Ruby on Rails Love-In

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Ruby on Rails Love-In

«‹›178 »

aunt jenkins: Jan 12, 2001

Pollyanna posted:

I'm guessing it's like any other conference, but with more people sitting on the floor with their laptops?

And all the laptops are Macs.

See you there! PM me if you want a New Relic sticker.

# ? May 3, 2016 03:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 11:00

A MIRACLE: Sep 17, 2007; All right. It's Saturday night; I have no date, a two-liter bottle of Shasta and my all-Rush mix-tape... Let's rock.

macs are just what they buy us okay

# ? May 3, 2016 05:24

KoRMaK: Jul 31, 2012

aunt jemima posted:

And all the laptops are Macs.

See you there! PM me if you want a New Relic sticker.

Oh man you with new relic? We use you.

I wont be at the conf

A MIRACLE posted:

macs are just what they buy us okay

I have a leneovo :downs:

# ? May 4, 2016 03:38

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

I'll be at the New Relic party, so I might see you there

# ? May 4, 2016 15:41

aunt jenkins: Jan 12, 2001

Pollyanna posted:

I'll be at the New Relic party, so I might see you there

Indeed you will. We have like 100+ people wait listed for our lil get-together so it should be fun. Definitely say hi and get a sticker, I'm the tall door-shaped dude in NR swag :shobon:

# ? May 4, 2016 16:44

aunt jenkins: Jan 12, 2001

Also I should've slept in instead of attending this meandering word soup of a keynote :argh:

# ? May 4, 2016 16:47

Pardot: Jul 25, 2001

This is the first railsconf I've missed since 2007, but the last several I'm mostly worked a booth and drank, and didn't go to any talks so it's alright. Have a good everyone

# ? May 4, 2016 16:52

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

Tickets sold out awwww. Oh well, I'll keep an eye out for door Jemima dude anyway :v:

# ? May 4, 2016 23:06

Peristalsis: Apr 5, 2004; Move along.

We have a rails 4 app that uses Devise for logging in, and which can be accessed with an API with cURL. Users can log in with a cURL POST command, download XML data, update certain records, etc. But, I've never been able to enable explicit logging out through cURL - either the cURL command seems to work, but doesn't affect the session, or I get a CSRF error, or something else goes wrong. Then it occurred to me this morning - the user can just delete the cookie on their local machine, which should effectively kill their ability to login. It just seems too simple - is there any problem with this approach? Sessions automatically expire after 30 minutes of inactivity, so I don't think I need to worry about valid session data clogging up the system (though I don't see any session data in the database anyway).

# ? May 5, 2016 15:55

KoRMaK: Jul 31, 2012

cURL uses cookies?????!

# ? May 5, 2016 15:57

Peristalsis: Apr 5, 2004; Move along.

KoRMaK posted:

cURL uses cookies?????!

Yep. Try this:

code:

curl --cookie-jar ~/my_cookie_file --data "user[login]=login_name&user[password]=password&commit=Sign+in" 
http://localhost:3000/users/sign_in

Followed, for example, by this:

code:

curl --cookie ~/my_cookie_file http://localhost:3000/some_models/1.xml

# ? May 5, 2016 16:09

necrotic: Aug 2, 2005; I owe my brother big time for this!

Peristalsis posted:

We have a rails 4 app that uses Devise for logging in, and which can be accessed with an API with cURL. Users can log in with a cURL POST command, download XML data, update certain records, etc. But, I've never been able to enable explicit logging out through cURL - either the cURL command seems to work, but doesn't affect the session, or I get a CSRF error, or something else goes wrong. Then it occurred to me this morning - the user can just delete the cookie on their local machine, which should effectively kill their ability to login. It just seems too simple - is there any problem with this approach? Sessions automatically expire after 30 minutes of inactivity, so I don't think I need to worry about valid session data clogging up the system (though I don't see any session data in the database anyway).

By default, rails stores session data in the cookie. So deleting the cookie effectively removes that session from existence.

