I've been battling for an hour with a require_relative in my test_helper.rb that I just can't seem to get to work.
Given a project structure like so
lib
|-- square_digits.rb
test
|-- test_square_digits.rb
|-- test_helper.rb
And these test files:
# test/test_square_digits.rb
require 'test_helper'
# test/test_helper.rb
require "minitest/autorun"
Dir.glob('../lib/**/*.rb').each { |f| require_relative f }
# require_relative "../lib/square_every_digit.rb"
I cannot get my tests to run correctly with the dynamic require, but directly requiring with the hardcoded path does function as intended, though the Dir.glob does seem to catch the file (while running pry in test/)
$ pry(main)> Dir.glob('../lib/**/*.rb')
$ => ["../lib/square_every_digit.rb"]
I have tried the require_relative gem, Dir[] and various solutions to no avail...
Have you tried generating the lines of code and using eval
baseDir = __dir__+"/RGSS Classes"
fileCol = Dir.children(baseDir)
fileCol.each do |library|
libPath = baseDir+"/"+library
code = "require '"+libPath+"'"
puts code
eval(code)
end
you wont be able to use require_reletive because it'll give a "LoadError: cannot infer basepath", i am unsure if it's the same reason as stated in this answer but using require worked
first need to get the current file location using __dir__ and then append whatever subfolder the files you want to require are. then you loop though the results generating the line of code for each file (i choose to generate the path in a variable first before adding it to the code)
obviously since eval is executing string as code if this is used outside of personal private use you'd might want to add some sanitization to the file names as a bad or maliciously named file will execute as code.
alternatively you can forgo using eval and have it output each line to a .rb file which you would then require which eliminates the risk of filenames being used to inject code
Related
I am writing a program which includes two file. I’m the first file all I am doing is initializing the next file which includes multiple classes. I call the class at the bottom of the file, but it runs the class at the top of the file.
Btw I am running ruby
First file:
Require ‘./secondfile.rb’
newfile.Lastclass
Second file:
class Firstclass
end
class Lastclass
end
Hint #1. It's better to write without .
It depends on directory from where you run your app.
For example you have directory folder. And there you have two files:
file.rb
puts "I'm file.rb"
main.rb
require './file.rb'
If you run your app from folder - it's ok:
folder$ ruby main.rb
I'm file.rb
But if you'll run it from high level - it will be error:
folder$ cd ..
:~$ ruby folder/main.rb
kernel_require.rb:55:in `require': cannot load such file -- ./file.rb (LoadError)
But how to write in this case?
Hint #2. You can use special method
main.rb
require "./#{__dir__}/file.rb"
Now it's ok in all cases:
~$ ruby folder/main.rb
I'm file.rb
folder$ ruby main.rb
I'm file.rb
But you can write it better.
Hint #3. You can use require_relative
main.rb
require_relative 'file.rb'
And even better.
main.rb
require_relative 'file'
Ruby understand it.
~$ ruby folder/main.rb
I'm file.rb
folder$ ruby main.rb
I'm file.rb
Hope this helps you.
Classes are injected into the root namespace if they're defined. If another file defines a class, all files get it:
require_relative './secondfile.rb'
Lastclass
This is unlike JavaScript (e.g. Node.js) where you must explicitly import classes from other files. In Ruby it happens by manipulating the root namespace.
Another note is to pay close attention to which slashes you use. In your code you used a backslash, which is incorrect. You also used the wrong quotes. Often every character counts when programming.
What is the difference between require_relative and require in Ruby?
Just look at the docs:
require_relative complements the builtin method require by allowing you to load a file that is relative to the file containing the require_relative statement.
For example, if you have unit test classes in the "test" directory, and data for them under the test "test/data" directory, then you might use a line like this in a test case:
require_relative "data/customer_data_1"
require_relative is a convenient subset of require
require_relative('path')
equals:
require(File.expand_path('path', File.dirname(__FILE__)))
if __FILE__ is defined, or it raises LoadError otherwise.
