I have seen two commonly used techniques for adding the directory of the file currently being executed to the $LOAD_PATH (or $:). I see the advantages of doing this in case you're not working with a gem. One seems more verbose than the other, obviously, but is there a reason to go with one over the other?
The first, verbose method (could be overkill):
$LOAD_PATH.unshift(File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__))) unless $LOAD_PATH.include?(File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__)))
and the more straightforward, quick-and-dirty:
$:.unshift File.dirname(__FILE__)
Any reason to go with one over the other?
The Ruby load path is very commonly seen written as $: , but just because it is short, does not make it better. If you prefer clarity to cleverness, or if brevity for its own sake makes you itchy, you needn't do it just because everyone else is.
Say hello to ...
$LOAD_PATH
... and say goodbye to ...
# I don't quite understand what this is doing...
$:
I would say go with $:.unshift File.dirname(__FILE__) over the other one, simply because I've seen much more usage of it in code than the $LOAD_PATH one, and it's shorter too!
I'm not too fond on the 'quick-and-dirty' way.
Anyone new to Ruby will be pondering what $:. is.
I find this more obvious.
libdir = File.dirname(__FILE__)
$LOAD_PATH.unshift(libdir) unless $LOAD_PATH.include?(libdir)
Or if I care about having the full path...
libdir = File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__))
$LOAD_PATH.unshift(libdir) unless $LOAD_PATH.include?(libdir)
UPDATE 2009/09/10
As of late I've been doing the following:
$:.unshift(File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__))) unless
$:.include?(File.dirname(__FILE__)) || $:.include?(File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__)))
I've seen it in a whole bunch of different ruby projects while browsing GitHub.
Seems to be the convention?
If you type script/console in your Rails project and enter $:, you'll get an array that includes all the directories needed to load Ruby. The take-away from this little exercise is that $: is an array. That being so, you can perform functions on it like prepending other directories with the unshift method or the << operator. As you implied in your statement $: and $LOAD_PATH are the same.
The disadvantage with doing it the quick and dirty way as you mentioned is this: if you already have the directory in your boot path, it will repeat itself.
Example:
I have a plugin I created called todo. My directory is structured like so:
/---vendor
|
|---/plugins
|
|---/todo
|
|---/lib
|
|---/app
|
|---/models
|---/controllers
|
|---/rails
|
|---init.rb
In the init.rb file I entered the following code:
## In vendor/plugins/todo/rails/init.rb
%w{ models controllers models }.each do |dir|
path = File.expand_path(File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), '../lib', 'app', dir))
$LOAD_PATH << path
ActiveSupport::Dependencies.load_paths << path
ActiveSupport::Dependencies.load_once_paths.delete(path)
end
Note how I tell the code block to perform the actions inside the block to the strings 'models', 'controllers', and 'models', where I repeat 'models'. (FYI, %w{ ... } is just another way to tell Ruby to hold an array of strings). When I run script/console, I type the following:
>> puts $:
And I type this so that it is easier to read the contents in the string. The output I get is:
...
...
./Users/Me/mySites/myRailsApp/vendor/plugins/todo/lib/app/models
./Users/Me/mySites/myRailsApp/vendor/plugins/todo/lib/app/controllers
./Users/Me/mySites/myRailsApp/vendor/plugins/todo/lib/app/models
As you can see, though this is as simple an example I could create while using a project I'm currently working on, if you're not careful the quick and dirty way will lead to repeated paths. The longer way will check for repeated paths and make sure they don't occur.
If you're an experienced Rails programmer, you probably have a very good idea of what you're doing and likely not make the mistake of repeating paths. If you're a newbie, I would go with the longer way until you understand really what you're doing.
Best I have come across for adding a dir via relative path when using Rspec. I find it verbose enough but also still a nice one liner.
$LOAD_PATH.unshift(File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), '..', 'lib'))
There is a gem which will let you setup your load path with nicer and cleaner code. Check this out: https://github.com/nayyara-samuel/load-path.
It also has good documentation
My 2ยข: I like $LOAD_PATH rather than $:. I'm getting old... I've studied 92,000 languages. I find it hard to keep track of all the customs and idioms.
I've come to abhor namespace pollution.
Last, when I deal with paths, I always delete and then either append or prepend -- depending upon how I want the search to proceed. Thus, I do:
1.times do
models_dir = "#{File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__))}/models"
$LOAD_PATH.delete(models_dir)
$LOAD_PATH.unshift(models_dir)
end
I know it's been a long time since this question was first asked, but I have an additional answer that I want to share.