# ? May 5, 2016 18:08

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

Shook Michael Hartl's hand and bought him a beer tonight. I had to apologize to him for initially blowing off the TDD part of his book when I first read it. :v:

EDIT: my coworker is talking about world of warcraft with him now

this is my night guys. this is happening

EDIT 2: photobombed him

Pollyanna fucked around with this message at 03:37 on May 6, 2016

# ? May 6, 2016 02:38

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Are there any decent alternatives to active record that implement a proper data mapping pattern and play nice with the ecosystem.

I'm fairly new to rails (Coming from a django background, new jobs uses rails), but was completely dumbstruck that active record doesnt create database constrains on relationships, and the dude who wrote them apparently doesnt believe in them. Thats a pretty bad sign in my books, so whats the alternatives?

# ? May 9, 2016 22:39

A MIRACLE: Sep 17, 2007; All right. It's Saturday night; I have no date, a two-liter bottle of Shasta and my all-Rush mix-tape... Let's rock.

There's DataMapper but it's a piece of poo poo compared to Activerecord imo

Also they don't support newer versions of rails

If you want foreign key constraints can't you just add those manually?

# ? May 9, 2016 22:43

Less Fat Luke: May 23, 2003; Exciting Lemon

duck monster posted:

Are there any decent alternatives to active record that implement a proper data mapping pattern and play nice with the ecosystem.

I'm fairly new to rails (Coming from a django background, new jobs uses rails), but was completely dumbstruck that active record doesnt create database constrains on relationships, and the dude who wrote them apparently doesnt believe in them. Thats a pretty bad sign in my books, so whats the alternatives?

Rails now has foreign key constraints as of 4.2:
http://edgeguides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_migrations.html#active-record-and-referential-integrity

Prior to that anyone who really wanted them was (and still probably are) using a pair of gems named immigrant and foreigner.

That being said you could use DataMapper as mentioned or Sequel I guess. Honestly I've worked with a lot of fairly large Rails apps with and without constraints and it's not nearly as bad as I thought it'd be (I had the same hesitations as you do).

# ? May 9, 2016 22:46

good jovi: Dec 11, 2000; 'm pro-dickgirl, and I VOTE!

duck monster posted:

I'm fairly new to rails (Coming from a django background, new jobs uses rails), but was completely dumbstruck that active record doesnt create database constrains on relationships, and the dude who wrote them apparently doesnt believe in them. Thats a pretty bad sign in my books, so whats the alternatives?

AR will create foreign key constraints if you tell it to - http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_migrations.html#foreign-keys

The only other ORM I've seen any kind of support for in the Rails world is Mongoid, and gently caress that noise.

# ? May 9, 2016 22:49

Chilled Milk: Jun 22, 2003; No one here is alone,
satellites in every home

1. gently caress DataMapper
2. There is a successor to DataMapper, and it's supposed to be nice if you're into that sort of thing. http://rom-rb.org/
3. ActiveRecord has its faults, but unless you're really sure it doesn't fit your needs, you're best off sticking with it. It absolutely does support FK restraints, among other things, just doesn't do it automatically for Reasons.

vv Yeah, ROM-sql uses Sequel under the hood. That part is solid enough.

Chilled Milk fucked around with this message at 02:41 on May 10, 2016

# ? May 10, 2016 02:04

Pardot: Jul 25, 2001

I use Sequel, even with rails. It is perhaps the best maintained software project ever. There are never any open issues because Jeremy Evans fixes everything right away. There is one release a month with just small incremental changes. Every month. Use sequel and use postgres.

Edit: well, it was a bit of a pain to get it to fit into rails. Not huge but defiantly not drop in. It's worth it for me because it's so much better than AR, but I could see it not being worth it for others. If you do stick with AR do something like this to not get the bad defaults AR uses for data types

code:

# config/initializers/postgres_types.rb
ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::PostgreSQLAdapter::NATIVE_DATABASE_TYPES.tap do |t|
  t[:primary_key] = "bigserial primary key"
  t[:datetime] = "timestamptz"
  t[:timestamp] = "timestamptz"
  t[:string] = "text"
end

Pardot fucked around with this message at 02:15 on May 10, 2016

# ? May 10, 2016 02:11

A MIRACLE: Sep 17, 2007; All right. It's Saturday night; I have no date, a two-liter bottle of Shasta and my all-Rush mix-tape... Let's rock.

