Is there something similar to Nokogiri for parsing Ruby code? - ruby

Nokogiri is awesome. I can do things like #css('.bla') which will return the first matching element.
Right now we need to do some parsing of Ruby source code - finding all methods within a class etc. We're using the ruby_parser gem, but all it does is comb your source code and spit out S-expressions. Is there anything like Nokogiri for these S-expressions which can do things like "return S-expression for first method found named 'foo'"?

The only thing I can think of, is Adam Sanderson's SExpPath library.

Although I am accepting Jörg's answer because it is more complete, I ended up discovering something else which I ended up using. ruby_parser installs a dependent gem named sexp_processor (it is in this gem where the Sexp class is actually defined). If you view the class docs there are a few methods that will help with basic Ruby finders. Here's an example:
class Sexp
def name # convenience method
self.sexp_body.first
end
end
# Print out all instance methods within classes. Beware - if "code" sexp itself
# is a class, it will NOT be included!
code = RubyParser.new.parse(IO.read('/src/file'))
code.each_of_type(:class){ |klass|
klass.each_of_type(:defn){ |meth|
puts meth.name
}
}

I don't know anything about gem that you are looking for, but you can find all methods within a class using instance_methods:
class Foo
def bar
end
end
irb(main):005:0> Foo.instance_methods - Object.instance_methods
=> [:bar]

You could check the rubinius parser, it may help you to do what you want.

Related

Get list of classes and methods that call a specific global method

I have a method called $muffinize and I would like to find where it can be found in my code. In other words, given the following code:
class A
def foo
$muffinize(1)
end
def bar
...
end
end
class B
def shoop
$muffinize(2)
end
def woop
...
end
end
class C
def nope
...
end
end
I would like to the result to be (written to a file):
A:foo
B:shoop
I was thinking of accomplishing this with a Regex, but I was wondering if there would be some way of accomplishing this with Ruby meta-programming (which I might be accidentally using as a buzz-word)?
Kernel.caller() will help you show the line number and method that is calling it at runtime. If you put something like puts caller(1,1) in your muffinize function it will output those locations, but only if they are called at runtime.
If you want to do offline source analysis, you need to parse the AST (abstract syntax tree) with something like https://github.com/whitequark/parser.
Here is a quick example with ripper (built into new rubies) - this isn't strictly an AST but it's not extracting classes either
#!/usr/local/env ruby
require 'ripper'
#require 'pry'
contents = File.open('example.rb').read
code = Ripper.lex(contents)
code.each do |line|
if(line[1] == :on_ident and line[2] == "muffinize")
puts "muffinize found at line #{line.first.first}"
end
end
Ignoring the fact that your code isn't even syntactically valid, this is simply not possible.
Here's a simple example:
class A
def foo
bar
muffinize(1)
end
end
A#foo will call Object#muffinize if and only if bar terminates. Which means that figuring out whether or not A#foo calls Object#muffinize requires to solve the Halting Problem.
By getting a list of classes and methods via ri, I was then able to analyze each method to retreive their source code using the method_source gem and then searching for muffinize. This does not rule out the possibility of muffinize from appearing in a comment or a string, but I consider the likelihood of this happening to be small enough to ignore.

Is there a short way to write `{|x| x}`?

We often shorten a block using the & notation on a symbol like this:
some_array.group_by(&:foo)
Is there a similar way to shorten expressions like {|x| x}?
some_array.group_by{|x| x}
If there were a method Object#self that returns self, then we can do
some_array.group_by(&:self)
but unfortunately, there is no such method. In terms of the number of characters, it may be longer, but readability improves.
Yes. #itself was implemented in Ruby 2.2.0.
You can access the Ruby core team discussion about this feature here.
As an interesting analogue, the #ergo method has been proposed, which would yield the receiver to a given block.
If you haven't yet upgraded to Ruby 2.2.0, you may wish to backport #itself and/or define #ergo as follows:
class Object
def itself; self end
def ergo
fail ArgumentError, "Block expected!" unless block_given?
yield self
end
end
And then:
some_array.group_by &:itself
Well, there's no built-in as far as I know, but you can make a reusable identity block:
id = Proc.new {|x| x}
some_array.group_by(&id)
And then if you really wish this were a language feature:
class Object
def it
Proc.new {|x| x}
end
end
And then you can do:
some_array.group_by(&it)
wherever you like. This may void your warranty.
Yes! The method Kernel#itself was added in Ruby 2.2.0. This method simply returns the object it was called on, so you can write:
some_array.group_by(&:itself)
You can see the extensive discussion of this feature here: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6373. The patch was submitted by Rafael França in message #53. You can see it in the official Ruby source by looking in object.c.
If you are using a version of Ruby older than 2.2.0, you can easily add Kernel#itself into your project by putting this code somewhere in your project and making sure it gets required:
module Kernel
def itself
self
end
end if !Kernel.instance_methods.include?(:itself)
However, monkey-patching a part of the Ruby core like that can be dangerous and I would not recommend it if you are making reusable code, like a gem. Instead I would recommend just making your own identity function, as suggested by user2246674:
module MyLibrary
IDENT = Proc.new { |x| x }
array.group_by(&IDENT)
end

Which Ruby memoize pattern does ActiveSupport::Memoizable refer to?

