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
Related
I am submitting solutions to Ruby puzzles on codewars.com and experimenting with how locked into the testing enviroment I am for one of the challenges.
I can redefine the classes used to test my solution but they are defined by the system after I submit my code. If I freeze these objects, the system cannot write over them but a RunTime error is raised when it tries to.
I'm fairly new to Ruby, so I'm not sure which parts (other than falsiness and truthiness) are impossible to override. Can I use Ruby code to force modification of frozen objects to silently fail instead of terminate the program or is that bound up in untouchable things like the assignment operator or similar?
The real answer here is that if you might want to modify an object later, you shouldn't freeze it. That's inherent in the whole concept of "freezing" an object. But since you asked, note that you can test whether an object is frozen with:
obj.frozen?
So if those pesky RuntimeErrors are getting you down, one solution is to use a guard clause like:
obj.do_something! if !obj.frozen?
If you want to make the guard clauses implicit, you can redefine the "problem" methods using a monkey patch:
class Array
# there are a couple other ways to do this
# read up on Ruby metaprogramming if you want to know
alias :__pop__ :pop
def pop
frozen? ? nil : __pop__
end
end
If you want your code to work seamlessly with any and all Ruby libraries/gems, adding behavior to built-in methods like this is probably a bad idea. In this case, I doubt it will cause any problems, but whenever you choose to start hacking on Ruby's core classes, you have to be ready for the possible consequences.
I'm currently creating a my own plugin for Redmine. I found the following method in its core (not exact code, but the idea is preserved):
def method(foo, bar, array)
# Do some complex stuff with foo and bar
#array = array
#array.uniq!
#array = #array[0:3]
# Do some complex weird stuff with #array
end
I have to change this '3' to '6', because three elements in array is not enough for my plugin's purposes. I can change it manually and nothing crashes, but I don't want to patch Redmine's core. So, I'm writing a plugin which replaces this method with my own implementation, which does the same thing, but three is changed to six.
Here's the problem: if this file updates, outdated method will be used. Is there any way to check what's written inside method in runtime (for example, when server starts)?
By the way, is there any method to directly modify this constant without overriding the whole method?
If you are able to access the file, then you can use the pry gem to check the source code. Or without such gem, you can manually check the location of the method by doing puts method(:foo).source_location, and read that part.
The easiest for you to change the behaviour is to override the entire method.
No, there is no way to get a method's source code at runtime in Ruby. On some Ruby implementations there may be a way to get the source code which works some of the time, but that will be neither reliable nor portable. After all, there isn't even a guarantee that the source code will even be Ruby, since most implementations allow you to write methods in languages other than Ruby (e.g. C in YARV, Java in JRuby etc.)
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 beginning with the Ruby programming language and I'm interested in understanding it in depth before I start studding the Rails framework.
I'm currently a little disappointed because everybody seams to care only about the Rails framework, and other aspects of the language are just not discussed in depth, such as its class loading mechanism.
Considering that I'm starting by doing some desktop/console experiments, I would like to better understand the following matters:
Is it a good practice to place each Ruby class in a separate Ruby file? (*.rb)
If I have, let's say .. 10 classes .. and all of them reference each other, by instantiating one another and calling each other's methods, should I add a 'require' statement in each file to state which classes are required by the class in that file? (just like we do with 'import' statements in each Java class file?)
Is there a difference in placing a 'require' statement before or after (inside) a class declaration?
What could be considered a proper Ruby program's 'entry point'? It seams to me that any .rb script will suffice, since the language doesn't have a convention like C or Java where we always need a 'main' function of method.
Is class loading considered a 'phase' in the execution of a Ruby program? Are we supposed to load all the classes that are needed by the application right at the start?
Shouldn't the interpreter itself be responsible for finding and loading classes as we run the code that needs them? By searching the paths in the $LOAD_PATH variable, like Java does with its $CLASSPATH?
Thank you.
In general terms, it's a good practice to create a separate .rb file for each Ruby class unless the classes are of a utility nature and are too trivial to warrant separation. An instance of this would be a custom Exception derived class where putting it in a separate file would be more trouble than its worth.
Tradition holds that the name of the class and the filename are related. Where the class is called ExampleClass, the file is called example_class, the "underscored" version of same. There are occasions when you'll buck this convention, but so long as you're consistent about it there shouldn't be problems. The Rails ActiveSupport auto-loader will help you out a lot if you follow convention, so a lot of people follow this practice.
Likewise, you'll want to organize your application into folders like lib and bin to separate command-line scripts from back-end libraries. The command-line scripts do not usually have a .rb extension, whereas the libraries should.
