I'm trying to run rake db:migrate locally but I'm getting the below error:
Gem::LoadError: You have already activated rake 10.2.2, but your Gemfile requires rake 10.1.1. Using bundle exec may solve this.
Not sure why this is happening? It came out of no where.
Any idea how to resolve this?
Cheers
You can delete your Gemfile.lock. Then run bundle install and bundler will recreate updated Gemfile.lock with correct rake.
I just did that and this worked for me.
Do as it says. Call rake as
bundle exec rake
Or, alterantively, run bundler like this:
bundle install --binstubs
And then:
bin/rake
This is happening because there're different versions of rake installed on your system, and it is loading the wrong one by default.
Try running bundle exec rake db:migrate and see if that works for you.
You seem to have multiple versions of rake installed. Do gem list to identify if that is the case.
Depending on that, you may want to uninstall one version using gem uninstall rake.
None of these worked for me but I found a fix. In the application folder you are making (where you find app bin ect..) Open your "Gemfile.lock" find "rake 10.1.1"(just use find or search), change it to 10.2.2, save then rake. Good luck
I think that updating all Gemfile.lock is dangerous, especially when you have many gems without a specific versions. Sometimes when you update a gem some behaviour is changed and it is really annoying to find why it happened.
For myself, I had the same problem and the solution was to modify Gemfile:
gem 'rake', "~> 10.2.2"
to
gem 'rake', "~> 11.1.2"
and then run
bundle update rake
I didn't/don't specify gem 'rake' in my Gemfile, so I simply ran bundle update rake which correctly updated Gemfile.lock.
Related
I'm attempting (without much success) to run rake db:migrate on a rails project, however it returns:
Could not find rake-10.4.2 in any of the sources
Run bundle install to install missing gems.
I ran bundle install and worked fine - installed rake 10.4.2, however when I ran: rake --version (for some reason you can't do rake -v ???) and it shows: rake, version 0.9.6
I ran bundle update rake and returned my list of gems and then: Your bundle is updated!
Why isn't rake updating? Is there something I'm doing wrong (I'm new to rails btw - so this is probably really simple)
Any help is really appreciated
TL; DR: gem install rake -v '10.4.2'
So, I had this problem myself. I wanted to know why rails s would work yesterday and not today.
First I checked if I was in the correct directory, I was.
Then I re-ran bundle install to make sure rake was getting installed. It was, and I was able to see it in my Gemfile.lock
So I figured my gemset might be corrupt (I use RVM). rvm gemset empty then bundle install
Still, whenever I ran rails s, I got this error. bin/rails s worked, as well as bundle exec rails s. But I don't want a prefix, I want rails to work (It works in other rails projects)
Eventually I tried gem install rake and it worked! I recommend adding -v '10.4.2' to the command so that you get the correct rake version. Now when I which rake, I get the gemset for my project: "/Users/cm022291/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.1#project_gemset/bin/rake"
and when I run rails s the server starts successfully.
Try typing
bundle exec rake db:migrate
That will ensure that the Rake being invoked is the one you've bundled.
I am trying to freeze my Rails gem version as, day by day, some or the other gem version gets updated and sometimes I need to update the code.
I tried rake rails:freeze:gems but this gave me error:
rake aborted!
Don't know how to build task 'rails:freeze:gems'
This locks and then caches the gems into ./vendor/cache.
$ bundle package
Refer this link
rake rails:freeze:gems is an old Rails 2 way of doing it. I think you want to use Bundler's bundle install vendor/gems
"How do I freeze gems into a Rails 3 application?" seem to answer it better.
I thought I understood how Bundler works with gems, but after something that recently happened, I am not sure I have it right.
I am developing an Rails application. To start off (and just so I would get familiar with the Rails environment which I haven't worked in before), I did not use an IDE. But, because I'm missing out on some of the advantages of an IDE, I just started using RubyMine. As part of the RubyMine setup, it asked to update all my gems for my existing project.
After that, I could not run "rake [anything]". Every time I did, I received an error of:
You have already activated rake 0.9.3.beta.1, but your Gemfile
requires rake 0.9.2.2. Using bundle exec may solve this.
