It seems like there are no guidelines on Ruby Gem package submission. There's no way to tell what is the definitive package for your needs. At least not within the Gem framework itself. Or am I missing something?
For example: I found out about "ActiveLDAP". I did
gem search ldap --remote
and got back
*** REMOTE GEMS ***
activeldap (1.0.2)
ambitious-activeldap (0.1.1)
ruby-activeldap (0.8.3.1)
ruby-activeldap-debug (0.7.4)
I ended up installing 'activeldap' and 'ruby-activeldap'. Turns out they're the same package: "ruby-activeldap" is just an older version.
Is there a way within the Gems framework to differentiate them, without having to Google for the answer. A short doc string, for example, or a dependency tree?
Seems like there are lots of these type of discrepancies in Gems.
If you are installing the gem because of a dependency in a script, you might be able to tell based on:
require_gem 'rake', '>=0.7.0', '<0.9.0'
Other than that, I am not sure either to be completely honest. I would usually go with the latest version of something in cases where a require does not specify which one is needed.
[edit]
I would use the one that appears to be the most mature first (1.0 over 0.X).
[/edit]
I think you could look around and find guidelines, but whether or not they're followed is an entirely different matter!
This is open source software - it costs you nothing to buy, but I'm afraid you're going to have to invest some time to determine if a package does what you want.
It's relatively straightforward to determine how recently a gem has been released and how many times and with what frequency updates have occurred. These are indicators that the source is being actively maintained and that effort is going into its continuing relevance. You can also look at tests (usually installed with the package), existence of bug tracking facilities, discussion groups or forums and the like in order to assess the degree of commitment from the developer(s) and the amount of penetration and community around the code.
Beyond that, what were you hoping for? Value for money? Some central authority that accredits the fitness for purpose of a library? It ain't going to happen any time soon, and that's probably, on balance, no bad thing.
You can get more detail in your search results that might help you narrow it down if you use the details and all options:
gem search activeldap --remote --details --all
all shows the list of versions.
Part of the output:
activeldap (1.0.2, 1.0.1, 1.0.0, 0.10.0, 0.9.0)
Authors: Will Drewry, Kouhei Sutou
Rubyforge: http://rubyforge.org/projects/ruby-activeldap
Homepage: http://rubyforge.org/projects/ruby-activeldap/
Ruby/ActiveLdap is a object-oriented API to LDAP
ambitious-activeldap (0.1.1, 0.1.0)
Author: Matthew King
Rubyforge: http://rubyforge.org/projects/ambition
Homepage: http://ambition.rubyforge.org/
An ambitious adapter for ActiveLDAP
Beyond that, as Mike said, it's sort of a matter of poking around on the Web to try to suss out what's the most relevant version.
One thing to note: wholesale migration around mid 2007 in the Ruby/Rails communities to Github. So if you find something but it's not on Github, make sure it's not some old version that's been superseded.
Related
My question is about the ruby-doc.org documentation, but also relates to the ri documentation lookup inside ruby.
I've already read dozens of similar questions/answers about the ri not working and giving "nothing known" messages and I've tried to follow some of that old advice. It just seems that those old answers aren't applicable to me.
One was to install the rdoc --all --ri from the ruby root directory. I tried that and it failed (unable to convert to UTF8 or something like that).
Another suggested that the rubyinstaller for windows installer just doesn't contain that info anymore and I should use the online documentation, which, when I goto http://ruby-doc.org/downloads/ I discover that the version I am using (2.4.4) does not exist.
This is odd, because the rubyinstaller site specifically says that if I'm new to Ruby(which I am), I should install 2.4.4. You'd think that if any version had good documentation, it would be that one. Instead, it seems to be missing entirely.
This all started because I am trying to learn Ruby and am watching the Lynda.com course on Ruby by Kevin Skoglund, which was recorded many versions ago and in that course he refers to the ri command from the shell, which in my version doesn't work. see below:
ruby --version
ruby 2.4.4p296 (2018-03-28 revision 63013) [x64-mingw32]
ri --version
ri.cmd 5.0.0
ri String
Nothing known about String
Now, if it's not available within ruby using ri, and I have to use online documentation, AND it's missing for my version, which happens to be the version recommended for new users, … you see my frustration.
