Gem update of Rails - Skipping require of dynamic string

[jim]

Hi

I just updated rails. This is what I got:

jfn@indigo 101 /disk2/jfn > gem update
Upgrading installed gems...
Updating Gem source index for: http://gems.rubyforge.org
Attempting remote upgrade of actionpack
Attempting remote installation of 'actionpack'
Successfully installed actionpack, version 0.9.0
Installing RDoc documentation for actionpack-0.9.0...

lib/action_controller/scaffolding.rb:87:37: Skipping require of dynamic
string: "#{model_id.id2name}"
Attempting remote upgrade of activerecord
Attempting remote installation of 'activerecord'
Successfully installed activerecord, version 1.0.0
Installing RDoc documentation for activerecord-1.0.0...
Attempting remote upgrade of rails
Attempting remote installation of 'rails'
Install required dependency actionmailer? [Yn] y
Successfully installed rails, version 0.8.0
Installing RDoc documentation for rails-0.8.0...
WARNING: Generating RDoc on .gem that may not have RDoc.

lib/dispatcher.rb:34:67: Skipping require of dynamic string:
"#{Inflector.underscore(controller_name)}_controller"
Installing RDoc documentation for actionmailer-0.3.0...


Are the 'Skipping require of dynamic string' messages anything to worry
about?

 

[Austin Ziegler]

lib/action_controller/scaffolding.rb:87:37: Skipping require of dynamic
string: "#{model_id.id2name}"

Are the 'Skipping require of dynamic string' messages anything to worry
about?

Nope. This is Rdoc saying that it doesn't know what file it would have
to include, so ... it's not going to bother

You'll get it with TeX::Hyphen, too.

-austin

 

[Francis Hwang]

Are the 'Skipping require of dynamic string' messages anything to worry
about?

Nope. Basically this happens where you have, say

require "domain_classes/#{ domain_class_name }"

I've had this warning in Lafcadio from the start, because Lafcadio does
similar stuff in terms of inferring where files should be to reduce
user configuration.

F.

 

[gabriele renzi]

Francis Hwang ha scritto:

Nope. Basically this happens where you have, say

require "domain_classes/#{ domain_class_name }"

I've had this warning in Lafcadio from the start, because Lafcadio does
similar stuff in terms of inferring where files should be to reduce user
configuration.

why not using autoload?

 

[Dave Thomas]

Nope. Basically this happens where you have, say

require "domain_classes/#{ domain_class_name }"

Should I remove the warning?


Cheers

Dave

 

[Jamis Buck]

Should I remove the warning?

I think such warnings can be useful for debugging problems, but in
general they cause confusion (as we've seen). Can you add a "verbose"
option to rdoc (or does it already have one)? Then, if verbose mode is
on, display those kinds of warnings, otherwise ignore them.

Alternatively, if "quiet" was specified, you could suppress the warnings.

- Jamis

 

[gabriele renzi]

Jamis Buck ha scritto:

I think such warnings can be useful for debugging problems, but in
general they cause confusion (as we've seen). Can you add a "verbose"
option to rdoc (or does it already have one)? Then, if verbose mode is
on, display those kinds of warnings, otherwise ignore them.

Alternatively, if "quiet" was specified, you could suppress the warnings.

+1, seems very reasonable

 

[Francis Hwang]

Unless I misunderstand autoload (I've never used it), it won't help
what I need. Basically, the Lafcadio ObjectStore uses method_missing
more than I've ever seen it used, to make the ObjectStore instance a
proxy for a bunch of different ways to query a database. The most
common usage is:

os = ObjectStore.get_object_store
client = os.get_client( 1 )

Now, the ObjectStore can only load a Client if it's already loaded the
Client class. I wanted to support a bunch of different ways of doing
this, and one of them is having a domain directory with each class
living in a file of the same name.

/domain_classes/Client.rb
/domain_classes/Invoice.rb
/domain_classes/Project.rb
etc.

(this is only one way to organize the domain classes in Lafcadio; these
days I find I don't use this much, myself.)

So one of the things Lafcadio tries to do is load the class by doing a
dynamic require:

require "domain_classes/#{ domain_class_name }"

So you don't have to explicitly require those files yourself.

 

[gabriele renzi]

Francis Hwang ha scritto:

Unless I misunderstand autoload (I've never used it), it won't help what
I need. Basically, the Lafcadio ObjectStore uses method_missing more
than I've ever seen it used, to make the ObjectStore instance a proxy
for a bunch of different ways to query a database. The most common usage
is:

os = ObjectStore.get_object_store
client = os.get_client( 1 )

Now, the ObjectStore can only load a Client if it's already loaded the
Client class.

and this is where autoload would come, it loads the Client class
whenever it is used for the first time.

I wanted to support a bunch of different ways of doing
this, and one of them is having a domain directory with each class
living in a file of the same name.

/domain_classes/Client.rb
/domain_classes/Invoice.rb
/domain_classes/Project.rb
etc.

(this is only one way to organize the domain classes in Lafcadio; these
days I find I don't use this much, myself.)

So one of the things Lafcadio tries to do is load the class by doing a
dynamic require:

require "domain_classes/#{ domain_class_name }"

So you don't have to explicitly require those files yourself.

ah, now I see what you mean, thanks for taking time to explain