I have several Ruby applications that were developed by another programmer over several years, and they re-use the same classes in the different applications although they might access the same database. Since this violates the DRY rule, I decided to create a class library to be shared by all of the Ruby applications. I could have put it in the main Ruby library, but that would hide custom code in the common codebase which I didn't want to do.
I had a problem where I had a name conflict between an already defined name "profile.rb", and a class I was using. This conflict wasn't a problem until I tried to create the common code library. Normally, Ruby searches application locations first, then goes to the $LOAD_PATH locations.
The application_controller.rb could not find the class I created, and threw an error on the original definition because it is not a class. Since I removed the class definition from the app/models section of the application, Ruby could not find it there and went looking for it in the Ruby paths.
So, I modified the $LOAD_PATH variable to include a path to the library directory I was using. This can be done in the environment.rb file at initialization time.
Even with the new directory added to the search path, Ruby was throwing an error because it was preferentially taking the system-defined file first. The search path in the $LOAD_PATH variable preferentially searches the Ruby paths first.
So, I needed to change the search order so that Ruby found the class in my common library before it searched the built-in libraries.
This code did it in the environment.rb file:
Rails::Initializer.run do |config|
* * * * *
path = []
path.concat($LOAD_PATH)
$LOAD_PATH.clear
$LOAD_PATH << 'C:\web\common\lib'
$LOAD_PATH << 'C:\web\common'
$LOAD_PATH.concat(path)
* * * * *
end
I don't think you can use any of the advanced coding constructs given before at this level, but it works just fine if you want to setup something at initialization time in your app. You must maintain the original order of the original $LOAD_PATH variable when it is added back to the new variable otherwise some of the main Ruby classes get lost.
In the application_controller.rb file, I simply use a
require 'profile'
require 'etc' #etc
and this loads the custom library files for the entire application, i.e., I don't have to use require commands in every controller.
For me, this was the solution I was looking for, and I thought I would add it to this answer to pass the information along.
Related
Let's say I have an Application that requires different files. Each file contains a single purpose "thing". I call it "thing" because I'm unsure if it will be a class or a module.
The First Thing
# things/one.rb
class One
def self.do_it
"I'm the one"
end
end
And the second
# things/two.rb
class Two
def self.do_it
"I'm not the only one!"
end
end
Now I wanna require all files in the thingsdirectory and execute the do_it method. But I wanna do this dynamically - for every thing in things folder without even knowing their Classname.
# app.rb
Dir["things/*.rb"].each {|file| require file }
Keep in Mind: I simply wanna execute the code in the things files - it's not necessary that they are Classes or Modules
You can't reliably do this for a number of reasons, but the most important is that you're under no obligations to declare a single class in any given file, or a class at all. You've got the right idea with loading in all files in a particular directory, but if you need to operate on those there's two ways to crack that nut.
The easiest way is to declare these classes as a subclass of some already known parent. ActiveSupport has the descendents method to reflect on a particular class, that's part of Rails, but you can also do it the hard way if you have to.
The second easiest way is to correlate the names with the classes in them, and then convert filenames to class-names algorithmically. This is how the Rails autoloader works. cat.rb contains Cat, bad_dog.rb contains BadDog and so on.
If you look more closely at how things like Test::Unit work they take the first approach, any declared test subclasses are executed before the Ruby process terminates. It's a fairly simple system that puts no constraints on what the files are called or where and how the classes are declared.
Rails leans towards the second approach where the path communicates intent. This makes finding files more predictable but requires more discipline on the part of the developer to conform to that standard.
They both have merit. Pick the one that works for your use case.
I have 2 files which should be run in order. I create run.rb file:
files =[
'./file-name-1.rb',
'./file-name-2.rb',
]
files.each do |file|
require file
end
And run it. Are there more correct methods of solving this problem?
Since it is file-name-2.rb that depends on file-name-1.rb, then it should be the one to require "file-name-1.rb". It should not be run.rb's job to know what another file's dependencies are. The correct way to solve this, then, is:
file-name-2.rb
require "file-name-1.rb"
# ...
run.rb
require "file-name-2.rb
# ....
And, as Frederick suggests in the comments above, it's unorthodox for a file to do work other than declaring constants (classes, modules) and/or methods at the time it's required. Instead, it should define methods to do that work, and then other files that require it can invoke those methods. This way you always know exactly when the work will be done, even if your application has a complex dependency structure.
A quirk of Ruby's require is that, while in general, it will only load a file once, if that file is accessible via multiple paths (e.g. symlinks), it can be required multiple times. This causes problems when there are things like class-level metaprogramming, or in general a code that should only be executed once on file loading, getting executed multiple times.