Here's what I really want...
1. I want to use ri and have it work.
2. If that's just not possible, I'd like to know where the documentation for my version is online, because it's not where it's supposed to be.
Any help is appreciated. If it involves installing anything, letting me know HOW to do that is also appreciated. As I mentioned, I'm new.
Since you are using the RubyInstaller, I will assume that you are on Windows.
I will open this by saying that I am not 100% on this, but I am pretty condfident in this answer.
The "Use 2.4, not 2.5" was due to errors with Ruby Gem when Ruby 2.5
was first released, as I happen to be on a Windows machine installing
Ruby at that exact time, and that was the reasoning at that point not
to use the newest 2.5 version.
The above mentioned reason has since been corrected.
Realistically, if you are beginner, as long as you using documentation that is close to your version (2.0+ - 2.4-ish), it will be fine. Now obviously, and I shouldn't have to provide this disclaimer, though I will so to avoid the inevitable down-votes if I don't, this is not 100% perfect solution and there will be very small differences. As a beginner, the likelihood of you encountering any of these differences are extremely low, low enough not to even worry about. There are missing and poorly documented sections of every language, and Ruby is no exception. Typically these are less used classes (though Ruby Fiddle is an exception that I hate how poorly documented it is), and will have no effect on your learning process as you learn the fundamentals and core of the language.
To my recollection, the "core" is rather well documented, and so long as you use documentation from 2.0+ (the closer to 2.4 the better), you should be completely fine, and it is exactly the same. The "standard library" may be slightly more hit or miss, and your mileage may vary a little more, yet still nothing too extreme.
So, to address the second part of your question, do not worry too hard about finding the EXACT version of documentation you are using. It may not even exist online, though the installer should have provided a CHM help file (there will be shortcut for it with the shortcuts for Ruby, IRB, etc.
As for "why" ri is not working, I am not 100% sure yet again. I am on ArchLinux, and RDoc doesn't even built. Honestly, RDoc is being left by the wayside for newer (and IMO better) document engine, namely YARD. A possible solution that I do, and prefer, is to install the YARD gem right after I install Ruby:
gem install yard
And then set YARD to generate my documentation with this in CMD:
yard config --gem-install-yri
If you decide to take this route, much more can be learned about it here.
The benefit with it is that it also supports RDoc and is backwards compatible.
I'm really just a beginner to ruby, so hopefully this is an easy one. I've got to the point where I'm starting to look into some of the gems that the community have put together. I decided to check out something that would help my application consume rss feeds. So, headed over to rubygems (which is where i thought people go to get these kinds of things) and searched for rss. I found this one;
http://rubygems.org/gems/simple-rss
instructions were to just install the gem with
gem install simple-rss
So far, so good. When i came to actually use the gem, the documentation I received from doing the above was a bit naff, so i searched a bit further and found the git repo;
https://github.com/cardmagic/simple-rss
The documentation there (their code examples) complain about missing methods etc. and after a bit of digging I came to the conclusion that I must have downloaded an older version of the gem than the git trunk.
So, my question is, should I be using rubygems to get the latest gems, and if not, what other resources are out there to help find the latest builds of the comminities gems?
As far as finding a good gem for a task — use Ruby Toolbox, since it also shows you how actively maintained a gem is. Here's, for example, a section on feed parsing.
If you want to get the latest gem code that hasn't been released yet, you could download the code directly from github and build the gem yourself. However, it's easier to use bundler for that. It allows you to create a Gemfile for your project looking something like the following.
gem 'simple_rss', :git => "git://github.com/cardmagic/simple-rss.git"
Then run bundle command to download and build these gems from their corresponding sources.
In general, bundler is a great solution for managing gem dependencies for any ruby project. It provides ways to quickly reference any released gems, automatically builds gems directly from a git source, git refs, or paths on your filesystem, and has other convenient features.
