Find declared function from user input - ruby

I have a prompt in my "app", like irb that takes an input,I want it to parse the input and execute a function that I've defined.
Similarly, my app takes an input through gets, and calls the function.
For example,
command = gets.gsub("\n","")
takes an input "pwd", now I want to call the function pwd, which is defined below:
def pwd
Dir.pwd
end
Now, I could simply use if conditions to do so, but a lot of these conditions wouldn't be as elegant as Ruby's philosophy requires it to be.
The Question
I want to parse the input to call a defined function.
Like, "pwd" calls pwd,
"ls" calls its equivalent function that I have defined.
How do I do this?
Comment if question is still not clear.
Cheers.
Addressing Possible Duplicate
The question suggested specifically wants to run Shell commands. Whereas, I am using only built-in Ruby methods and classes and maybe in the future I'll even use Gems, so as to attain platform independence. My commands may look and behave like shell, but I'm not actually running shell. Therefore, my question is not a possible duplicate.
Furthermore, future readers will find it helpful for parsing input in Ruby.

You can write a mapping for the different inputs in the form of a case:
case command
when "pwd"
Dir.pwd # or move it into another method and call it here
when "ls"
# etc
end
or a hash, which is slightly more concise
actions = {
pwd: -> { Dir.pwd },
ls: -> { <foobar> }
}
actions[command.to_sym].call
You can also make method names matching the commands and use send, but don't do this if the input is coming from strangers:
def pwd
Dir.pwd
end
command = command.to_sym
send(command)

Related

How to execute a Ruby code from inside a Ruby script?

I'm trying to execute a Ruby script file.
Assuming the input is a string that contains the file content.
What are the possible ways? taking into considerations that I need to keep the output of the executed file whether stdout or not separated from the Main script.
As an example of what I'm trying to do is have a function called execute(code)
Then calling execute('4 + 5') would return 9 although I can write a whole Ruby script in the place of '4 + 5'.
If anyone can forward me to any related tutorials or books, I'd be thankful :)
You can call shell commands in Ruby, it's as simple and intuitive as surrounding your desired command in backticks.
The output gets returned, so just save it to a variable:
script1.rb:
puts "asdf"
script2.rb:
output = `ruby script1.rb`
puts output
"asdf"
I question what exactly it is you're trying to do, though. Because this is totally unintuitive and roundabout. Are you sure you aren't just looking for a module or something?

Why Can't You See Return Value of a Ruby Script in Command Line?

My question is a follow up to this question: No return on command line when running Ruby script because the answer doesn't offer an explanation:
Take the following file, script.rb:
def hello(names)
names.map {|name| "#{name} is awesome!"}
end
hello(["mark", "tony", "scott"])
When executing the file on the command line with ruby script.rb the return value of the following function does not appear. However, testing the method in IRB or by dropping into the code with PRY outputs an explicit return value. Why isn't the return value visible via script execution?
P.S. I am aware that using puts will output code into the terminal but I'm interested in why the return value doesn't output.
Because both IRB or Pry are REPL's
REPL stands for: read, evaluate, print and loop. And that's exactly what both Pry and IRB are doing.
They will first read your input, evaluate your code, print the result of the code execution and then start over.
A Ruby script can't return a value directly like you want it to, the Bash shell works in the same way, a Bash function can't return a string directly. You can return a string (with stdout) and assign it to the variable.
~:$~ cat scr.rb
~:$~ puts "Something here"
~:$~ echo $(ruby ./scr.rb)
Something here
~:$~ myvar=$(echo $(ruby ./scr.rb))
~:$~ echo $myvar
Something here
It's really simple: Bash (or whatever shell you are using) and Ruby are different programming languages. Bash doesn't know anything about Ruby. It doesn't know what a " Ruby return" is, it doesn't know what a "Ruby array" is, it doesn't know what a "Ruby string" is. Therefore, you simply cannot possibly return a Ruby object to Bash.
In fact, the shell usually just uses some operating system function to execute the Ruby script (e.g. the classical fork and exec or something like vfork or clone). If you wanted to return values this way, the operating system kernel would have to know about the semantics of every programming language ever invented plus every programming language that is going to be invented in the future. That is just not feasible.
Note that a command can return a value to the shell, namely an integer between 0 and 255 intended as a status code (with 0 meaning "success" and nonzero meaning "error"), and you can set that return value by calling Kernel#exit.
I used to have the same question myself when I started coding. If you have a closer look at your code you can see why it doesn't print anything. You are actually no asking it in your code. Imagine having a huge script of thousands of lines and you want to execute it. You would have millions of pointless outputs if ruby myscript.rb worked the same way as the REPLs.
In addition, if you do want it to work that way, you can just do require the script inside the REPL session ( require_relative 'your_script' ) and then if you call your function hello it will work the way you describe.
I can use the ruval gem. It evaluates each statement and returns its value.
$ ruval names.rb
def hello(names)
names.map {|name| "#{name} is awesome!"}
end
=> hello
hello(["mark", "tony", "scott"])
=> ["mark is awesome!", "tony is awesome!", "scott is awesome!"]

