I've seen plenty of posts providing the -W0 flag as an answer to this issue, but I don't want to suppress all warnings, just warnings of a particular value.
I'm running a non-rails app (which uses ActiveRecord, notwithstanding) on Ruby 1.8.7. I want to keep all warnings except for the following DEPRECATION WARNING:
Object#id will be deprecated; use Object#object_id
If that's not possible, I'd like to jettison all deprecation warnings. Java, at least, lets you do this. How about Ruby?
Update: I've upvoted both answers but checked the one that later searchers will expect to find here.
If there's a specific section of code that produces the warnings, you could try mixing in the Kernel module from ActiveSupport and wrap it with a silence_warnings block (example pulled straight from the RDoc):
silence_warnings do
value = do_something_that_causes_warning # no warning voiced
end
noisy_call # warning voiced
Is it absolutely necessary to suppress it? It's not like you're compiling something and have to sift through a ton of warnings all at once...
Edit: If you use read_attribute(:id), then you should avoid the waring. Thanks Jeremy!
I'm not a Rails developer, but isn't there a method that allows you to say "I want the database field id, not the id method of the object"?
Related
I added sorbet to a pet project of mine: https://github.com/Trevoke/SGFParser
When I run the tests, I get a lot of the following warning (here's a link to a travis-ci build):
/Users/trevoke/.rbenv/versions/2.6.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.6.0/gems/sorbet-runtime-0.4.4314/lib/types/private/methods/call_validation.rb:807:
warning: method redefined; discarding old add_error
/Users/trevoke/.rbenv/versions/2.6.0/lib/ruby/gems/2.6.0/gems/sorbet-runtime-0.4.4314/lib/types/private/methods/_methods.rb:127:
warning: previous definition of add_error was here
Where "add_error" is a method of mine -- the other warnings show different method names.
I'd like to know if this is something which belongs entirely on the sorbet side or whether I can do something to get rid of them.
There doesn't seem like you can do anything on your side right now. It might be related to Sorbet#1150: "sorbet-runtime causes many warnings with Ruby $VERBOSE mode".
There's an open PR (Sorbet#1266) that could help.
With this minimal ruby code:
require 'debug'
puts
in a file called, e.g. script.rb
if I launch it like so: ruby -rdebug script.rb
and then press l on the debug prompt, I get the listing, as expected
if I instead run it normally as ruby script.rb
when pressing l I get:
(rdb:1) l
[-3, 6] in script.rb
No sourcefile available for script.rb
The error message seems misleading at best: the working directory hasn't changed, and the file is definitely still there!
I'm unable to find documentation on this behavior (I tried it on both jruby and mri, and the behavior is the same)
I know about 'debugger' and 'pry', but they serve a different use case:
I'm used to other scripting languages with a builtin debug module, that can let me put a statement anywhere in the code to drop me in a debug shell, inspect code, variables and such... the advantage of having it builtin it's that it is available everywhere, without having to set up an environment for it, or even when I'm on a machine that's not my own
I could obviously workaround this by always calling the interpreter with -rdebug and manually setting the breakpoint, but I find this more work than the alternative
After looking into the debug source code, I found a workaround and a fix:
the workaround can be:
trace on
next
trace off
list
this will let you get the listing without restarting the interpreter with -rdebug, with the disadvantage that you'll get some otherwise unwanted output from the tracing, and you'll be able to see it only after moving by one statement
for the fix: the problem is that the SCRIPT_LINES__ Hash lacks a value for the current file... apparently it's only set inside tracer.rb
I've changed line 161, and changed the Hash with a subclass that tracks where []= has been called from, and I wasn't able to dig up the actual code that does the work when stepping into a function that comes from a different file
Also: I haven't found a single person yet who actively uses this module (I asked both on #ruby, #jruby and #pry on freenode), and together with the fact that it uses a function that is now obsolete it leads me to be a bit pessimistic about the maintenance state of this module
nonetheless, I submitted a pull request for the fix (it's actually quite dumb and simple, but to do otherwise I'd need a deeper understanding of this module, and possibly to refactor some parts of it... but if this module isn't actively maintaned, I'm not sure that's a good thing to put effort on)
I suspect the Ruby interpreter doesn't have the ability to load the sourcefile without the components in the debug module. So, no -rdebug, no access to the sourcefile. And I agree it is a misleading error. "Debugging features not loaded" might be better.
Below is a small screenshot from within RubyMine 3.1. I am just starting to learn Ruby. The code here is from the Presenter-First MVP C# code generator over at atomicobject.com.
I am using this project along with a book to learn Ruby. The documentation for puts shows that it expects at least one parameter. Yet this code appears "somewhat legal" for two reasons:
The code appears to work fine when I
step thru it via the debugger.
Searching online, and even here at SO, shows that puts w/o arguments creates a newline.
However, is it bad practice to do this (hence the RubyMine warning)? The code I am looking at is from 2006. I'm running it with Ruby 1.9.2 if that matters any.
This is perfectly fine, as puts provides 'default' value for the first parameter:
def puts(obj='', *arg)
As for RubyMine, it doesn't show any errors for me. May it happen that you define method puts somewhere else in your code? You can cmd+click on it, to get to the definition.
Anyway, if you're able to reproduce problem in a clean new project, you can freely submit a bug report to JetBrains.
No, it can be helpful to create the physical line break in your source as well as the output, and like you have seen already, puts is perfectly capable of accepting zero arguments.