The Milkman posted:

1. gently caress DataMapper

Datamapper is a pile of poo poo and I'm currently working on a project that uses it extensively. And there are zero unit tests. Anyone hiring right now? I'm good at javascript too? lol.

Sequel is pretty awesome from what I've used it for (one off scripting)

# ? May 10, 2016 03:23

DONT THREAD ON ME: Oct 1, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo; Floss Finder

Just use Arel and write your own migrations. Youll be so much happier.

# ? May 11, 2016 00:58

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

I should look into Sequel.

Our app is getting unwieldy, and I'll have the chance to do some refactoring soon. What's the current best resource/guidelines for refactoring controllers, models, etc.?

Edit: if it helps, all our controller methods tend to look like this and this.

Pollyanna fucked around with this message at 15:45 on May 12, 2016

# ? May 12, 2016 15:28

kayakyakr: Feb 16, 2004; Kayak is true

Pollyanna posted:

I should look into Sequel.

Our app is getting unwieldy, and I'll have the chance to do some refactoring soon. What's the current best resource/guidelines for refactoring controllers, models, etc.?

Edit: if it helps, all our controller methods tend to look like this and this.

switch to a service pattern. Sequel's probably not going to help you much.

# ? May 12, 2016 16:07

KoRMaK: Jul 31, 2012

Pollyanna posted:

I should look into Sequel.

Our app is getting unwieldy, and I'll have the chance to do some refactoring soon. What's the current best resource/guidelines for refactoring controllers, models, etc.?

Edit: if it helps, all our controller methods tend to look like this and this.

[screams internally] :stare:

# ? May 12, 2016 16:11

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

kayakyakr posted:

switch to a service pattern. Sequel's probably not going to help you much.

Oh, no, Sequel's not related to our app, it's a personal project thing.

A Service pattern sounds much more like what we need. I'll look into that too!

KoRMaK posted:

[screams internally]

Welcome to my past half year. None of the old devs had Ruby or Rails experience when they made this, and in fact it was a manager that first put the thing together under orders (long story). The only other dev was mostly a Java programmer. So, it was put together by a couple Rails newbies, and one non-programmer.

I'm now one of two devs (not the originals) on the product team, so I own this thing. I will make it not poo poo or die trying.

Pollyanna fucked around with this message at 18:05 on May 12, 2016

# ? May 12, 2016 16:12

Chilled Milk: Jun 22, 2003; No one here is alone,
satellites in every home

Pollyanna posted:

I should look into Sequel.

Our app is getting unwieldy, and I'll have the chance to do some refactoring soon. What's the current best resource/guidelines for refactoring controllers, models, etc.?

Edit: if it helps, all our controller methods tend to look like this and this.

Well, I suddenly feel much better about myself.

# ? May 12, 2016 16:31

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

There is always more, and it is always worse.

# ? May 12, 2016 18:03

A MIRACLE: Sep 17, 2007; All right. It's Saturday night; I have no date, a two-liter bottle of Shasta and my all-Rush mix-tape... Let's rock.

That's quite tidy compared with the Datamapper shitshow I'm wrestling with at my new job. As an added bonus we have 0% test coverage and if something breaks "it's my rear end!"

# ? May 12, 2016 18:09

The Journey Fraternity: Nov 25, 2003; I found this on the ground!

Pollyanna posted:

There is always more, and it is always worse.

