I have done a bit of digging through the rubygems code and it doesn't look like there is a built-in way to get it to not throw a Gem::ConflictError even if there is one. During development I might be wanting to test something that I know is not going to touch the code from which the conflict is coming or I know that the whatever version of the erstwhile conflicting gem isn't going to cause a problem. I just want to get on with testing what I want to test and I'll worry about version conflicts later.
I know I can hack rubygems to do this. I can think or multiple ways to get it done. I'm just kind of curious if anyone has already done this, how they did it, and maybe if that code has been shared somewhere. I'm also a bit curious as to why this isn't built in to rubygems as a development tool.
You need to worry about version conflicts now before you can get anything done. As Ruby has a singular root namespace and every dependency gets loaded there it's generally not possible to load multiple versions of the same gem. Other systems like NPM for Node.js are significantly more flexible, it's possible to load any number of versions at the same time, so if you're used to that you'll need to adjust your expectations.
If you're trying to do testing and you want to avoid resolving a conflict, just remove that gem requirement from the Gemfile temporarily.
Ultimately you'll have to fix things, there's no way around it, but you can always be selective about what you require.
If you really know what you are doing, try this:
export NOEXEC_DISABLE=1
ruby you-program.rb
This environment variable will disable search and check for Gemfiles and gem versions.
Related
I am creating a gem and I have the suspicion that it may not work on certain Ruby versions. Is there a way to quickly check which Ruby versions it is compatible with? My current method is using RVM and switching to different Ruby versions to test, but that may be an inefficient way to do it. I was also wondering if I could narrow it down to a specific patch version.
#Matt Schuchard suggested the right way to do this (in the comment)
For example, you can check how to do this with GitHub Actions. You can test it not only for specific ruby version but also on different OSes
https://github.com/metanorma/metanorma/blob/master/.github/workflows/rake.yml
Hi I am building a gem which depends on the multi_json gem, which is basically adapters to all other json encoder/decoders out there.
So an user filed an issue on my gem. He has issues because multi_json has a small bug in one of the adapters, which is later fixed on multi_json's end, so it is not really my issue.
I am wondering if I should change my gemspec to hardcode the dependency to the fixed version of multi_json. I thought it would be easier to just tell the user to explicitly specify to use the fixed version of multi_json. This way my dependency won't be too strict and conflict with other gems which use multi_json.
What are the thoughts on this?
You don't have to lock dependency version entirely, just make sure that you have release that have above-mentioned bug fixed. For instance,
gem 'multi_json', '> 1.9.1'
It will be on rubygems sooner or later and you're definitely not interested in encountering the same bug twice.
My opinion is that the reliability of your library in the present is more important than future development inconveniences, which may or may not occur.
As for what to tell your users, they should've already heard (and if they haven't you could remind them of this in the README.md) that most of the critical problems usually are solved within the day and can be found in master. So if they want to take advantage of the latest fixes (and the freshest new bugs), they could specify github as a source:
gem 'your_gem', github: 'lulalala/your_gem'
My Rails site uses a certain gem which is really not very good. Every time I need to do something new I end up having to spend as much time adding features to the gem as I do adding code to the actual Rails project. But I don't mind, and I have my Gemfile set up to point to my GitHub fork of the gem (I tried submitting PRs, but the maintainer seems to have stepped down).
The problem is that I really haven't found a sane way of testing new things I add to the gem. It'd be especially nice to test it within rails c, but the only ways I can think of doing that are a) Changing ~/.rvm/gems/.../foo.rb, which doesn't seem right or b) Bumping the version, pushing to Github, and running bundle up, which in addition to being time-consuming is obviously a disaster since I don't know for sure whether the commits I make are right or not.
I'd even be perfectly happy with a standard irb. But various permutations of require lib/foo from within the gem's directory don't work.
So what's the best practice here?
If you are using a gem and working on it at the same time, the best way is to use Bundler and provide a local path:
gem 'my_bad_gem', path: '../my_bad_gem/'
This will look for the gem under the given (relative in this case) path. Another option is to use local git repositories (see http://bundler.io/v1.3/git.html).