Personally, if I'm creating a multi-line output I prefer to use here-doc syntax.
Most of the code I write is in Ruby, and every once in a while, I make some typo which only gets caught after a while. This is irritating when I have my scripts running long tasks, and return to find I had a typo.
Is there an actively developed lint tool for Ruby that could help me overcome this? Would it be possible to use it across a system that works with a lot of source files, some of them loaded dynamically?
Take this snippet as an example:
a = 20
b = 30
puts c
To win bounty, show me a tool that will detect the c variable as not created/undefined.
ruby -c myfile.rb will check for correct Ruby syntax.
Reek checks Ruby code for common code smells.
Roodi checks Ruby code for common object-oriented design issues.
Flog can warn you about unusually complex code.
[Plug] If your project is in a public Github repository, Caliper can run the latter three tools and others on your code every time you commit. (Disclaimer: I work on Caliper)
You could give Diamondback Ruby a try. It does a static typecheck of Ruby code, and will thus blame you for using an undefined variable.
While DRuby is an ongoing research project, it already works quite well for small, self-contained Ruby scripts. Currently, it is unable to analyze much of the Ruby standard library “out-of-the-box”. Currently they are working toward typing Ruby on Rails (see their most recent papers).
RubyMine (http://www.jetbrains.com/ruby) does the trick:
alt text http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/5688/31911448.png
None of the below will do all the analysis that RubyMine does.
NetBeans Ruby pack
Aptana RadRails
gVIM (with syntastic plugin by scrooloose)
Each of these has the capacity to identify syntax errors such as wrong number of parentheses, too many defs, ends, braces, etc. But none will identify invalid method calls the way RubyMine does.
Here's why: it's difficult.
Since Ruby is extremely dynamic (and methods like 'c' could easily be generated on the fly), any editor that tries to identify non-existent variables/methods would need to have a large part of the entire evironment loaded and multiple program flow paths constantly tested in order to get accurate 'validity' results. This is much more difficult than in Java where almost all programming is static (at least it was when I dropped that hat).
This ability to easily generate methods on the fly is one of the reasons the community holds testing to such high esteem. I really do reccomend you try testing as well.
Have a look at RuboCop. It is a Ruby code style checker based on the Ruby Style Guide. It's maintained pretty actively and supports all major Ruby implementations. It works well with Ruby 1.9 and 2.0 and has great Emacs integration.
Yes. Test::Unit
Ok, I know you already know this and that in some sense this is a non-helpful answer, but you do bring up the negative consequence of duck typing, that there kind of is (at this time) no way around just writing more tests than something like Java might need.
So, for the record, see Test::Unit in the Ruby Standard Library or one of the other test frameworks.
Having unit tests that you can run and rerun is the best way to catch errors, and you do need more of them (tests, not errors :-) in dynamic languages like Ruby...
nitpick might be what you're lookng for.
With this code:
class MyString < String
def awesome
self.gsub("e", "3").gsub("l", "1").uppercase
end
end
puts MyString.new("leet").awesome
... it outputs:
$ nitpick misspelling.rb
*** Nitpick had trouble loading "misspelling.rb":
NoMethodError undefined method `uppercase' for "133t":MyString
Nothing to report boss! He's clean!
Have not used it yet, but sounds promising (will update when I've tested this).
https://github.com/michaeledgar/laser
Static analysis and style linter for Ruby code.
Pelusa is nice, but is working in rubinius only. This shouln't be a proplem for people familar with RVM though.
avdi#lazarus:~$ irb
>> a = 20
=> 20
>> b = 30
=> 30
>> puts c
NameError: undefined local variable or method `c' for main:Object
from (irb):3
>>
There ya go, the tool is called "IRB". Do I get the bounty?
I'm only half joking. I wrote this second answer to hopefully drive home the point that in Ruby, if you want to know that something is defined or not, you have to run the code.
Does ruby allow you to treat warnings as errors?
One reason I'd like to do this is to ensure that if heckle removing a line of code means that a warning occurs, I have the option of ensuring that the mutant get killed.
There is unfortunately no real way of doing this, at least not on most versions of Ruby out there (variations may exist), short of monitoring the program output and aborting it when a warning appears on standard error. Here's why:
Ruby defines Kernel.warn, which you can redefine to do whatever you wish (including exiting), and which you'd expect (hope) to be used consistently by Ruby to report warnings (including internal e.g. parsing warning), but
methods implemented natively (in C) inside Ruby will in turn directly invoke a native method called rb_warn from source/server.c, completely bypassing your redefinition of Kernel.warn (e.g. the "string literal in condition" warning, for example, issued when doing something like: do_something if 'string', is printed via the native rb_warn from source/parse.c)
to make things even worse, there is an additional, rb_warning native method, which can be used by Ruby to log warnings if -w or -v is specified.
So, if you need to take action solely on warnings generated by your application code's calling Kernel.warn then simply redefine Kernel.warn. Otherwise, you have exactly two options:
alter source/error.c to exit in rb_warn and rb_warning (and rb_warn_m?), and rebuild Ruby
monitor your program's standard error output for ': warning:', and abort it on match
You can finally do that by overriding Warning.warn like
module Warning
def warn(msg)
raise msg
end
end
This will turn the warning into an exception. This solution works at least since 2.4 branch.
You could also potentially use DTrace, and intercept the calls to rb_warn and rb_warning, though that's not going to produce exceptions you can rescue from somewhere. Rather, it'll just put them somewhere you can easily log them.