Ruby require modules, libraries

I'm new to ruby. I understand that, when I see a ruby script, it usually contains lines similar to this:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
require 'rubyfunction1'
require 'rubyfunction2'
I understand that the require lines are basically (to put it in simple basic terms), calling other scripts. That is really all there is to it. These other scripts are functions.
Now, suppose, I put the content of the rubyfunction1 and rubyfunction2 scripts into two different variables. How do I require the content of a variable?
Or, suppose I want to be able to do something like this:
require '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`'
I understand this is a roundabout way of requiring gems/ruby functions, but I'm curious to know if it is at all possible in this manner.
Basically, if I were to run the /home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb script by itself on the command line, it will basically output to you the content of the script. It would be equivalent to doing "cat /home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb".
I want to be able to do something like this:
require '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`'
require '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction2.rb`'
or
specvar1 = `/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`
specvar2 = `/home/swenson/rubyfunction2.rb`
require specvar1
require specvar2
Is this possible? Any suggestions I can apply to get it to work?
UPDATE:
So here's what I ended up doing.
Main Script called example.rb:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
add = `./add.rb` # for my purposes, this will serve as require
subtract = `./subtract.rb` # for my purposes, this will serve as require
eval add
puts "I can add: #{add(3, 2)}"
eval subtract
puts "I can now subtract #{subtract(3, 2)}"
Content of add.rb:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
puts <<-function
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
def add(a, b)
a + b
end
function
Content of subtract.rb:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
puts <<-function
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
def subtract(a, b)
a - b
end
function
When run from the command line, I get no errors:
# ./example.rb
I can add: 5
I can now subtract 1
Basically, what I want done is precisely this. However, I know there's probably a optimized way of doing this (without having to directly require the relative file). So please, feel free to help me update or optimize this.
I understand that the require lines are basically (to put it in simple basic terms), calling other scripts. That is really all there is to it.
Yes. load, require, and require_relative simply run a Ruby file. That's it.
These other scripts are functions.
No. They are scripts. There is no such thing as a function in Ruby.
Now, suppose, I put the content of the rubyfunction1 and rubyfunction2 scripts into two different variables. How do I require the content of a variable?
You can't. require runs a file. It takes the name of a file (more precisely, a relative path) as an argument. Ruby code is not the name of a file.
Or, suppose i want to be able to do something like this:
require '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`'
I understand this is a roundabout way of requiring gems/ruby functions, but im curious to know if it is at all possible in this manner.
This is possible. There's nothing special about this. It will simply run a file at the path `/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`. That is a slightly unusual path, but there is nothing special about it. It's just a path like any other, with some funny characters in it.
so to iterate what im trying to do, i want to be able to do something like this:
require '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`'
require '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction2.rb`'
or
specvar1 = `/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`
specvar2 = `/home/swenson/rubyfunction2.rb`
require specvar1
require specvar2
Is this possible? Any suggestions I can apply to get it to work?
It's not quite clear what you want here. Those two code snippets are in no way equivalent, they do completely different things!
The first one passes the literal strings '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb`' and '`/home/swenson/rubyfunction2.rb`' as arguments to require. The second one executes two files named /home/swenson/rubyfunction1.rb and /home/swenson/rubyfunction2.rb using the default system shell (CMD.EXE on Windows, /bin/sh on POSIX), gets the standard output as String and passes those strings to require.
Note that in the first case, the backticks ` are part of the filename, whereas in the second case, they are Ruby syntax for calling the Kernel#` method.
So, I think I understand your question correctly, let's say we have 3 files
add.rb
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
def add(a, b)
a + b
end
subtract.rb
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
puts "def subtract(a, b)"
puts " a - b"
puts "end"
example.rb
require './add.rb'
subtract = `./subtract.rb`
puts "I can add: #{add(3, 2)}"
# can't do `subtract`, yet, as we haven't `eval`ed the code even though we've run executed the file
eval subtract
puts "I can now subtract #{subtract(3, 2)}"
And the output of running ruby example.rb on the command line is:
$ ruby example.rb
I can add: 5
I can now subtract 1
So, add.rb just defines a function add. When we require that file, it gets loaded in so we can use that function in our code with no problems.
But, subtract.rb doesn't define a function...it just outputs some code, so running it on the command line looks like:
$ ./subtract.rb
def subtract(a, b)
a - b
end
So now, in our third file example.rb, we require the add.rb and then we can start using add in our code as is, but then we want to execute the subtract.rb (using back ticks here) and capture the output of it. At this point, we can't subtract 2 numbers, because we haven't done anything with the output. Then we use eval to evaluate the output of the subtract method, which will define a method for us, then we can subtract the 2 numbers without a problem.
Note that eval is generally frowned upon because it allows arbitrary code to be executed. Never eval untrusted code unless you know how to tame it. In this case, as #JörgWMittag has pointed out in the comments, this code should be trusted, otherwise you just executed an un-trusted file to get this code. Be careful with user input, though, as that's not trusted.