Currently I am writing a Ruby on Rails application, and I am using Gems, however sometimes I feel that Gems are not as flexible as I want them to be. To make them more flexible. Should I
Fork them on github, and customize it, but this still present the challenging of managing everything.
or
Strip and merge the code of the gem to the main application? This will allow further customization of the gem. This would be for situations where a Gem require another Gem's functionality.
or is there a better way of doing this?
Thanks
B
Choice A is the better answer for a number of reasons.
You get to merge in security updates, enhancements, and bug fixes easily.
Your changes may get merged into the core--in fact, consider if you could implement them in such a way as they live alongside the core functionality as options. If this happens, you have the ultimate win--nothing to maintain, and you can retire your fork.
Others can benefit from your changes.
Your project's footprint is kept smaller and focused by keeping the gem code isolated.
You'll have something to add to your Github "resume."
If its some kind if not so popular gem or "bicycle" from some previous studio or developer who started project(in my case).
I prefer deprecate this gem's and move code into project,
for example they have c***la-deploy - it's just wrapper to Capistrano 2 with own methods))) - I just delete it and rewrite on last Capistrano 3
Than that have own "CMS" c***la-cms where they wrap standard form_for or simple_form with name "twitter_form_for" ? - fist of all I start try to find gem who use this name, and than find in dependency gem's ...
Its take a lot of time for new developer involve in project - better move to standard rails methods/heplers
But anyway i understand for a what this studio do that - its just vendor lock and for client more hard to move out from them to another developers.
For example for startup its bad to use a lot of dependencies and if it's just simple website - dose not matter.
Why should I/should I not use RVM?
I'm new to the ruby language and servers as a whole. I've had some trouble installing using RVM...so I'm inclined to not use it right now, but it seems like it may make installations down the road easier?
I'm interested to hear about your experience with RVM and your thoughts as it pertains to maintaining a server.
RVM is useful even if you don't want to install multiple versions at the same time. I'm a ruby hobbyist (PHP during the day :(), and I have no reason to want to use old versions, but I still use RVM.
Installing ruby is a pain. Getting it from the package manager (at least in ubuntu) gives you an outdated version that changes installation directories from the defaults. I've had nothing but problems with it.
So you think, "I'll just build it from source". Building from source requires getting a load of dependencies and configuring options. Often times I've built ruby only to find out I forgot to enable SSL support or readline support.
RVM takes care of all of this. In 3 or so commands, you have a perfectly built version of ruby.
And I didn't even cover how RVM manages multiple ruby installations for you, which is its killer feature. If you have that need, there is really no other sane solution.
RVM is great as this allows your to install different versions without touching your system's default Ruby install. It is rather similar to virtualenv's in Python.
Another great advantage to having RVM are the gemsets - you can create as many gemsets that are unique to the version, and patch level, of ruby.
I've extolled some of its virtues here and you should also see this blog post.
In terms of maintaining a server - let's take a Passenger install for example; do remember that Passenger is installed as a gem, so with rvm the benefit here is that you can have multiple installs of passenger, tied to a different version of ruby. Of course, typically, you'll have Passenger running on one version at a time, although there are ways to have Passenger, in particular, running on different ruby versions.
I use different Ruby versions for different projects (that's where .rvmrc is really handy). Some deployment environments are happy with 1.9, while there are a couple of legacy servers using 1.8 for some reasons. Also, occasionally I want to launch a specific version of ruby to compare how they work. RVM does all that for me.
When you are first getting used to Ruby, it may not entirely be necessary. That said, what it does is set you up for success in the future. Because once you get hooked, you may end up playing with projects that need to move from, say, MRI 1.8.x to 1.9.x. Or from 1.9.x, to JRuby 1.6.x. My experience is that this happens irregularly, but when it does, there's no substitute for RVM.
Outside of that, the other biggest feature that I use regularly, is the ability to segment one particular release. So I can have an environment for 'stable' gems, and an environment for 'unstable' gems. For instance, while Rails 3.1 has been in release candidate mode, I've had one main workspace for 1.9.2 and a separate space for Rails 3.1.rc? gems on 1.9.2. That makes it possible for me to keep developing my main Rails 3.0 stuff (with one command at the CLI), without having to specify full file paths to the appropriate rails bin files in order to use the older files.
If you're using a Debian based platform where the packagers/policy leads to a really bad default installation you'll have a way better experience using rvm.