I've come from using Python and I'm very confused as to how the "magic" of Ruby on Rails works.
1. There are no require statements anywhere
In Python, in order to access functions from anywhere, you must import. I assume it's the same for base ruby. But when using rails, I can call hidden variables and functions, defined in other modules, without any require statements on the top of the page.
E.g. I can have a file as such:
class CartsController < ApplicationController
....
def show
begin
#cart = Cart.find(params[:id])
rescue ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound
logger.error "Attempt to access invalid cart #{params[:id]}"
redirect_to store_url, notice: 'Invalid cart'
end
end
Where logger, redirect, and the such are all not defined. Does it simply inherit from ApplicationController up some convoluted tree, or does it somehow access those namespaces through other mechanisms?
2. Using methods that don't exist
This is valid rails code
current_item = line_items.find_by_product_id(product_id)
where find_by_products_id has not been defined anywhere and yet, Rails somehow dynamically "creates" the method on the fly. Any technical insight on how this is done?
Thanks for your help!
Rails' "Magic" makes extensive use of method_missing and const_missing.
When you try and call a method that is not defined, ruby fires a call to method_missing.
This is used by libraries like ActiveRecord to implement dynamic finders.
method_missing example:
SomeModel.find_by_some_field("some_value") is not defined.
This calls SomeModel.method_missing(:find_by_some_field, "some_value").
ActiveRecord then translates this call to `SomeModel.where(:some_field => "some_value")
(for performance purposes, ActiveRecord then dynamically defines this method, so next time find_by_some_field is defined)
const_missing example:
SomeModel has not yet been required.
The Ruby interpreter calls const_missing with the param "SomeModel"
Rails follows the convention "SomeModel" should be defined in a file called some_model.rb so const_missing just tries require "some_model".
Ok. You asked a lot of questions in one. It will be hard to explain all ruby and rails magic in one answer but I'll try to give you some useful resources where you can find some answers.
1) About require statements. If you are new to ruby and rails it will be hard to understand how rails application is initialized. Here is a tutorial were you can some useful information:
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/initialization.html
If you need more information about particular method you can always look into documentation. For example redirect_to method info:
http://apidock.com/rails/ActionController/Base/redirect_to
2) About "Using methods that don't exist". This is one of the most beautiful feature of ruby language called metaprogramming. This is also advanced topic. Here are some useful resources:
http://www.amazon.com/Metaprogramming-Ruby-Program-Like-Pros/dp/1934356476
Ruby metaprogramming online tutorial
http://yehudakatz.com/2009/11/15/metaprogramming-in-ruby-its-all-about-the-self/
http://rubylearning.com/blog/2010/11/23/dont-know-metaprogramming-in-ruby/
Since neither of the existing answers mention it: yes, things like redirect_to are inherited by way of ApplicationController. In this particular case, redirect_to is defined in the module ActionController::Redirecting, which is included in ActionController::Base (from which ApplicationController inherits).
Related
I would like to override the method: authorize_endpoint_url from the Gem in a Rails application: https://github.com/AzureAD/omniauth-azure-activedirectory/blob/master/lib/omniauth/strategies/azure_activedirectory.rb
I tried to do it by adding a file to config/initializers/oauth.rb
With the code:
module OmniAuth
module Strategies
# A strategy for authentication against Azure Active Directory.
class AzureActiveDirectory
def request_phase
debugger
"www.hans.com"
end
end
end
end
But this approach doesn't seem to work, nothing get's actually overwriten. What do I wrong? Thank you
When writing "monkey patch" style alterations you'll want to ensure they're loaded correctly. One way to test this is, after all is said and done, to interrogate Ruby to find out which method is actually being used:
OmniAuth::Strategies::AzureActiveDirectory.instance_method(:request_phase).source_location
The instance_method call returns an object with information about that method and the source_location property tells you where that was defined.
If if's your method, great, you got it loaded right. If not you may need to check that you're hooking in at the correct time.