Is there any way, from inside a Ruby class definition, to tell whether the class has been defined before? I thought defined? or Object.const_get might tell me, but from those it looks like the class is defined as soon as it's opened.
This is not an answer to your question in the second paragraph, but a solution to the issue in your first paragraph. Actually, you cannot avoid multiple file loads by checking whether a class was defined already.
Instead of doing:
require some_file_name
do:
require File.realpath(some_file_name)
By doing so, different symbolic links pointing to the same real file would be normalized to the same real file name, and hence multiple loading of them would be correctly filtered by require.
Cf. this question and the answer given there.
The real solution is that requiring that a piece of code is only executed once is bad design and you should fix that.
However, what you could do is simply set some flag that the code has already been executed and check that flag. E.g.:
class Foo
unless #__executed__
def bla; end
puts 'Test'
end
#__executed__ = true
end
I am currently working through the Well Grounded Rubyist. Great book so far. I am stuck on something I don't quite get with ruby. I have two files
In ModuleTester.rb
class ModuleTester
include MyFirstModule
end
mt = ModuleTester.new
mt.say_hello
In MyFirstModule.rb
module MyFirstModule
def say_hello
puts "hello"
end
end
When I run 'ruby ModuleTester.rb', I get the following message:
ModuleTester.rb:2:in <class:ModuleTester>': uninitialized constant ModuleTester::MyFirstModule (NameError)
from ModuleTester.rb:1:in'
From what I have found online, the current directory isn't in the the namespace, so it can't see the file. But, the include statement doesn't take a string to let me give the path. Since the include statement and require statements do different things, I am absolutely lost
as to how to get the include statement to recognize the module. I looked through other questions, but they all seem to be using the require statement. Any hints are greatly appreciated.
You use require to load a file, not include. :-)
First, you have to require the file containing the module you want to include. Then you can include the module.
If you're using Rails, it has some magic to automagically require the right file first. But otherwise, you have to do it yourself.
You need to require the file before you can use types defined in it. *
# my_first_module.rb
module MyFirstModule
def say_hello
puts 'hello'
end
end
Note the require at the beginning of the following:
# module_tester.rb
require 'my_first_module'
class ModuleTester
include MyFirstModule
end
mt = ModuleTester.new
mt.say_hello
The require method actually loads and executes the script specified, using the Ruby VM's load path ($: or $LOAD_PATH) to find it when the argument is not an absolute path.
The include method, on the other hand actually mixes in a Module's methods into the current class. It's closely related to extend. The Well Grounded Rubyist does a great job of covering all this, though, so I encourage you to continue plugging through it.
See the #require, #include and #extend docs for more information.
* Things work a bit differently when using Rubygems and/or Bundler, but getting into those details is likely to confuse you more than it's worth at this point.
I'm reading through "Programming Ruby 1.9". On page 208 (in a "Where to Put Tests" section), the book has the code organized as
roman
lib/
roman.rb
other files...
test/
test_roman.rb
other_tests...
other stuff
and asks how we get our test_roman.rb file to know about the roman.rb file.
It says that one option that doesn't work is to build the path into require statements in the test code:
# in test_roman.rb
require 'test/unit'
require '../lib/roman'
Instead, it says a better solution is for all other components of the application to assume that the top-level directory of the application is in Ruby's load path, so that the test code would have
# in test_roman.rb
require 'test/unit'
require '/lib/roman'
and we'd run the tests by calling ruby -I path/to/app path/to/app/test/test_roman.rb.
My question is: is this realy the best way? It seems like
If we simply replaced require '../lib/roman' in the first option with require_relative '../lib/roman', everything would work fine.
The assumption in the second option (that all components have the top-level directory in Ruby's load path) only works because we pass the -I path/to/app argument, which seems a little messy.
Am I correct that replacing require with require_relative fixes all the problems? Is there any reason to prefer the second option anyways?
Further on, that same book makes use of require_relative (Chapter 16, Organizing your source code) in the context of testing, so yes, I would say that using it is a Good Thing, since it "always loads files from a path relative to the directory of the file that invokes it".
Of course, like #christiangeek noticed, require_relative is new in the 1.9 series, but there's a gem that provides you with the same functionality.
It might be worth pointing out that the Pickaxe too provides a little method you can stick in your code in the same chapter I mentioned before.
require_relative does make the code cleaner but is only available natively on Ruby > 1.9.2. Which means if you want want your code to be portable to versions of Ruby < 1.9.2 you need to use a extension or the regular require AFAIK. The book is most likely a) written before 1.9.2 became widespread or b) providing a example for lowest common denominator.