I was okay updating to the next version of rake - that wasn't a problem - but I don't understand what happened in the first place. What happened that I "activated" a newer version of rake. Ultimately, I ended up solving the problem by putting
gem 'rake', '0.9.3.beta.1'
in my Gemfile and running
bundle update rake
But, I'm still not sure what happened here. If I was using 9.2.2 before, why did it all of a sudden blow up like that and how can I prevent that in the future?
If you are using Rubymine, you should configure it to run rake tasks with bundle exec.
Go to:
Run -> Edit Configurations -> Defaults -> Rake -> Bundler tab and check "Run the script in context of the bundle (bundle exec)"
Delete all tasks already created and the default will apply the next time you create them again. You can also configure individually each task created.
You should really consider installing and using RVM or Rbenv to manage your ruby versions and gemsets. If you go the Rbenv way, the rbenv-gemset plugin can be used to manage gemsets similar to how RVM natively does.
You have already activated rake 0.9.3.beta.1, but your Gemfile requires rake 0.9.2.2. Using bundle exec may solve this.
At some point between your last bundle execution and installing/configuring/running RubyMine you must have installed rake 0.9.3.beta.1. Because you're not managing your gems through gemsets like RVM or Rbenv will do for you, the default version of Rake became 0.9.3.beta.1 instead of the version installed by bundler, 0.9.2.2.
The above error suggests your Gemfile had something like
gem 'rake', '0.9.2.2'
which does not allow the version of rake being used to be anything but 0.9.2.2.
If you do in fact have 0.9.2.2 on your system in addition to the 0.9.3.beta.1 and your Gemfile is configured for 0.9.2.2, instead of running
rake some:task
you can run
bundle exec rake some:task
and bundler will run some:task through the 0.9.2.2 version of rake. Running tasks related to gems found in a Gemfile through bundleer with bundle exec ... is considered good practice regardless of using RVM or Rbenv.
You can read about bundle exec here.
My question has already been asked here, but I am trying to understand the reasons behind it as opposed to how to work around it.
The error I got was;
You have already activated rspec-core 2.7.1, but your Gemfile requires rspec-core 2.6.4. Using bundle exec may solve this. (Gem::LoadError)
Now I have been given various solutions like using "mpapis-bundler", or to create a shorthand for "bundle exec", but I was under the impression that that was what
$bundle install --binstubs
was for.
More specifically, since I have no version numbers stated in my gemfile for rspec-rails, why do I have this incompatibility? My error also occurred when I tried
$rake db:migrate
telling me that
You have already activated rake 0.9.2.2, but your Gemfile requires rake 0.9.2. Consider using bundle exec.
Any explanations would be appreciated.
EDIT:
All my gems for my app are in a gemset, and I have updated my gems again. Should an update not make sure that related gems are compatible?
This happens when you install more recent gems in your system than the one in your Rails app.
Bundler simply tells ou that you must stick with those your Gemfile states.
This is the purpose of running:
bundle exec rake db:migrate
-> running the very same rake version your Gemfile provides.
Concerning updating gems from gemfile, simply do:
bundle update
The easiest way to avoid this kind of boring stuff is to isolate your gems by creating gemsets. I use RVM for this purpose.
Regarding the rake version 0.9.2.2, either ways to do is create a new gemset for the project and maintain the gem version matching your Gemfile.
For instance if there are two rake gem containing versions 0.9.2 and 0.9.2.2, specifying rake version '0.9.2' though installs, but does not run any tasks apart from blowing error saying
'You have already activated rake 0.9.2.2, but your Gemfile requires rake 0.9.2. Using bundle exec may solve this.'
I expect bundle install to lock the gem version in Gemfile.lock and pick the rake 0.9.2, but it looks in the gemset, where by default rake 0.9.2.2 is enabled.
Just reminding the purpose of bundle install from agile web development with rails book,
'bundle install will use the Gemfile.lock as a starting point, and install only the
versions of the various gems as specified in this file. For this reason, it is
important that this file gets checked into your version control system, as this
will ensure that your colleagues and deployment targets will all be using the
exact same configuration.'
but it doesn't work that way,
The better is to uninstall rake 0.9.2.2 and use rake 0.9.2 or, use bundle update rake, that updates the rake version in Gemfile.lock to 0.9.2.2
As #apneadiving said, running "$bundle install" updates all your bunldes. However, after running "$bundle install --binstubs" I still got errors for incompatible gems whenever I omitted the "bundle exec" part.