Let us see `rake stats` :v:

# ? May 12, 2016 18:09

A MIRACLE: Sep 17, 2007; All right. It's Saturday night; I have no date, a two-liter bottle of Shasta and my all-Rush mix-tape... Let's rock.

code:

vagrant@vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64:/vagrant/CCG$ rake stats
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Name                 | Lines |   LOC | Classes | Methods | M/C | LOC/M |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Controllers          | 19371 | 14788 |     129 |     868 |   6 |    15 |
| Helpers              |  1300 |  1016 |       0 |     113 |   0 |     6 |
| Models               | 26032 | 19209 |     215 |    1701 |   7 |     9 |
| Libraries            |  7900 |  5859 |     122 |     629 |   5 |     7 |
| Controller specs     |   365 |   295 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Lib specs            |   322 |   233 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Model specs          |  3034 |  2553 |      11 |       4 |   0 |   636 |
| Service specs        |   118 |   108 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Total                | 58442 | 44061 |     477 |    3315 |   6 |    11 |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
  Code LOC: 40872     Test LOC: 3189     Code to Test Ratio: 1:0.1

# ? May 12, 2016 18:12

KoRMaK: Jul 31, 2012

Where can I find a style-guide for ruby 2.0.0 and raisl 3.2 era? The github repos don't have tags

https://github.com/bbatsov/ruby-style-guide/

https://github.com/bbatsov/rails-style-guide

# ? May 12, 2016 18:48

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

The Journey Fraternity posted:

Let us see `rake stats`

haha

code:

+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+

| Name &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; | Lines | &#160; LOC | Classes | Methods | M/C | LOC/M |

+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+

| Controllers &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160;| &#160;2459 | &#160;1852 | &#160; &#160; &#160;23 | &#160; &#160; 244 | &#160;10 | &#160; &#160; 5 |

| Helpers &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160;| &#160; 198 | &#160; 163 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; &#160;16 | &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; 8 |

| Models &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; | &#160; 922 | &#160; 729 | &#160; &#160; &#160;23 | &#160; &#160; 113 | &#160; 4 | &#160; &#160; 4 |

| Mailers &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160;| &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; 0 |

| Javascripts &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160;| &#160;1981 | &#160;1164 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; 139 | &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; 6 |

| Libraries &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160;| &#160; 358 | &#160; 294 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 1 | &#160; &#160; &#160;46 | &#160;46 | &#160; &#160; 4 |

| Controller specs &#160; &#160; | &#160; 715 | &#160; 535 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; 0 |

| Helper specs &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; | &#160; &#160;21 | &#160; &#160;17 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; 0 |

| Model specs &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160;| &#160;1087 | &#160; 813 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 2 | &#160; 0 | &#160; 404 |

| Request specs &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160;| &#160; 834 | &#160; 605 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; &#160;14 | &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160;41 |

| Routing specs &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160;| &#160; &#160;39 | &#160; &#160;29 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; 0 |

| View specs &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; | &#160; &#160;85 | &#160; &#160;31 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160; &#160; 1 | &#160; 0 | &#160; &#160;29 |

+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+

| Total &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160;| &#160;8699 | &#160;6232 | &#160; &#160; &#160;47 | &#160; &#160; 575 | &#160;12 | &#160; &#160; 8 |

+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+

&#160; Code LOC: 4202 &#160; &#160; Test LOC: 2030 &#160; &#160; Code to Test Ratio: 1:0.5

This is without our Views, which are horrid. Inline JS and styling, comments to the tune of "BEGIN MAIN PAGE SECTION" etc. It's a joke.

Edit gently caress oh whateverrrr

Pollyanna fucked around with this message at 19:23 on May 12, 2016

# ? May 12, 2016 19:20

The Journey Fraternity: Nov 25, 2003; I found this on the ground!

code:

+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Name                 | Lines |   LOC | Classes | Methods | M/C | LOC/M |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Controllers          |  2459 |  1852 |      23 |     244 |  10 |     5 |
| Helpers              |   198 |   163 |       0 |      16 |   0 |     8 |
| Models               |   922 |   729 |      23 |     113 |   4 |     4 |
| Mailers              |     0 |     0 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Javascripts          |  1981 |  1164 |       0 |     139 |   0 |     6 |
| Libraries            |   358 |   294 |       1 |      46 |  46 |     4 |
| Controller specs     |   715 |   535 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Helper specs         |    21 |    17 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Model specs          |  1087 |   813 |       0 |       2 |   0 |   404 |
| Request specs        |   834 |   605 |       0 |      14 |   0 |    41 |
| Routing specs        |    39 |    29 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| View specs           |    85 |    31 |       0 |       1 |   0 |    29 |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Total                |  8699 |  6232 |      47 |     575 |  12 |     8 |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
  Code LOC: 4202     Test LOC: 2030     Code to Test Ratio: 1:0.5

Still not as bad as I'd expect from those nutjob snippets.