This implies that:
require_relative 'a' and require_relative './a' require relative to the current file (__FILE__).
This is what you want to use when requiring inside your library, since you don't want the result to depend on the current directory of the caller.
eval('require_relative("a.rb")') raises LoadError because __FILE__ is not defined inside eval.
This is why you can't use require_relative in RSpec tests, which get evaled.
The following operations are only possible with require:
require './a.rb' requires relative to the current directory
require 'a.rb' uses the search path ($LOAD_PATH) to require. It does not find files relative to current directory or path.
This is not possible with require_relative because the docs say that path search only happens when "the filename does not resolve to an absolute path" (i.e. starts with / or ./ or ../), which is always the case for File.expand_path.
The following operation is possible with both, but you will want to use require as it is shorter and more efficient:
require '/a.rb' and require_relative '/a.rb' both require the absolute path.
Reading the source
When the docs are not clear, I recommend that you take a look at the sources (toggle source in the docs). In some cases, it helps to understand what is going on.
require:
VALUE rb_f_require(VALUE obj, VALUE fname) {
return rb_require_safe(fname, rb_safe_level());
}
require_relative:
VALUE rb_f_require_relative(VALUE obj, VALUE fname) {
VALUE base = rb_current_realfilepath();
if (NIL_P(base)) {
rb_loaderror("cannot infer basepath");
}
base = rb_file_dirname(base);
return rb_require_safe(rb_file_absolute_path(fname, base), rb_safe_level());
}
This allows us to conclude that
require_relative('path')
is the same as:
require(File.expand_path('path', File.dirname(__FILE__)))
because:
rb_file_absolute_path =~ File.expand_path
rb_file_dirname1 =~ File.dirname
rb_current_realfilepath =~ __FILE__
Summary
Use require for installed gems
Use require_relative for local files
require uses your $LOAD_PATH to find the files.
require_relative uses the current location of the file using the statement
require
Require relies on you having installed (e.g. gem install [package]) a package somewhere on your system for that functionality.
When using require you can use the "./" format for a file in the current directory, e.g. require "./my_file" but that is not a common or recommended practice and you should use require_relative instead.
require_relative
This simply means include the file 'relative to the location of the file with the require_relative statement'. I generally recommend that files should be "within" the current directory tree as opposed to "up", e.g. don't use
require_relative '../../../filename'
(up 3 directory levels) within the file system because that tends to create unnecessary and brittle dependencies. However in some cases if you are already 'deep' within a directory tree then "up and down" another directory tree branch may be necessary. More simply perhaps, don't use require_relative for files outside of this repository (assuming you are using git which is largely a de-facto standard at this point, late 2018).
Note that require_relative uses the current directory of the file with the require_relative statement (so not necessarily your current directory that you are using the command from). This keeps the require_relative path "stable" as it always be relative to the file requiring it in the same way.
From Ruby API:
require_relative complements the
builtin method require by allowing you
to load a file that is relative to the
file containing the require_relative
statement.
When you use require to load a file,
you are usually accessing
functionality that has been properly
installed, and made accessible, in
your system. require does not offer a
good solution for loading files within
the project’s code. This may be useful
during a development phase, for
accessing test data, or even for
accessing files that are "locked" away
inside a project, not intended for
outside use.
For example, if you have unit test
classes in the "test" directory, and
data for them under the test
"test/data" directory, then you might
use a line like this in a test case:
require_relative "data/customer_data_1"
Since neither
"test" nor "test/data" are likely to
be in Ruby’s library path (and for
good reason), a normal require won’t
find them. require_relative is a good
solution for this particular problem.
You may include or omit the extension
(.rb or .so) of the file you are
loading.
path must respond to to_str.
