document-based database, graph-database, messaging-system, ....) through docker (e.g. through a docker-compose file and thus eases development.
Another advantage is that - in case we deploy to a container-based environment - we can use the exact same images used in production and thus improve dev-prod-parity.
There are a lot of advantages:
You can easily install few versions of different software without any collisions (e.g. 10 versions of MongoDB).
As previous commentator said - it creates isolated environment similar to your production (the only difference is the actual number of resources, such as CPU/GPU/RAM/etc.).
Easy setup for new developers (no need to manually install each separate tool and resolve issues with installations/configuration/etc.).
Ability to quickly deploy test environments, or new servers, or deploy this app on your brand new laptop)).
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I wanted to get a bit of advice from the StackOverflow community on best practices/guidelines when inheriting a Rails app from another developer.
I am currently in the process of assuming control of development at my place of work. I have decent experience in front-end, SQL/Mongo, and Node.js, and a good amount of knowledge of Ruby. However, I do not have very much experience with Rails, per se.
The previous developer is being fairly unhelpful in providing dependencies and software versions of the various packages in use by the app. However, I have been able to get the following information and I have installed these dependencies (although they may differ from the versions needed by the app):
Postgres
Heroku CLI
AWS CLI
Redis
Sidekiq
AngularJS
Would any of you guys be able to briefly delineate the next steps of getting a previously existing app running (or point me to another source)?
Any help you all can provide is much appreciated. Thank you!
Things you need to retain:
Access credentials to all production servers and used services (including domain name and backup servers if there are any). It is not obligatory to be you, but someone at the company should have them (there may be some security/privacy related issues).
Access to source code
A fresh production backup (if possible)
Most of versions can be inferred from production system once you have full access.
Some others (like sidekiq etc) are in Gemfile.lock and yarn.lock files.
Then try to bring the system up from the backup - if you succeed - you'll be sure that everything is ok
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Why not use a live packaging server for production instead of making a static bundle? Wouldn't it be beneficial to have it live because you can change it whenever without resubmitting the app? Of course, the downside is that you can't access it offline, but why don't solve it by caching a bundle and fetching new only when available?
It is possible to load the javascript bundle from a server, just as you describe. I'm not sure what source you are referring to when you say "why not use...", but I would imagine the reason this isn't recommended to everyone is that it wouldn't be quite as trivial as you presume:
How do you cache the bundle?
What happens when the package download fails?
What if the native executable is not compatible with the loaded script code because of some native dependencies have changed?
How do you handle hot loading new scripts to an already running application?
The point is that all these problems are possible to solve, but they do not just work out of the box, so you need to build the infrastructure to make it happen. There is also a product called AppHub (apparently yet not launched), that promises to do this all for you.
Another compelling reason is Apple's app store review policies. Apple has recently explicitly allowed apps to download and execute scripts, with the following provision (see section 3.3.2)
provided that such scripts and code do not change
the primary purpose of the Application by providing features or functionality that are inconsistent with the intended and advertised purpose of the Application as
submitted to the App Store.
However, among many developers there is quite a bit of uncertainty and suspicion whether Apple will continue to allow this, since it is so opposite to their previous review policies.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm new to rails and I am redoing and revamping my current website with it. I have been looking all over the internet about how to deploy my rails app to my server. It seems that everyone is mentioning AWS and Heroku. The problem is that I am not interested in paying money down the road when my website starts to grow.
So would it be worth it to set up my own infrastructure so I can change and modify it as my site grows or is it north worth the trouble for the prices that I could pay for someone (Heroku most likely) to worry about that for me?
Also is it even possible or feasible for that matter to deploy myself?
Thanks
TopGunCoder
I have a few rails projects hosted on my own virtual server. Ubuntu, rbenv, git, rails, passenger and mysql setup.. There are other setups, for example with unicorn an nginx..it really depends on your projects.
How many hits you'll expect per day/month?
I can recommend hosting little projects by your own. It is cheaper and very convenient. But you need know-how and time.
And the state-of-the art method for deploying rails apps is the capistrano tool.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
New to rails and trying to get everything up and running. Working through railstutorial.org and can see that a local install should look like this:
http://railstutorial.org/images/figures/riding_rails_3-full.png
But instead looks like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peteralderson/6890785887/in/photostream
Any ideas where I went wrong?
It's related to the new "asset pipeline" added in Rails 3.1.
The reason the image isn't showing up could be caused by multiple things -
Is the server running in development or production mode? (Development compiles assets on the fly, production assumes they have been pre-compiled.)
Do any messages appear in the server log relating to "rails.png"?
Its a default rails home page. It shows your local configured environment when you click on link about your applications environment. You need not to do anything whit this page. In place of this page you need to set your default home page. And yes there is nothing wrong with the installation.
Simply means Rails has changed from what you have in the tutorial, try to check up the new things with the version of rails you have on your machine, best is to ensure you are using the same version of rails from the tutorial in practice else you might end up confused