# ? May 12, 2016 19:34

aunt jenkins: Jan 12, 2001

code:

+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Name                 | Lines  |   LOC  | Classes | Methods | M/C | LOC/M |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Controllers          |  41295 |  32489 |     409 |    2871 |   7 |     9 |
| Helpers              |  14802 |  12154 |       3 |    1300 | 433 |     7 |
| Models               |  67383 |  45900 |     686 |    5668 |   8 |     6 |
| Libraries            |  51124 |  38149 |     727 |    4464 |   6 |     6 |
| Integration tests    |   4678 |   3738 |      55 |      18 |   0 |   205 |
| Functional tests     |  54669 |  45044 |     314 |     422 |   1 |   104 |
| Unit tests           | 133438 | 109532 |    1063 |    1237 |   1 |    86 |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Total                | 367389 | 287006 |    3257 |   15980 |   4 |    15 |
+----------------------+--------+--------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
  Code LOC: 128692     Test LOC: 158314     Code to Test Ratio: 1:1.2

# ? May 12, 2016 20:01

necrotic: Aug 2, 2005; I owe my brother big time for this!

^^^ that's some good test numbers. Are they actually useful tests?

code:

+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Name                 | Lines |   LOC | Classes | Methods | M/C | LOC/M |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Controllers          | 30845 | 24620 |     357 |    2184 |   6 |     9 |
| Helpers              |  4403 |  3461 |       3 |     324 | 108 |     8 |
| Models               | 31846 | 23733 |     206 |    2230 |  10 |     8 |
| Libraries            | 124387 | 118080 |     579 |    1768 |   3 |    64 |
| Config specs         |    49 |    33 |       0 |       2 |   0 |    14 |
| Controller specs     | 38821 | 32933 |       2 |      40 |  20 |   821 |
| Decorator specs      |    64 |    54 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Gem specs            |    60 |    47 |       0 |       1 |   0 |    45 |
| Helper specs         |  3014 |  2623 |       3 |       2 |   0 |  1309 |
| Integration specs    |     2 |     1 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Job specs            |  4572 |  3832 |       2 |       6 |   3 |   636 |
| Lib specs            | 14068 | 11833 |      16 |      34 |   2 |   346 |
| Mailer specs         |   655 |   541 |       0 |       3 |   0 |   178 |
| Model specs          | 42593 | 35640 |      16 |      40 |   2 |   889 |
| Presenter specs      |    96 |    76 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Request specs        |   583 |   501 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Routing specs        |   132 |   112 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Uploader specs       |   178 |   144 |       0 |       1 |   0 |   142 |
| View specs           |   213 |   110 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Total                | 296581 | 258374 |    1184 |    6635 |   5 |    36 |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
  Code LOC: 169894     Test LOC: 88480     Code to Test Ratio: 1:0.5

Our specs are generally terrible, if not completely missing.

# ? May 12, 2016 20:21

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

Today is the first and only time I've ever heard "I miss PHP" and of course it's in the context of this app :shepicide:

Pollyanna fucked around with this message at 21:54 on May 12, 2016

# ? May 12, 2016 20:23

aunt jenkins: Jan 12, 2001

necrotic posted:

^^^ that's some good test numbers. Are they actually useful tests?

I feel like they are, I don't directly work on that monolith so I don't deal with it code-wise on a daily basis but in general we seem to have very good quality and testing practices overall, especially considering the contribution volume:

We have a number of what probably could be best explained as "service gems" (which I do work on) and there are some circa 2009 tests in the monolith that depend on private APIs in the gems, but as we push new releases and notice the breakage we're cleaning up. So pretty much the usual "legacy codebase" story.