So in Rails 3.2, ActiveSupport::Memoizable has been deprecated.
The message reads:
DEPRECATION WARNING: ActiveSupport::Memoizable is deprecated and
will be removed in future releases,simply use Ruby memoization
pattern instead.
It refers to "Ruby memoization pattern" (singular) as if there's one pattern we should all know and refer to...
I presume they mean something like:
def my_method
#my_method ||= # ... go get the value
end
or
def my_method
return #my_method if defined?(#my_method)
#my_method = # ... go get the value
end
Is there something else I've missed?
Here is the commit (and subsequent discussion) where Memoizable was deprecated: https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/36253916b0b788d6ded56669d37c96ed05c92c5c
The author advocates the #foo ||= ... approach and points to this commit as an example for migration: https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/f2c0fb32c0dce7f8da0ce446e2d2f0cba5fd44b3.
Edit:
Note that I don't necessarily interpret this change as meaning that all instances of memoize can or should be replaced w/ this pattern. I read it as meaning that Memoizable is no longer needed/wanted in the Rails code itself. As the comments point out, Memoizable is much more than just a wrapper around #foo ||= .... If you need those features, go ahead and use Memoizable, you'll just have to get it from somewhere other than ActiveSupport (I'm guessing someone will fork a gem version, if they haven't already).
Another option is to use the Memoist gem:
Memoist on GitHub
Memoist on RubyGems
It is a direct extraction from ActiveSupport::Memoizable and can be used as a drop-in replacement. Just require 'memoist' and change
extend ActiveSupport::Memoizable
to
extend Memoist
Just an addition to the top answer, to memoize a class method use the following pattern:
class Foo
class << self
def bar
#bar ||= begin
# ...
end
end
end
end
Based upon the comments on the commit referenced above by avaynshtok, I’m going with this:
ActiveSupport::Deprecation.silence { extend ActiveSupport::Memoizable }
… because I figure I’ll know when Memoizable is ripped out of ActiveSupport from my RSpec suite dying right out of the starting gate.

Truncate #inspect output in irb (ruby)

I want to truncate #inspect output in irb (a large output must be cropped to MAX_LEN).
Currently, I override :inspect, :to_s methods for all specific objects.
Is there are other solution?
change $stdout ?
other?
For a clean solution, gem install hirb. hirb pages irb's returned values if they get too long.
If you want to monkeypatch irb:
module IRB
class Irb
def output_value
#context.last_value.to_s.slice(0, MAX_LEN)
end
end
end
I don't recommend this because it's a hack and breaks any time gems like ap and hirb are required.
Instead of monkeypatching irb, I'd recommend trying ripl, an irb alternative that is meant to extended.
The above as a ripl plugin would be:
require 'ripl'
module Ripl::SlicedInspect
def format_result(result)
result_prompt + result.inspect.slice(MAX_LEN)
end
end
Ripl::Shell.send :include, Ripl::SlicedInspect
With this plugin, you could require it as needed or add to your ~/.riplrc if you want to always use it.
Your solution is good.
It involves no dark magic, which might make the code less understandable and error-prone.
If you're just in IRB - you could define a monkeypatch in irb itself and or load a file that monkeypatches inspect via 'load'. This way you keep it out of your core codebase but you still get the functionality you need w/o having to override inspect in every class you wish to inspect....
If it's because you have a nested hash or something that's hard to decipher, try awesome_print. You can make it the default output formatter in irb by placing the following in your .irbrc:
require 'ap'
module IRB
class Irb
def output_value
ap #context.last_value
end
end
end
This makes objects with lots of data easy to decipher in IRB.
Even if you don't use awesome_print, you can truncate output using this same technique so you don't have to override to_s in your code.
For rails 3.1.1+, place the code below in helpers/irb_helper.rb
module IRB
class Irb
MAX_LEN = 10000
def output_value
if (#context.inspect_last_value.length > MAX_LEN)
printf #context.return_format, "#{#context.inspect_last_value[0..MAX_LEN]} <- Truncated"
else
printf #context.return_format, #context.inspect_last_value
end
end
end
end
If you'd like to customize your output more, check irb's source at https://github.com/Ruby/Ruby/blob/trunk/lib/irb.rb
I sometimes modify the objects themselves (via a module called BoringInspect which I include into the relevant classes) so that exception messages are also manageable.

Why don't modules always honor 'require' in ruby?

(sorry I should have been clearer with the code the first time I posted this. Hope this makes sense)
File "size_specification.rb"
class SizeSpecification
def fits?
end
end
File "some_module.rb"
require 'size_specification'
module SomeModule
def self.sizes
YAML.load_file(File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/size_specification_data.yml')
end
end
File "size_specification_data.yml
---
- !ruby/object:SizeSpecification
height: 250
width: 300
Then when I call
SomeModule.sizes.first.fits?
I get an exception because "sizes" are Object's not SizeSpecification's so they don't have a "fits" function.
Are your settings and ruby installation ok? I created those 3 files and wrote what follows in "test.rb"
require 'yaml'
require "some_module"
SomeModule.sizes.first.fits?
Then I ran it.
$ ruby --version
ruby 1.8.6 (2008-06-20 patchlevel 230) [i486-linux]
$ ruby -w test.rb
$
No errors!
On second reading I'm a little confused, you seem to want to mix the class into module, which is porbably not so advisable. Also is the YAML supposed to load an array of the SizeSpecifications?
It appears to be that you're not mixing the Module into your class. If I run the test in irb then the require throws a LoadError. So I assume you've put two files together, if not dump it.
Normally you'd write the functionality in the module, then mix that into the class. so you may modify your code like this:
class SizeSpecification
include SomeModule
def fits?
end
end
Which will allow you to then say:
SizeSpecification::SomeModule.sizes
I think you should also be able to say:
SizeSpecification.sizes
However that requires you to take the self off the prefix of the sizes method definition.
Does that help?
The question code got me a little confused.
In general with Ruby, if that happens it's a good sign that I am trying to do things the wrong way.
It might be better to ask a question related to your actual intended outcome, rather than the specifics of a particular 'attack' on your problem. They we can say 'nonono, don't do that, do THIS' or 'ahhhhh, now I understand what you wanna do'

Resources