If I want to run a bunch of ruby scripts (super similar, with maybe a number changed as a commandline argument) and still have them output to stdout, is there a way to do this?
i.e a script to run these:
ruby program1.rb input_1.txt
ruby program1.rb input_2.txt
ruby program1.rb input_3.txt
like
(1..3).each do |i|
ruby program1.rb input_#{i}'
end
in another script, so I can just run that script and see the output in a terminal from all 3 runs?
EDIT:
I'm struggling to implement the second highest voted suggested answer.
I don't have a main function within my program1.rb, whereas the suggested answer has one.
I've tried this, for script.rb:
require "program1.rb"
(1..6).each do |i|
driver("cmd_line_arg_#{i}","cmd_line_arg2")
end
but no luck. Is that right?
You can use load to run the script you need (the difference between load and require is that require will not run the script again if it has already been loaded).
To make each run have different arguments (given that they are read from the ARGV variable), you need to override the ARGV variable:
(1..6).each do |i|
ARGV = ["cmd_line_arg_#{i}","cmd_line_arg2"]
load 'program1.rb'
end
# script_runner.rb
require_relative 'program_1'
module ScriptRunner
class << self
def run
ARGV.each do | file |
SomeClass.new(file).process
end
end
end
end
ScriptRunner.run
.
# programe_1.rb
class SomeClass
attr_reader :file_path
def initialize(file_path)
#file_path = file_path
end
def process
puts File.open(file_path).read
end
end
Doing something like the code shown above would allow you to run:
ruby script_runner.rb input_1.txt input_2.txt input_3.txt
from the command line - useful if your input files change. Or even:
ruby script_runner.rb *.txt
if you want to run it on all text files. Or:
ruby script_runner.rb inputs/*
if you want to run it on all files in a specific dir (in this case called 'inputs').
This assumes whatever is in program_1.rb is not just a block of procedural code and instead provides some object (class) that encapsulates the logic you want to use on each file,meaning you can require program_1.rb once and then use the object it provides as many times as you like, otherwise you'll need to use #load:
# script_runner.rb
module ScriptRunner
class << self
def run
ARGV.each do | file |
load('program_1.rb', file)
end
end
end
end
ScriptRunner.run
.
# program_1.rb
puts File.open(ARGV[0]).read
Related
I have a completely separate Ruby file that reads from Standard Input and writes to Standard Output.
I have certain test cases that I want to try. How do I pass my inputs to Standard Input to the file, and then test the Standard Output against the expected results?
As an example, here's the stuff I've already figured out:
There's a file that reads a number from standard input, squares it, and writes it to standard input
square.rb:
#!/usr/local/bin/ruby -w
input = STDIN.read
# square it
puts input.to_i ** 2
Complete the pass_input_to_file method of test.rb:
require 'minitest/autorun'
def pass_input_to_file(input)
# complete code here
end
class Test < Minitest::Test
def test_file
assert_equal pass_input_to_file(2), 4
end
end
You can use the Ruby Open3 Library to submit STDIN when calling a ruby script.
require 'open3'
def pass_input_to_file(input)
output, _status = Open3.capture2('path_to_script', :stdin_data => input)
output
end
The easiest way to test this would probably be to have your program look to see if it was passed any arguments first. Something like this:
#!/usr/local/bin/ruby -w
input = ARGV[0] || STDIN.read
# square it
puts input.to_i ** 2
and then you can shell out to test it:
def pass_input_to_file(input)
`path/to/file #{input}`.to_i
end
Otherwise, I would reach for something like expect to automate a subshell.
As an aside, for more complicated programs, using OptionParser or a CLI gem is probably better than looking at ARGV directly.
I'm trying to write a custom tool that runs ruby unit tests with my customizations.
What I need it to do is to load a certain TestCase from given file(through require or whatever), and then run it after doing some calculations and initializations.
Problem is, the moment I require "test/unit" and a test case, it runs immediately.
What can I do with this?
Thanks.