By far the best place for all things Ruby & Ruby on Rails for the devs is the Ruby Toolbox
I've looked in a lot of places - including www.rubygems.org - but can't find any tutorial that describes an easy, straightforward, technique for producing gems that doesn't rely on other (non-standard-Ruby) components, such as newgem and hoe.
I have several requirements for gem production, from the simplest case of one library file+one test file, to complex ones involving C source files and multiple utility .rb files.
All help gratefully received!
I was researching gem making recently and was also surprised that there wasn't a single, obvious way that everyone does it like how RubyGems is the one-stop shop for managing gems. I discovered that you can actually use Bundler to create gems, and I've chosen this route for my own gems. Take a look at this guide on gem development with Bundler by Radar.
look into Jeweler or one of these options:
http://ruby-toolbox.com/categories/gem_creation.html
its seems like overkill, but you don't need to use all the options, you can use it just to create the skeleton of the gem.
I've recently been looking into the same thing. Here are a few sources I found useful Walk through of a simple gem, Gem spec reference. Also I found it useful to check out large projects on github and model after them Thor's Gem spec.
Don't know if you've seen "Gemcutter Is The New Official Default RubyGem Host", but it's a good starting point. RubyGems.org is a good second stop to read Creating Your Own Gem.
The Ruby (and RoR) community publishes a large number of gems. But more often than not using these gems requires a good amount of effort, specially if one is new to Ruby. It would to be nice if Ruby experts (rockstars) share the best approaches to utilize inadequately documented gems.
Thanks
--arsh
As my manager likes to say:
The truth is in the code.
Look for examples of how others have used it, and modify as necessary.
There are frequently example directories in gems
Search the internet, people like to put this stuff in blogs
Read the docs.
Maybe posted on github
Frequently a link from the rubygems page
If installed as a gem, you can host your own server with $ gem server then go to localhost:8808 to get a list of all your installed gems, and you click the one you are interested in to see its documentation.
Look for tutorials that cover the gem
Railscasts are great for this
Many gems will have a wiki on github
Many of the more useful / cool / fun gems will be talked about in different books. You can get a lot of tutorials about how to deal with a given gem by getting a book that uses that gem to do something. The downside of this is that these kinds of books tend to go out of date pretty quickly.
Look at the code
If the code base is small, or you have a specific question about how something works, or want the truly definitive source, go check out the code.
If the code is installed as a gem, you can type $ gem environment and it will tell you your rubygems dir. Go there, cd into the gem you are interested in, check out its code in the lib directory.
Ask a mailing list
If a gem or project is large enough, it will have its own mailing list. You can usually find these by going to its homepage or reading its readme.
If not, try asking about the gem on the Ruby or the Ruby on Rails mailing lists.
You can always give your own gems a rockstar promotion. Vimeo: Zombie-chaser version 0.1: Mutation testing ... with zombies!
I'm confused about the world of Ruby Gems. There are several well-known repositories. Which is the right one, or does it matter?
I guess Gemcutter is the hip repository right now. They definitely have the nicest-looking website. Does that mean I should get my gems from there?
The main reason I'm asking is that I want to make sure I'm getting the latest release of the gem. If I don't specify the source, am I in danger of installing a crap version of the gem, or am I bugging?
Why is there more than one repository anyway?
GitHub gem building is defunct -- it got disabled for an upgrade, and was never re-enabled because GemCutter is taking over that role. There are no new gems being generated on GitHub.
RubyForge is planning to phase phase out gem hosting too -- GemCutter will become the standard source for gems.
Edit: The whole migration plan is here
Go gemcutter. It's been publicized that gemcutter is going to become the new de facto. But, if you can't find the gem on gemcutter, you have to look at github or rubyforge. Hopefully most people will (if they haven't already) start moving towards gemcutter.
I think that's where "we" are at right now.
Why is there more than one repository anyway?
Because you can run your very own gem server and install from that (some folks use it on large deployments to host their own gems).