I am trying to define some helper methods to be used in the app's controller, but it seems that rails don't even call the controller. just for the test I have the following controller in my app/controllers/my_engine/application_controller.rb and as the documents say rails should find it first and an error should raise because THIS_SHOULD_PRODUCE_ERROR is unknown, but the rspec happily executing without any errors!
class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base
THIS_SHOULD_PRODUCE_ERROR
end
I even tried to mimic the devise's way but the results are the same!
The guide section on the app directory suggests that the application_controller in an engine "will provide any common functionality for the controllers of the engine".
So I wouldn't expect that any additions to that controller will be available to all controllers in an application.
That also means that your application_controller is, I suspect, not getting called when you're running your test. Which would explain why you're not seeing an error.
In terms of how devise does it I think you need to be looking at how define_helpers works. The code you've linked to in your question is the application controller in the test app for the devise gem.
I noticed that I have got things wrong, and the application_controller in the engine does not get applied to application_controller in the app! Also, I couldn't figure out how the devise did it, but I have come up with the simple workaround for this:
require_relative 'controllers/helpers'
module Acu
module Injectors
class << self
ActiveSupport::Notifications.subscribe "start_processing.action_controller" do |**args|
eval((Acu::Configs.get :base_controller).to_s).class_eval do
include Acu::Controllers::Helpers
end
end
end
end
end
This will inject controller helpers to the user's base controller (which I get from the user, default: :ApplicationController) at the end of the class, which is perfect for me (but don't know how to add it to begging of the class if anyone needs it)
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'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.
We recently had a problem where, after a series of commits had occurred, a backend process failed to run. Now, we were good little boys and girls and ran rake test after every check-in but, due to some oddities in Rails' library loading, it only occurred when we ran it directly from Mongrel in production mode.
I tracked the bug down and it was due to a new Rails gem overwriting a method in the String class in a way that broke one narrow use in the runtime Rails code.
Anyway, long story short, is there a way, at runtime, to ask Ruby where a method has been defined? Something like whereami( :foo ) that returns /path/to/some/file.rb line #45? In this case, telling me that it was defined in class String would be unhelpful, because it was overloaded by some library.
I cannot guarantee the source lives in my project, so grepping for 'def foo' won't necessarily give me what I need, not to mention if I have many def foo's, sometimes I don't know until runtime which one I may be using.
This is really late, but here's how you can find where a method is defined:
http://gist.github.com/76951
# How to find out where a method comes from.
# Learned this from Dave Thomas while teaching Advanced Ruby Studio
# Makes the case for separating method definitions into
# modules, especially when enhancing built-in classes.
module Perpetrator
def crime
end
end
class Fixnum
include Perpetrator
end
p 2.method(:crime) # The "2" here is an instance of Fixnum.
#<Method: Fixnum(Perpetrator)#crime>
If you're on Ruby 1.9+, you can use source_location
require 'csv'
p CSV.new('string').method(:flock)
# => #<Method: CSV#flock>
CSV.new('string').method(:flock).source_location
# => ["/path/to/ruby/1.9.2-p290/lib/ruby/1.9.1/forwardable.rb", 180]
Note that this won't work on everything, like native compiled code. The Method class has some neat functions, too, like Method#owner which returns the file where the method is defined.
EDIT: Also see the __file__ and __line__ and notes for REE in the other answer, they're handy too. -- wg
You can actually go a bit further than the solution above. For Ruby 1.8 Enterprise Edition, there is the __file__ and __line__ methods on Method instances:
require 'rubygems'
require 'activesupport'
m = 2.days.method(:ago)
# => #<Method: Fixnum(ActiveSupport::CoreExtensions::Numeric::Time)#ago>
m.__file__
# => "/Users/james/.rvm/gems/ree-1.8.7-2010.01/gems/activesupport-2.3.8/lib/active_support/core_ext/numeric/time.rb"
m.__line__
# => 64
For Ruby 1.9 and beyond, there is source_location (thanks Jonathan!):
require 'active_support/all'
m = 2.days.method(:ago)
# => #<Method: Fixnum(Numeric)#ago> # comes from the Numeric module
m.source_location # show file and line
# => ["/var/lib/gems/1.9.1/gems/activesupport-3.0.6/.../numeric/time.rb", 63]
I'm coming late to this thread, and am surprised that nobody mentioned Method#owner.