Since you're running 1.9 and test/unit in 1.9 is merely a wrapper for MiniTest, the following approach should work:
implement your own custom Runner
set MiniTest's runner to your custom runner
Something like (shameless plug from EndOfLine Custom Test Runner, adjusted to Ruby 1.9):
fastfailrunner.rb:
require 'test/unit'
class FastFailRunner19 < MiniTest::Unit
def _run args = []
puts "fast fail runner"
end
end
~
example_test.rb:
require 'test/unit'
class ExampleTest < Test::Unit::TestCase
def test_assert_equal
assert_equal 1, 1
end
def test_lies
assert false
end
def test_exceptions
raise Exception, 'Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!'
end
def test_truth
assert true
end
end
run.rb:
require_relative 'fast_fail_runner'
require_relative 'example_test'
MiniTest::Unit.runner= FastFailRunner19.new
If you run this with
ruby run.rb
the custom FastFailRunner19 will be used, which does nothing.
What about reading file content as a regular text file and doing eval on its content after you initialize/calculate things you say? It may not be sufficient for your needs and may require manual setup and execution of testing framework.
Like that (I put heredoc instead of reading file). Basically content is just a string containing your test case code.
content = <<TEST_CASE
class YourTestCase
def hello
puts 'Hello from eval'
end
end
YourTestCase.new.hello
TEST_CASE
eval content
Note: Altough I'd rather not use eval if there is another way. One should be extra careful when evaling code from string manually in any language.
You could collect the test cases you want to deferred its executions and store them in an array. Afterwards you would create a block execution code. For instance:
test_files = ['test/unit/first_test.rb'] #=> Testcases you want to run
test_block = Proc.new {spec_files.each {|f|load f} } #=> block storing the actual execution of those tests.
Once you're ready to call those testcases you just do test_block.call.
To generalize a bit, when thinking about deferring or delaying code executions, closures are a very elegant and flexible alternative.
I have a 2 scripts:
test1.rb
require 'test2.rb'
puts "hello"
test2.rb
puts "test"
I'm running this by executing ruby test2.rb test1.rb.
But only test is printed out and not hello.
You only need to run ruby test1.rb and the require statement should pull in test2.rb for you - you don't need to put it on the command line as well. (That will try and run test2.rb, passing the string 'test1.rb' as an argument, which is not what you want here)
Edit: the require statement does not look in the current directory by default when trying to find 'test2.rb'. You can explicitly specify it by changing it to:
require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/test2.rb'
in test1.rb do (assuming test2.rb is in same directory, otherwise give its path relative to test1.rb)
require_relative 'test2.rb'
puts "hello"
and on the command line just do ruby test1.rb
This should work as well
require './test2.rb'
puts "hello"
There are some explanation how you can solve your problem, but not what is going wrong.
With ruby test2.rb test1.rb you call the ruby script with the parameter test1.rb.
You have access to the parameters in the constant ARGV.
An example with this script:
puts "test"
puts 'ARGV= %s' % ARGV
The result when you call it:
C:\Temp>ruby test.rb test2.rb
test
ARGV= test2.rb
So you could also write a program like:
require_relative ARGV.first
The first parameter defines a script to be loaded.
Or if you want to load many scripts you could use:
ARGV.each{|script| require_relative script }
How can I directly call a ruby function from the command-line?
Imagine, I would have this script test.rb:
class TestClass
def self.test_function(some_var)
puts "I got the following variable: #{some_var}"
end
end
If this script is run from the command-line (ruby test.rb), nothing happens (as intended).
Is there something like ruby test.rb TestClass.test_function('someTextString')?
I want to get the following output: I got the following variable: someTextString.
First the name of the class needs to start with a capital letter, and since you really want to use a static method, the function name definition needs to start with self..
class TestClass
def self.test_function(someVar)
puts "I got the following variable: " + someVar
end
end
Then to invoke that from the command line you can do:
ruby -r "./test.rb" -e "TestClass.test_function 'hi'"
If you instead had test_function as an instance method, you'd have:
class TestClass
def test_function(someVar)
puts "I got the following variable: " + someVar
end
end
then you'd invoke it with:
ruby -r "./test.rb" -e "TestClass.new.test_function 'hi'"
Here's another variation, if you find that typing ruby syntax at the command line is awkward and you really just want to pass args to ruby. Here's test.rb:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
class TestClass
def self.test_function(some_var)
puts "I got the following variable: #{some_var}"
end
end
TestClass.test_function(ARGV[0])
Make test.rb executable and run it like this:
./test.rb "Some Value"
Or run it like this:
ruby test.rb "Some Value"
This works because ruby automatically sets the ARGV array to the arguments passed to the script. You could use ARGV[0] or ARGV.first to get the first argument, or you could combine the args into a single string, separated by spaces, using ARGV.join(' ').
