I am looking for a way to emit YAML files avoiding the use of aliases (mostly for simplified human readability). I think extending Psych::Visitors::Emitter or
Psych::Visitors::Visitor is the way to go, but I cannot actually find where Ruby decides whether to dump an anchor in full, or reference it with an alias.
I wouldn't even mind if the anchors were used repeatedly (with their &...... references), I just need to expand aliases to the full structures.
I am aware of similar questions being asked in the past, but:
Ruby YAML write without aliases remained unanswered
Is it possible to emit valid YAML with anchors / references disabled using Ruby or Python? gave answer for Python but not for Ruby
One simple (hacky) approach I used was convert the yaml to json. and then convert it back to YAML. new YAML does not contain aliases/anchors.
require 'json'
jsonObj = oldYaml.to_json
newYaml = YAML.load(jsonObj)
print newYaml.to_yaml
The only way I've found to do this is to perform a deep clone of the object being dumped to YAML. This is because YAML will identify the anchors and aliases based on their identity, and if you clone or dup them, the new object will be equal, but have a different identity.
There are many ways to perform a deep clone, including library support, or writing your own helper function -- I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Related
Is there a way to use dictionary rather than using a yaml config for parameters.yml? I want to keep it as a Python Object because my IDE can then track the dependency easily. For my parameters, I am injecting functions in it.
If i need to use yml, I will have to use
def steps1(x, func1):
func1 = eval(func1)
And this will break the refactoring features easily.
You could overwrite the params property in your src.package_name.run.ProjectContext so that it uses a Python dictionary instead of the config loader. You’re also welcome to write up your custom ConfigLoader and use that instead (by overriding _create_config_loader), but that’s probably more effort.
Please bear in mind that parameters in Kedro are meant to be “as dumb as possible” though, as it’s considered static configuration and it’s better separated out of code. What you describe, with expressions, sounds more suited for nodes.
I've got a config .cfg file that has the hostname hard coded in it. I'm trying to find a way for the hostname to be gotten locally (dynamically) by running a command similar to hostname -f to have it configure the variable in the .cfg, without running a script, like python, to write the config file ahead time. Is it possible to run a 'yum' command that gets the hostname to use in the YAML/yml file?
Thanks to Wikipedia, I think I found out why no one is helping me with this:
Wiki YAML -> Security
Security
YAML is purely a data representation language and thus has no executable commands. While validation and safe parsing is inherently possible in any data language, implementation is such a notorious pitfall that YAML's lack of an associated command language may be a relative security benefit.
However, YAML allows language-specific tags so that arbitrary local objects can be created by a parser that supports those tags. Any YAML parser that allows sophisticated object instantiation to be executed opens the potential for an injection attack. Perl parsers that allow loading of objects of arbitrary class create so-called "blessed" values. Using these values may trigger unexpected behavior, e.g. if the class uses overloaded operators. This may lead to execution of arbitrary Perl code.
The situation is similar for Python or Ruby parsers. According to the PyYAML documentation
I am working on a solution for technical drawings (svg/ruby). I want to manipulate rectangles, and have an add! method in this class:
class Rect
def add!(delta)
#x1+=delta
... # and so on
self
end
end
I also need an add method returning a Rect, but not manipulating self:
def add(delta)
r=self.dup/clone/"copy" # <-- not realy the 3 and no quotes, just in text here
r.add! delta
end
dup and clone don't do my thing but:
def copy; Marshal.load(Marshal.dump(self)); end
does.
Why does such a basic functionality not exist in plain Ruby? Please just don't tell me that I could reverse add and add!, letting add do the job, and add! calling it.
I'm not sure why there's no deep copy method in Ruby, but I'll try to make an educated guess based on the information I could find (see links and quotes below the line).
Judging from this information, I could only infer that the reason Ruby does not have a deep copy method is because it's very rarely necessary and, in the few cases where it truly is necessary, there are other, relatively simple ways to accomplish the same task:
As you already know, using Marshal.dump and Marshal.load is currently the recommended way to do this. This is also the approach recommended by Programming Ruby (see excerpts below).
Alternatively, there are at least 3 available implementations found in these gems: deep_cloneable, deep_clone and ruby_deep_clone; the first being the most popular.