You can find the documentation at http://extensions.rubyforge.org/rdoc/classes/Kernel.html
The top answers are correct, but deeply technical. For those newer to Ruby:
require_relative will most likely be used to bring in code from another file that you wrote.
for example, what if you have data in ~/my-project/data.rb and you want to include that in ~/my-project/solution.rb? in solution.rb you would add require_relative 'data'.
it is important to note these files do not need to be in the same directory. require_relative '../../folder1/folder2/data' is also valid.
require will most likely be used to bring in code from a library someone else wrote.
for example, what if you want to use one of the helper functions provided in the active_support library? you'll need to install the gem with gem install activesupport and then in the file require 'active_support'.
require 'active_support/all'
"FooBar".underscore
Said differently--
require_relative requires a file specifically pointed to relative to the file that calls it.
require requires a file included in the $LOAD_PATH.
I just saw the RSpec's code has some comment on require_relative being O(1) constant and require being O(N) linear. So probably the difference is that require_relative is the preferred one than require.
I want to add that when using Windows you can use require './1.rb' if the script is run local or from a mapped network drive but when run from an UNC \\servername\sharename\folder path you need to use require_relative './1.rb'.
I don't mingle in the discussion which to use for other reasons.
absolute path
require './app/example_file.rb'
shortened name
require_relative 'example_file'
Is there a shorter way to require a file located in the same directory (as the script being executed)?
require File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/some_other_script')
I read that require "my_script" and require "./my_script" will actually load the script twice (ruby will not recognize that it is actually the same script), and this is the reason why File.expand_path is recommended: if it is used every time the script is required, then it will only be loaded once.
It seems weird to me that a concise language like Ruby does not seem to have a shorter solution. For example, python simply has this:
import .some_other_module_in_the_same_directory
I guess I could monkey-patch require... but that's just evil! ;-)
Since ruby 1.9 you can use require_relative.
Check the latest doc for require_relative or another version of the Core API.
Just require filename.
Yes, it will import it twice if you specify it as filename and ./filename, so don't do that. You're not specifying the .rb, so don't specify the path. I usually put the bulk of my application logic into a file in lib, and then have a script in bin that looks something like this:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
$: << File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), "/../lib")
require 'app.rb'
App.new.run(ARGV)
Another advantage is that I find it easier to do unit testing if the loading the application logic doesn't automatically start executing it.
The above will work even when you're running the script from some other directory.
However, inside the same directory the shorter forms you refer to work as expected and at least for ruby 1.9 won't result in a double-require.
testa.rb
puts "start test A"
require 'testb'
require './testb'
puts "finish test A"
testb.rb
puts "start test B"
puts "finish test B"
running 'ruby testa.rb' will result in:
start test A
start test B
finish test B
finish test A
However, the longer form will work even from another directory (eg. ruby somedir/script.rb)
Put this in a standard library directory (somewhere that's already in your default loadpath $:):
# push-loadpath.rb
if caller.first
$: << File.expand_path(File.dirname(caller.first))
end
Then, this should work
% ls /path/to/
bin.rb lib1.rb lib2.rb #...
% cat /path/to/bin.rb
load 'push-loadpath.rb'
require 'lib1'
require 'lib2'
#...
caller gives you access to the current callstack, and tells you what file and where, so push-loadpath.rb uses that to add the file that load'd it to the loadpath.
Note that you should load the file, rather than require it, so the body can be invoked multiple times (once for each time you want to alter the loadpath).
Alternately, you could wrap the body in a method,
# push-loadpath.rb
def push_loadpath
$: << File.expand_path(File.dirname(caller.first))
end
This would allow you to require it, and use it this way:
% ls /path/to/
bin.rb lib1.rb lib2.rb #...
% cat /path/to/bin.rb
require 'push-loadpath'
push_loadpath
require 'lib1'
require 'lib2'
#...
What is the best way to manage the require paths in a ruby program?
Let me give a basic example, consider a structure like:
\MyProgram
\MyProgram\src\myclass.rb
\MyProgram\test\mytest.rb
If in my test i use require '../src/myclass' then I can only call the test from \MyProgram\test folder, but I want to be able to call it from any path!
The solution I came up with is to define in all source files the following line:
ROOT = "#{File.dirname(__FILE__)}/.." unless defined?(ROOT) and then always use require "#{ROOT}/src/myclass"
Is there a better way to do it?