class A; def hello; puts "hello"; end end
class B < A; end
b = B.new
b.method(:hello).owner
=> A
Copying my answer from a newer similar question that adds new information to this problem.
Ruby 1.9 has method called source_location:
Returns the Ruby source filename and line number containing this method or nil if this method was not defined in Ruby (i.e. native)
This has been backported to 1.8.7 by this gem:
ruby18_source_location
So you can request for the method:
m = Foo::Bar.method(:create)
And then ask for the source_location of that method:
m.source_location
This will return an array with filename and line number.
E.g for ActiveRecord::Base#validates this returns:
ActiveRecord::Base.method(:validates).source_location
# => ["/Users/laas/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.2-p0#arveaurik/gems/activemodel-3.2.2/lib/active_model/validations/validates.rb", 81]
For classes and modules, Ruby does not offer built in support, but there is an excellent Gist out there that builds upon source_location to return file for a given method or first file for a class if no method was specified:
ruby where_is module
In action:
where_is(ActiveRecord::Base, :validates)
# => ["/Users/laas/.rvm/gems/ruby-1.9.2-p0#arveaurik/gems/activemodel-3.2.2/lib/active_model/validations/validates.rb", 81]
On Macs with TextMate installed, this also pops up the editor at the specified location.
Maybe the #source_location can help to find where is the method come from.
ex:
ModelName.method(:has_one).source_location
Return
[project_path/vendor/ruby/version_number/gems/activerecord-number/lib/active_record/associations.rb", line_number_of_where_method_is]
OR
ModelName.new.method(:valid?).source_location
Return
[project_path/vendor/ruby/version_number/gems/activerecord-number/lib/active_record/validations.rb", line_number_of_where_method_is]
This may help but you would have to code it yourself. Pasted from the blog:
Ruby provides a method_added()
callback that is invoked every time a
method is added or redefined within a
class. It’s part of the Module class,
and every Class is a Module. There are
also two related callbacks called
method_removed() and
method_undefined().
http://scie.nti.st/2008/9/17/making-methods-immutable-in-ruby
If you can crash the method, you'll get a backtrace which will tell you exactly where it is.
Unfortunately, if you can't crash it then you can't find out where it has been defined. If you attempt to monkey with the method by overwriting it or overriding it, then any crash will come from your overwritten or overridden method, and it won't be any use.
Useful ways of crashing methods:
Pass nil where it forbids it - a lot of the time the method will raise an ArgumentError or the ever-present NoMethodError on a nil class.
If you have inside knowledge of the method, and you know that the method in turn calls some other method, then you can overrwrite the other method, and raise inside that.
Very late answer :) But earlier answers did not help me
set_trace_func proc{ |event, file, line, id, binding, classname|
printf "%8s %s:%-2d %10s %8s\n", event, file, line, id, classname
}
# call your method
set_trace_func nil
You might be able to do something like this:
foo_finder.rb:
class String
def String.method_added(name)
if (name==:foo)
puts "defining #{name} in:\n\t"
puts caller.join("\n\t")
end
end
end
Then ensure foo_finder is loaded first with something like
ruby -r foo_finder.rb railsapp
(I've only messed with rails, so I don't know exactly, but I imagine there's a way to start it sort of like this.)
This will show you all the re-definitions of String#foo. With a little meta-programming, you could generalize it for whatever function you want. But it does need to be loaded BEFORE the file that actually does the re-definition.
You can always get a backtrace of where you are by using caller().