When it comes to require, this should be used sparingly. If you structure your library files correctly they can all load automatically once you've called require on the top-level one. This is done with the autoload feature.
For example, lib/example_class.rb might look like:
class ExampleClass
class SpecialException < Exception
end
autoload(:Foo, 'example_class/foo')
# ...
end
You would organize other things under separate directories or files, like lib/example_class/foo.rb which could contain:
class ExampleClass::Foo
# ...
end
You can keep chaining autoloads all the way down. This has the advantage of only loading modules that are actually referenced.
Sometimes you'll want to defer a require to somewhere inside the class implementation. This is useful if you want to avoid loading in a heavy library unless a particular feature is used, where this feature is unlikely to be used under ordinary circumstances.
For example, you might not want to load the YAML library unless you're doing some debugging:
def debug_export_to_yaml
require 'yaml'
YAML.dump(some_stuff)
end
If you look at the structure of common Ruby gems, the "entry point" is often the top-level of your library or a utility script that includes this library. So for an example ExampleLibrary, your entry point would be lib/example_library.rb which would be structured to include the rest on demand. You might also have a script bin/library_tool that would do this for you.
As for when to load things, if there's a very high chance of something getting used, load it up front to pay the price early, so called "eager loading". If there's a low chance of it getting used, load it on demand, or leave it "lazy loaded" as it's called.
Have a look at the source of some simple but popular gems to get a sense of how most people structure their applications.
I'll try to help you with the first one:
Is it a good practice to place each Ruby class in a separate Ruby file? (*.rb)
It comes down to how closely related those classes are. Let's see a few examples. Look this class: https://github.com/resque/resque/blob/master/lib/resque.rb
, it "imports" the functionality of several classes that, although they work together, they are not closely related to be bundled together.
On the other hand, take a look at this module: https://github.com/resque/resque/blob/master/lib/resque/errors.rb. It bundles 5 different classes, but these do belong together since they are all essentially representing the same.
Additionally, from a design standpoint a good rule of thump could be asking yourself, who else is using this class/ functionality (meaning which other parts of the code base needs it)?
Let's say that you want to represent a Click and WheelScroll performed by a Mouse. It would make more sense in this trivial example, that those classes be bundled together:
module ComputerPart
class Mouse; end
class WheelScroll; end
class Click; end
end
Finally, I would recommend that you peruse the code of some of these popular projects to kind of get the feeling how the community usually make these decisions.
1.) I follow this practice, but it is not necessary, you can put a bunch of classes in one file if you want.
2.) If the classes are in the same file, no, they will all be accessible when you run the script. If they are in separate files then you should require them, you can also require the entire directory that the file(self) is in.
3.)Yes, it should be at the top of the file.
4.) In ruby everything descends from the Main object, the Interpreter just handles creating it for you. If you are writing OO ruby and not just scripts, then the entry point will be the init method of the first class you call.
5.) Yes, before the program runs it loads up all the dependencies.
6.) I think it does this, all you have to do is require the proper files at the top of the files, after that you can use them as you wish without having to implicitly load them again.
I'm working on a code visualization tool and I'd like to be able to display the size(in lines) of each Class, Method, and Module in a project. It seems like existing parsers(such as Ripper) could make this info easy to get. Is there a preferred way to do this? Is there a method of assessing size for classes that have been re-opened in separate locations? How about for dynamically (Class.new {}, Module.new {}) defined structures?
I think what you're asking for is not possible in general without actually running the whole Ruby program the classes are part of (and then you run into the halting problem). Ruby is extremely dynamic, so lines could be added to a class' definition anywhere, at any time, without necessarily referring to the particular class by name (e.g. using class_eval on a class passed into a method as an argument). Not that the source code of a class' definition is saved anyway... I think the closest you could get to that is the source_locations of the methods of the class.
You could take the difference of the maximum and minimum line numbers of those source_locations for each file. Then you'd have to assume that the class is opened only once per file, and that the size of the last method in a file is negligible (as well as any non-method parts of the class definition that happen before the first method definition or after the last one).
If you want something more accurate maybe you could run the program, get method source_locations, and try to correlate those with a separate parse of the source file(s), looking for enclosing class blocks etc.
But anything you do will most likely involve assumptions about how classes are generally defined, and thus not always be correct.
EDIT: Just saw that you were asking about methods and modules too, not just classes, but I think similar arguments apply for those.
I've created a gem that handles this problem in the fashion suggested by wdebaum. class_source. It certainly doesn't cover all cases but is a nice 80% solution for folks that need this type of thing. Patches welcome!