If you're doing lots of command-line stuff, you may eventually have a use for Shellwords, which is in the standard ruby lib.
If you have multiple arguments to call in a example like this:
class TestClass
def self.test_function(some_var1, some_var2)
puts "I got the following variables: #{some_var1}, #{some_var2}"
end
end
run it like this (the arguments need to be comma separated in this case)
ruby -r "./test.rb" -e "TestClass.new.test_function 'hi','Mike'"
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
class A
def run
p :Hello_world
end
self
end.new.run
The usual way to script Ruby is to just use the top level execution environment called main. You can just start defining methods and code you write outside of a class, and these will be executed directly. (BTW, code inside a class but outside any method will run "by itself" also.)
Anyway, I'm with you ... I like writing all code in a named class and instantiating that class, so you can combine the techniques .. have the class return its own object .. and then use just a little of that top level code to allocate, initialize, and then dot into the class.
With this, you can just type $ ruby test.rb and it will do what you want. Or you can chmod +x test.rb; ./test.rb since we did add a shebang.
If you are working on a command line interface, then I would suggest to have a look at thor.
Thor directly maps your commands to methods within the defined class, see the thor wiki for an example.
Just an extension to Ingenu's answer for the case that the function does not print something out, but does return something.
We would have the following test.rb
class TestClass
def self.test_function(some_var)
return "I got the following variable: " + some_var
end
end
Then to invoke that from the command line and get the return value:
ruby -r "./test.rb" -e "puts TestClass.test_function('hi')"
If you know that how to call an rb file from commandline
ruby yourfile.rb
This can do the whole trick for you.
What you have done is, just defined your methods in the class. Now you can call it below the definition. If you still want to read, wide open your eyes
class TestClass
def self.test_function(some_var)
puts "I got the following variable: #{some_var}"
end
test_function(var)
end
Here I have two files:
file.rb
def method
puts "This won't be outputted."
end
puts "This will be outputted."
main.rb
require "./file"
When running main.rb it will load all the code inside file.rb so I will get "This will be outputted." on the screen.
Is it possible to load a file without having it to run the code?
Cause I want to load all the methods (in modules and classes too) without having to execute code outside these scopes.
Is it possible to load a file without having it to run the code?
No, everything in a ruby file is executable code, including class and method definitions (you can see this when you try to define a method inside an if-statement for example, which works just fine). So if you wouldn't execute anything in the file, nothing would be defined.
You can however tell ruby that certain code shall only execute if the file is run directly - not if it is required. For this simply put the code in question inside an if __FILE__ == $0 block. So for your example, this would work:
file.rb
def method
puts "This won't be outputted."
end
if __FILE__ == $0
puts "This will not be outputted."
end
main.rb
require "./file"
the if __FILE__ == $0 is nice, but a way more in keeping with ruby's Object Oriented approach is to put all the methods you want access to in a class (as class methods), and then call them from main.rb.
e.g.
file.rb
class MyUtils
def self.method
puts "this won't be outputted"
end
end
and then in main.rb
require "/.file.rb"
and when you want to use your utility methods:
MyUtils.method
I don't think modifying file is good idea - there are could be a lot of files like this one or these files belong to customer and a ton of another reasons.
Ruby is good at metaprogramming so why don't use this feature?
It could be like this.
Create file with fake module and put here the file.
File.open("mfile.rb","w") do |f|
f.write "module FakeModule
"
f.write File.open("file.rb").read
f.write "
end"
end
Then load this file:
require "/.mfile.rb
and accessing to the method:
FakeModule::method