Is there a tool that parses a Ruby script (MRI/YARV) and gives statistics of how many lines each module/class/method definition is?
Saikuro will do this. It's also included in metric_fu, which makes it easy to run Saikuro and many other code metrics tools.
(Be careful, the saikuro gem is probably not what you want, instead it's Saikuro with a capital "S".)
What do you mean by MRI/YARV? A script doesn't have an implementation associated with it. The tool may be associated with a particular implementation, though.
There may be such a tool in the code metrics section of Ruby Toolbox.
Related
Can Anyone point Me to a tool to detect unused code, objects, methods, parameters, etc., in Ruby code?
I saw nitpick but it does not seem to give me the coverage I want. I also checked laser and reek but their respective gems seem to have issues which prevent them from running.
I thought at one point the Ruby binary had a mode which would detect unused constructs but I do not seem to be able to find it.
It might help if we had a little more context in how you want to "detect unused code" - is this code coverage of your tests you're looking into? Otherwise, how would you know from run to run whether you hit all the use cases? Or are you looking for a statistical "heat map" of coverage over time for e.g. performance reasons?
In any case, for code coverage while testing I use SimpleCov - it uses Ruby 1.9's built-in Coverage library with some nice sugar on top.
You can also use a mutation tester that mutates your code. In case the mutation tester can delete a construct without your tests noticing. You found an unused construct.
I know two mutation testers for ruby:
Heckle
Mutant
Disclaimer, I'm the author of mutant.
Depending on your setup, your ruby version, spec layout, test framework heckle and or mutant can do the job for you.
Here you can see mutant in action: http://ascii.io/a/1707
JetBrains RubyMine http://www.jetbrains.com/ruby/quickstart/index.html
We have a logging system, and erlang OTP server is writing logs in erlang term.
We also have Rails interface for internal users, and I want to provide a log analysis for them.
I have tried to find an erlang term parser, not erlang parser, written in ruby. but no luck yet.
erlang terms are simple; atom, tuple, list(including string), binary, and pid/ref
atom is like a symbol
tuple is like a hash
list is like an array
binary/pid/ref are like string
Anyone knows any existing erl-to-ruby parser?
Maybe this isn't quite what you're looking for, but you could check out BERT-RPC. It has serializers, clients, and servers for various languages, including Ruby (they are listed at the bottom of the page).
BERT is new, and it seems overkill to me, and I don't see code out-there for this purpose,
I made my own.
https://github.com/bighostkim/erl_to_ruby
This module from the people at basho seems to be exactly what you need.
https://github.com/basho/erlang_template_helper
I understand that over a thousand built-in rewrite rules in Mathematica populate the global rules table by default. Is there any way to get Mathematica to give a full or even partial list of those rules?
The best way is to get a job at Wolfram Research.
Failing that, I think that for things not completely compiled into the kernel you can recover most of the rules/definitions. Look at
Attributes[fn]
where fn is the command that you're interested in. If it returns
{Protected, ReadProtected}
then there's something you can get a look at (although often it's just a MakeBoxes (formatting) definition or a AutoLoad/Stub type definition). To see what's there run
Unprotect[fn];
ClearAttributes[fn, ReadProtected];
??fn
Quite often you'll have to run an example of the command to load it if it was a stub. You'll also have to dig down from the user-facing commands to the back-end implementations.
Eventually you'll most likely reach a core command that is compiled into the kernel that you can not see the details of.
I previously mentioned this in tips for creating Graph diagrams and it got a mention in What is in your Mathematica tool bag?.
An good example, with a nice bite-sized and digestible bit of code is Experimental`AngularSlider[] mentioned in Circular/Angular slider. I'll leave it up to you to look at the code produced.
Another example is something like BoxWhiskerChart, where you need to call it once in order to load all of the code. Then you see that BoxWhiskerChart proceeds to call Charting`iBoxWhiskerChart which you'll have to unprotect to look at, etc...
I'd like to keep my usage documenation in a readme file (duh) instead of comments at the top of my script. How do I get RDoc::usage to pull the usage information out of the readme instead of the script comments?
RDoc is designed to parse a source file, look at the comments and their locations, build cross-references of the variables, and, when done, tie it all into a decent output. Because RDoc is designed to work against source files it might not be the best choice for what you want to do.
Instead you might want to look into Yard, which is tag-based. Can I get my README.textile into my RDoc with proper formatting? has some useful information for you too.
In either case, if you can't get the app to parse a README-type doc like you want, you might be able to spoof it by putting all your docs in the file, along with class and method stubs so the parsers can grab the parameters, globals, and other "whatnot" they need to create usable documentation.
Otherwise, you'll probably have to forgo using the automated help and type it all in.
My recommendation is to do it the RDoc way, and document inside your code. It's not hard to do at all, and the output can be very satisfactory. It's pretty amazing how good a job RDoc can do.
I'm certainly not experienced enough to tell you the answer, but please allow me one piece of advice.
Most of the developers are unlikely to ever update the documentation even if it's 3 lines of code above the implementation.
Do a favor and don't make the process even harder.
Keeping general documentation separate is a nice idea though, but it has nothing to do in your RDoc-generated output anyway.
What are the things you wish Ruby (and more generally the Ruby community) would improve?
I read somewhere that Ruby is the love-child of Smalltalk and LISP, with Miss Perl as the Nanny.
I have a lot of respect for Ruby's parents, but I'm not sure I like the influence Miss Perl had on the child. Specifically, I don't like the predefined variables: I need a cheat sheet to know what they mean. You could say "just don't use them". Well, I don't... but other people do. And when I download a plugin on the Web, I have no choice but to fetch my cheat-sheet if I ever need to go and touch the source code. I just wish they would remove those from the language itself.
Also, I think that Ruby is too much of a moving target. My code breaks on every new Ruby upgrade, even on minor releases. This is true also of Ruby on Rails and most Rails plugins I have worked with: they just change all the time, and nobody seems to care whether the changes break everything or not. IMHO, although I love a lot of things in Ruby, this lack of stability is almost a show-stopper.
I wish people would consider backward compatibility between minor releases as an unbreakable rule when releasing a new language (or library or framework) version.
I wish that some of the lesser used modules of the standard library were documented.
Make require-ing files less painful. Don't ask me how, but maybe have one file dedicated to knowing the paths involved and just get rid of the relative path crud from everything else.
Getting rid of the artificial distinction between Modules and Classes would be nice.
Both Modules and Classes are Namespaces. Modules are also Mixins, while Classes aren't. Classes can also be instantiated while Modules can't. This distinction is unnecessary. Just get rid of Modules and allow Classes to be used as Mixins.
An example of a language where this works is Newspeak.
I'd appreciate being able to install ruby 1.9 as an RPM rather than having to use the source.
Make Ruby completely Message Sending based, get rid of everything that is not a message send: local variables, global variables, instance variables, class hierarchy variables, constants, magic globals, magic constants, builtin operators, builtin keywords, even literals. See Self, Ioke or Newspeak for the incredible power and elegance this gains.
I wish they would get rid of the predefined variables: $!, $&, $+, etc.
I would like to have support for static compile-time metaprogramming. The Converge Programming Language might be a good starting point.
Replace the Mixin system with a Traits system.
Replace Exceptions with a Common Lisp style Conditions system.