# ? May 12, 2016 20:40

kayakyakr: Feb 16, 2004; Kayak is true

Contracting on:

code:

+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Name                 | Lines |   LOC | Classes | Methods | M/C | LOC/M |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Controllers          |  6550 |  5229 |      80 |     571 |   7 |     7 |
| Helpers              |  1538 |  1127 |       2 |     108 |  54 |     8 |
| Models               |  7203 |  4664 |      54 |     553 |  10 |     6 |
| Mailers              |   622 |   520 |       8 |      62 |   7 |     6 |
| Javascripts          | 11494 |  7011 |       0 |     852 |   0 |     6 |
| Libraries            |  2587 |  2111 |      25 |     220 |   8 |     7 |
| Controller specs     |  1981 |  1385 |       0 |       1 |   0 |  1383 |
| Worker specs         |    31 |    29 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Lib specs            |    94 |    85 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Request specs        |   737 |   600 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Helper specs         |   270 |   171 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Service specs        |   170 |   136 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Task specs           |   154 |   114 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Model specs          |  2325 |  1762 |       2 |       2 |   1 |   879 |
| Feature specs        |  1961 |  1463 |       0 |      22 |   0 |    64 |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Total                | 37717 | 26407 |     171 |    2391 |  13 |     9 |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
  Code LOC: 20662     Test LOC: 5745     Code to Test Ratio: 1:0.3

Startup:

code:

+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Name                 | Lines |   LOC | Classes | Methods | M/C | LOC/M |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Controllers          |  1655 |  1338 |      22 |     151 |   6 |     6 |
| Helpers              |   148 |   133 |       0 |      12 |   0 |     9 |
| Jobs                 |   281 |   210 |       6 |      19 |   3 |     9 |
| Models               |  2916 |  2229 |      68 |     170 |   2 |    11 |
| Mailers              |   137 |   101 |       5 |      13 |   2 |     5 |
| Javascripts          |    83 |    39 |       0 |       9 |   0 |     2 |
| Libraries            |    16 |    16 |       1 |       2 |   2 |     6 |
| Model specs          |  1739 |  1552 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Serializer specs     |    12 |    11 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Service specs        |    97 |    76 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Mailer specs         |    20 |    15 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Support specs        |    89 |    78 |       0 |       1 |   0 |    76 |
| Controller specs     |   698 |   615 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Job specs            |   432 |   391 |       0 |       0 |   0 |     0 |
| Ember                | 15916 | 13658 |       0 |    1577 |   0 |     6 |
| Ember Tests          |    63 |    50 |       0 |       3 |   0 |    14 |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
| Total                | 24302 | 20512 |     102 |    1957 |  19 |     8 |
+----------------------+-------+-------+---------+---------+-----+-------+
  Code LOC: 17724     Test LOC: 2788     Code to Test Ratio: 1:0.2

Booya Ember

# ? May 12, 2016 20:50

necrotic: Aug 2, 2005; I owe my brother big time for this!

aunt jemima posted:

I feel like they are, I don't directly work on that monolith so I don't deal with it code-wise on a daily basis but in general we seem to have very good quality and testing practices overall, especially considering the contribution volume:

We have a number of what probably could be best explained as "service gems" (which I do work on) and there are some circa 2009 tests in the monolith that depend on private APIs in the gems, but as we push new releases and notice the breakage we're cleaning up. So pretty much the usual "legacy codebase" story.

I'm a bit jealous. We've been working on pulling out bits of our monorail that would clearly be a cost savings benefit, but the vast majority of our product still lives (and evolves) in the monorail. Our testing coverage in those services is better than the legacy code, but still not great.

At least we're finally moving off of Ruby 1.9.3... next big upgrade is Rails :smithicide:

# ? May 12, 2016 21:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 11:00

aunt jenkins: Jan 12, 2001

necrotic posted:

At least we're finally moving off of Ruby 1.9.3... next big upgrade is Rails

3.0 to 3.2 took 3 developers 4 months. Good luck! :homebrew:

# ? May 12, 2016 21:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Ruby on Rails Love-In

«‹›178 »