Subsequently I needed to update my Gemfile as I added another gem, and now they work. I'm assuming the incompatibilities were solved by the gem creators.
What does bundle exec rake db:migrate mean? Or just bundle exec rake <command> in general?
I understand that bundle takes care of maintaining things in the Gemfile. I know what the word "exec" means. I understand that rake maintains all the different scripty things you can do, and I know that db:migrate is one of those. I just don't know what all these words are doing together. Why should bundle be used to execute rake to execute a database migrate?
bundle exec is a Bundler command to execute a script in the context of the current bundle (the one from your directory's Gemfile). rake db:migrate is the script where db is the namespace and migrate is the task name defined.
So bundle exec rake db:migrate executes the rake script with the command db:migrate in the context of the current bundle.
As to the "why?" I'll quote from the bundler page:
In some cases, running executables without bundle exec may work, if the executable happens to be installed in your system and does not pull in any gems that conflict with your bundle.
However, this is unreliable and is the source of considerable pain. Even if it looks like it works, it may not work in the future or on another machine.
You're running bundle exec on a program. The program's creators wrote it when certain versions of gems were available. The program Gemfile specifies the versions of the gems the creators decided to use. That is, the script was made to run correctly against these gem versions.
Your system-wide Gemfile may differ from this Gemfile. You may have newer or older gems with which this script doesn't play nice. This difference in versions can give you weird errors.
bundle exec helps you avoid these errors. It executes the script using the gems specified in the script's Gemfile rather than the systemwide Gemfile. It executes the certain gem versions with the magic of shell aliases.
See more on the man page.
Here's an example Gemfile:
source 'http://rubygems.org'
gem 'rails', '2.8.3'
Here, bundle exec would execute the script using rails version 2.8.3 and not some other version you may have installed system-wide.
This comes up a lot when your gemfile.lock has different versions of the gems installed on your machine. You may get a warning after running rake (or rspec or others) such as:
You have already activated rake 10.3.1, but your Gemfile requires rake 10.1.0. Prepending "bundle exec" to your command may solve this.
Prepending bundle exec tells the bundler to execute this command regardless of the version differential. There isn't always an issue, however, you might run into problems.
Fortunately, there is a gem that solves this: rubygems-bundler.
$ gem install rubygems-bundler
$ $ gem regenerate_binstubs
Then try your rake, rspec, or whatever again.
It should probably be mentioned, that there are ways to omit bundle exec (they are all stated in chapter 3.6.1 of Michael Hartls Ruby on Rails Tutorial book).
The simplest is to just use a sufficiently up-to-date version of RVM (>= 1.11.x).
If you're restricted to an earlier version of RVM, you can always use this method also mentioned by calasyr:
$ rvm get head && rvm reload
$ chmod +x $rvm_path/hooks/after_cd_bundler
$ bundle install --binstubs=./bundler_stubs
The bundler_stubs directory should then also be added to the .gitignore file.
A third option is to use the rubygems-bundler gem if you're not using RVM:
$ gem install rubygems-bundler
$ gem regenerate_binstubs
When you directly run the rake task or execute any binary file of a gem, there is no guarantee that the command will behave as expected. Because it might happen that you already have the same gem installed on your system which have a version say 1.0 but in your project you have higher version say 2.0. In this case you can not predict which one will be used.
To enforce the desired gem version you take the help of bundle exec command which would execute the binary in context of current bundle. That means when you use bundle exec, bundler checks the gem version configured for the current project and use that to perform the task.
I have also written a post about it which also shows how we can avoid using it using bin stubs.
I have not used bundle exec much, but am setting it up now.
I have had instances where the wrong rake was used and much time wasted tracking down the problem. This helps you avoid that.
Here's how to set up RVM so you can use bundle exec by default within a specific project directory:
https://thoughtbot.com/blog/use-bundlers-binstubs
It means use rake that bundler is aware of and is part of your Gemfile over any rake that bundler is not aware of and run the db:migrate task.