I have a ruby script which I load and eval like so. Below is a simplified example, with extraneous details removed:
eval_me.rb:
puts 'Hi there! What\'s your name?'
name = gets
puts "Hi, #{name}!"
main.rb:
script = File.read('eval_me.rb')
eval script
This results in the horrible exception that gets is not defined.
Strangely, changing the gets call to $stdin.gets works.
1) Why is this?, and
2) What other functions will have similar issues?
Additional (probably useless) information: I also tried wrapping everything in eval_me.rb inside a method in a class, like so, although it made no difference:
class EvalMe
def execute
# Same code as before ...
end
end
... and calling it with some fancy reflection (map eval_me to EvalMe, call EvalMe.new, and then call execute on that)
... although it resulted in the same error.
Related
I wrote a basic ruby program with TextMate in Mac OS:
def hello
puts " This works!"
end
name it Check-it.rb
I open a Terminal session, cd to the directory where the program is stored.
Then I type
ruby Check-it.rb
And nothing appears.
ruby -v
shows me the version, so it's there.
But with this and every other Ruby program, nothing appears.
As others already pointed out. The code in your file
def hello
puts " This works!"
end
defines a method called hello that outputs a string. But that method is never called. To actually call that method and run it change your code in the file to
def hello # this block defines the `hello` method
puts " This works!"
end
hello # this line calls the method `hello`
I think you are not calling this method at all. Call this method and then run your code, it will work.
say we have a ruby file.rb like:
if __FILE__ == $0 then
if ARGV[0] == 'foo'
puts "working"
# Dir.chdir(../)
v = Someclass.new
v.do_something
end
end
it suppose to print working only if the file was triggered like ruby file.rb foo.
My question: how can that kind of stuf be tested within rspec?
My try is below. The file ran but not in the scope of rspec test:
Dir expected :chdir with (any args) once, but received it 0 times
it 'should work' do
FILE = File.expand_path('file.rb')
RUBY = File.join(Config::CONFIG['bindir'], Config::CONFIG['ruby_install_name'])
#v = Someclass.new
Someclass.should_receive(:new).and_return #v
#v.should_receive(:do_something)
`#{RUBY} #{FILE} foo`
end
Backticks runs new shell, executes command, and returns result as a string. Thats why it runs outside your scope. Backticks does not care about contents of your script: ruby, bash, or something else.
chdir, of course, applied only to this new shell, so there seems no way to check you sample script for directory changing (except of tracing system calls). Maybe some 'real' script will do something, output more, thus providing more possibilities to check it.
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
I'm new to Ruby, so apologies if this sounds really silly.
I can't seem to figure out how to write a "main" code and have methods in the same file (similar to C). I end up with a "main" file which loads a seperate file that has all the methods. I appreciate any guidance on this.
I spotted the following SO post but I don't understand it:
Should I define a main method in my ruby scripts?
While it's not a big deal, it's just easier being able to see all the relevant code in the same file. Thank you.
[-EDIT-]
Thanks to everyone who responded - turns out you just need to define all the methods above the code. An example is below:
def callTest1
puts "in test 1"
end
def callTest2
puts "in test 2"
end
callTest1
callTest2
I think this makes sense as Ruby needs to know all methods beforehand. This is unlike C where there is a header file which clearly list the available functions and therefore, can define them beneath the main() function
Again, thanks to everyone who responded.
#Hauleth's answer is correct: there is no main method or structure in Ruby. I just want to provide a slightly different view here along with some explanation.
When you execute ruby somefile.rb, Ruby executes all of the code in somefile.rb. So if you have a very small project and want it to be self-contained in a single file, there's absolutely nothing wrong with doing something like this:
# somefile.rb
class MyClass
def say_hello
puts "Hello World"
end
end
def another_hello
puts "Hello World (from a method)"
end
c = MyClass.new
c.say_hello
another_hello
It's not that the first two blocks aren't executed, it's just that you don't see the effects until you actually use the corresponding class/method.
The if __FILE__ == $0 bit is just a way to block off code that you only want to run if this file is being run directly from the command line. __FILE__
is the name of the current file, $0 is the command that was executed by the shell (though it's smart enough to drop the ruby), so comparing the two tells you precisely that: is this the file that was executed from the command line? This is sometimes done by coders who want to define a class/module in a file and also provide a command-line utility that uses it. IMHO that's not very good project structure, but just like anything there are use cases where doing it makes perfect sense.
If you want to be able to execute your code directly, you can add a shebang line
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
# rest of somefile.rb
and make it executable with chmod +x somefile.rb (optionally rename it without the .rb extension). This doesn't really change your situation. The if __FILE__ == $0 still works and still probably isn't necessary.
Edit
As #steenslag correctly points out, the top-level scope in Ruby is an Object called main. It has slightly funky behavior, though:
irb
>> self
=> main
>> self.class
=> Object
>> main
NameError: undefined local variable or method `main' for main:Object
from (irb):8
Don't worry about this until you start to dig much deeper into the language. If you do want to learn lots more about this kind of stuff, Metaprogramming Ruby is a great read :)
No there isn't such structure. Of course you can define main function but it won't be called until you do so. Ruby execute line by line so if you want to print 'Hello World' you simply write:
puts 'Hello World'
The question that you mentioned is about using one file as module and executable, so if you write
if __FILE__ == $0
# your code
end
It will be called only if you run this file. If you only require it in other file then this code will never run. But IMHO it's bad idea, better option is using RubyGems and there add executables.
Actually there is a main, but it is not a method; it's the top-level object that is the initial execution context of a Ruby program.
class Foo
p self
end
#=> Foo
p self
#=> main
def foo
p self
end
foo
#=> main
There is no magic main function in Ruby. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_function#Ruby
If you wish to run Ruby scripts like C compiled files, do the following:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
puts "Hello"
and then chmod a+x file_name.rb. Everything that is below the first line will be run, as if it was contents of main in C. Of course class and function definitions won't give you any results until they are instantiated/invoked (although the code inside class definitions is actually evaluated, so you could get some output but this is not expected in normal circumstances).
Another way to write main() method is:
class HelloWorld
def initialize(name)
#name = name
end
def sayHello()
print "Hello ##name!"
end
end
def main()
helloWorld = HelloWorld.new("Alice")
helloWorld.sayHello
end
main
My simple attempt to redefine instance methods are not working
class File
alias_method :old_atime, :atime
def atime(*args)
puts "helllllo"
old_atime(*args)
end
end
f = File.new("C:\\abc.txt","w")
puts f.atime
Any idea why?
I'm attempting to print "helllllo" everytime File#atime is called. Even alias old_atime atime is not working.
Is there something I'm doing wrong here?
Above code works perfectly as it should be. Puts "helllllo" writes "helllllo" in to your opened file. Puts inside the file instance meant for writing.
Just call f.close and open your file in text editor. You can see the content.
Yep, Ramesh is right. Try this:
class File
alias_method :old_atime, :atime
def atime(*args)
Kernel.puts "helllllo" # <---- Kernel method
old_atime(*args)
end
end
f = File.new("C:\\abc.txt","w")
puts f.atime
The issue is that 'puts' is defined in File for writing to files. You want the Kernel one which is used unless defined in a more specific scope.
This should work fine, but IO#puts writes to the IO object itself, not STDOUT. In other words, it's writing to the file.
Call f.atime a few times and then f.close within irb and you should see it printing helllllo to the file for each call to atime.
To print to STDOUT, you could use $stdout.puts or Kernel.puts.