parsing a command from the terminal

I want to write a command in the terminal like config.section.key, parse the command, and get the strings "section" and "key". I want to use these two keys in my function to search a hash.
Is there any way to parse a command from the terminal to do this?
To execute terminal commands you can use either backticks or a system call here's some examples keep in mind that this is all pseudo code and I have no idea if this will run correctly:
def create_file
`touch test.txt`
end
def cmd
system('ls')
end
def check_file
results = cmd
if results.include?('test.txt')
puts 'File exists.'
else
puts 'Creating file..'
create_file
end
end
Now to the parsing part, depending on what you want to do, you can either save the information into a variable, or you could use a regex to extract the information. So if you wanted to extract digits with a regex: /\d+/ if you wanted to save the information: results = cmd..
I hope this answers your question.
To split the information, you could use the split method for example:
def cmd
`prt_jobs`
end
def check_jobs
res = cmd
res.split(".")
end
This will split the results of a print jobs command by periods and make them into an array. I'd show you more except I'm on my phone so it will have to wait
As Tadman commented, you can use the String#split method to split the argv on period characters, if that is your desire:
config, section, key, *rest = ARGF.argv.split('.')
Another good option when dealing with parsing command lines is the Ruby standard library OptionParser class. Rather than rebuild all of the CLI parsing by hand, the OptionParser class has that built in and much more. The resulting scripts can feel much more linux like and be familiar to anyone who's used bash before.

Exclamation point in bash function name - should I?

I'm writing a bash script and it's really convenient to use an exclamation point in a function name.
Example:
function hello! {
echo goodbye
}
function hello {
echo hello
}
And it works!
After looking through the specs, I found this:
name
A word consisting solely of letters, numbers, and underscores, and beginning with a letter or underscore. Names are used as shell variable and function names. Also referred to as an identifier.
I feel like I'm breaking the rules here. Is this wrong? Will this mess something up in the future? What's actually going on?
Since it violates the Bash spec, I'd say you're exploiting a bug in Bash, so your code might not work when the bug is fixed. Drop the !
Out of burning curiousity, why is it so much more convenient to use the exclamation point in your function name?
Generally, for portability reasons, you may not want to use the bang; just because the interpreter on that particular OS accepts it, if you need to deploy that script elsewhere, other interpreters of slightly different flavors/versions may not be as accepting.
I'm not sure about the implications in this case, but if the specification states something this clearly, I'd say anything beyond that is undefined behavior and should be avoided.
It's not a good idea to use ! in a function name if you want your code to be portable. bash --posix or invoking bash as "sh" both reject "hello!" as a function name. But I suspect that bash silently permits aberrant function names ("hello?" "hello-" and "hello/" also work, to name a few) because one important use of functions is allowing the user to override normal commands and these commands (e.g. ls, rm, etc.) can contain any sort of character allowed by the filesystem.
Note that "hello!" as a variable name doesn't work.
If your function is meant to be invoked by an user as a command from the terminal, i. e. it's defined in .bashrc, then you could give it a longer name and create an alias with the bang at the end.
Example:
function cd_mkdir {
DEST=$1
mkdir -p "$DEST"
cd "$DEST"
}
alias cd!=cd_mkdir
Now, while in terminal I can invoke this as:
cd! foo/bar/baz
And the foo, bar and baz directories get created if they don't exists.
The exclamation mark at the end is a nice and easy mnemonic of "shouting" the familiar command to be force executed, even if the original variant of the command couldn't.

Resources