Related Information
Here's a discussion over at comp.lang.ruby which might shed some light on this. There's another answer here with some associated discussions, but it all comes back to using Marshal.
There weren't any mentions of deep copying in Programming Ruby, but there were a few mentions in The Ruby Programming Language. Here are a few related excerpts:
[…]
Another use for Marshal.dump and Marshal.load is to create deep copies
of objects:
def deepcopy(o)
Marshal.load(Marshal.dump(o))
end
[…]
… the binary format used by Marshal.dump and Marshal.load is
version-dependent, and newer versions of Ruby are not guaranteed to be
able to read marshalled objects written by older versions of Ruby.
[…]
Note that files and I/O streams, as well as Method and Binding
objects, are too dynamic to be marshalled; there would be no reliable
way to restore their state.
[…]
Instead of making a defensive deep copy of the array, just call
to_enum on it, and pass the resulting enumerator instead of the array
itself. In effect, you’re creating an enumerable but immutable proxy
object for your array.
Forget marshalling. The deep_dive gem will solve your problems.
https://rubygems.org/gems/deep_dive
Why can't you use something like this:
new_item = Item.new(old_item.attributes)
new_item.save!
This would copy all the attributes from existing item to new one, without issues. If you have other objects, you can just copy them individually.
I think it's the quickest way to copy an object
I'm attempting to (for fun and profit) add the ability to inspect objects in ruby and discover their source code. Not the generated bytecode, and not some decompiled version of the internal representation, but the actual source that was parsed to create that object.
I was up quite late learning about Rubinius, and while I don't have my head around it yet fully, I think I've made some progress.
I'm having trouble figuring out how to do this, though. My first approach was to simply add another instance attribute to the AST structures (for, say, a ClosedScope object). Then, somehow pull that attribute out again when the bytecode is interpreted at runtime.
Does this seem like a sound approach?
As Mr Samuel says, you can just use pry and do show-source foo. But perhaps you'd like to know how it works under the hood.
Ruby provides two things that are useful: firstly you can get a list of all methods on an object. Just call foo.methods. Secondly it provides a file_name and line_number attribute for each method.
To find the entire source code for an object, we scan through all the methods and group them by where they are defined. We then scan up the file back until we see class or module or a few other ways rubyists use to define methods. We then scan forward in each file until we have identified the entire class/module definition.
As dgitized points out we often end up with multiple such definitions, if people have monkey patched core objects. By default pry only shows the module definition which contains most methods; but you can request the others with show-source -a.
Have you looked into Pry? It is a Ruby interpreter/debugger that claims to be able to do just what you've asked.
have you tried set_trace_func? It's not rubinius specific, but does what you ask and isn't based on pry or some other gem.
see http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.9.3/Kernel.html#method-i-set_trace_func
I was wondering why the people who wrote the File library decided to make the arguments that determine what mode the file is opened in strings instead of symbols.
For example, this is how it is now:
f = File.new('file', 'rw')
But wouldn't it be a better design to do
f = File.new('file', :rw)
or even
f = File.new(:file, :rw)
for example? This seems to be the perfect place to use them since the argument definitely doesn't need to be mutable.
I am interested in knowing why it came out this way.
Update: I just got done reading a related question about symbols vs. strings, and I think the consensus was that symbols are just not as well known as strings, and everyone is used to using strings to index hash tables anyway. However, I don't think it would be valid for the designers of Ruby's standard library to plead ignorance on the subject of symbols, so I don't think that's the reason.
I'm no expert in the history of ruby, but you really have three options when you want parameters to a method: strings, symbols, and static classes.
For example, exception handling. Each exception is actually a type of class Exception.
ArgumentError.is_a? Class
=> True
So you could have each permission for the stream be it's own class. But that would require even more classes to be generated for the system.
The thing about symbols is they are never deleted. Every symbol you generate is preserved indefinitely; it's why using the method '.to_sym' lightly is discouraged. It leads to memory leaks.
Strings are just easier to manipulate. If you got the input mode from the user, you would need a '.to_sym' somewhere in your code, or at the very least, a large switch statement. With a string, you can just pass the user input directly to the method (if you were so trusting, of course).
Also, in C, you pass a character to the file i/o method. There are no Chars in ruby, just strings. Seeing as how ruby is built on C, that could be where it comes from.
It is simply a relic from previous languages.