As of Ruby 1.9 you can use require_relative to do this:
require_relative '../src/myclass'
If you need this for earlier versions you can get it from the extensions gem as per this SO comment.
Here is a slightly modified way to do it:
$LOAD_PATH.unshift File.expand_path(File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), "..", "src"))
By prepending the path to your source to $LOAD_PATH (aka $:) you don't have to supply the root etc. explicitly when you require your code i.e. require 'myclass'
The same, less noisy IMHO:
$:.unshift File.expand_path("../../src", __FILE__)
require 'myclass'
or just
require File.expand_path "../../src/myclass", __FILE__
Tested with ruby 1.8.7 and 1.9.0 on (Debian) Linux - please tell me if it works on Windows, too.
Why a simpler method (eg. 'use', 'require_relative', or sg like this) isn't built into the standard lib? UPDATE: require_relative is there since 1.9.x
Pathname(__FILE__).dirname.realpath
provides a the absolute path in a dynamic way.
Use following code to require all "rb" files in specific folder (=> Ruby 1.9):
path='../specific_folder/' # relative path from current file to required folder
Dir[File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/'+path+'*.rb'].each do |file|
require_relative path+File.basename(file) # require all files with .rb extension in this folder
end
sris's answer is the standard approach.
Another way would be to package your code as a gem. Then rubygems will take care of making sure your library files are in your path.
This is what I ended up with - a Ruby version of a setenv shell script:
# Read application config
$hConf, $fConf = {}, File.expand_path("../config.rb", __FILE__)
$hConf = File.open($fConf) {|f| eval(f.read)} if File.exist? $fConf
# Application classpath
$: << ($hConf[:appRoot] || File.expand_path("../bin/app", __FILE__))
# Ruby libs
$lib = ($hConf[:rubyLib] || File.expand_path("../bin/lib", __FILE__))
($: << [$lib]).flatten! # lib is string or array, standardize
Then I just need to make sure that this script is called once before anything else, and don't need to touch the individual source files.
I put some options inside a config file, like the location of external (non-gem) libraries:
# Site- and server specific config - location of DB, tmp files etc.
{
:webRoot => "/srv/www/myapp/data",
:rubyLib => "/somewhere/lib",
:tmpDir => "/tmp/myapp"
}
This has been working well for me, and I can reuse the setenv script in multiple projects just by changing the parameters in the config file. A much better alternative than shell scripts, IMO.
Imagine you have an executable foo.rb, with libraries bar.rb layed out in the following manner:
<root>/bin/foo.rb
<root>/lib/bar.rb
In the header of foo.rb you place the following require to bring in functionality in bar.rb:
require File.dirname(__FILE__)+"../lib/bar.rb"
This works fine so long as all calls to foo.rb are direct. If you put as say $HOME/project, and symlink foo.rb into $HOME/usr/bin, then __FILE__ resolves to $HOME/usr/bin/foo.rb, and is thus unable to locate bar.rb in relation to the dirname for foo.rb.
I realize that packaging systems such as rubygems fix this by creating a namespace to search for the library, and that it is also possible to adjust the load_path using $: to include $HOME/project/lib, but it seems as if a more simple solution should exist. Has anyone had experience with this problem and found a useful solution or recipe?
I know this is ages old, but I just found this:
require 'pathname'
APP_ROOT = File.join(File.dirname(Pathname.new(__FILE__).realpath),'..')
You can use this function to follow any symlinks and return the full path of the real file:
def follow_link(file)
file = File.expand_path(file)
while File.symlink?(file)
file = File.expand_path(File.readlink(file), File.dirname(file))
end
file
end
puts follow_link(__FILE__)
Probably worth mentioning that + works nicely with Pathname objects and also there is Kernel.Pathname method, so #Burke's original code could be made even shorter:
require 'pathname'
APP_ROOT = Pathname.new(__FILE__).realpath + "../../lib"