Rails - Apr 2009 - backup (*~) view files are being used instead of proper view

This is a weird one.  I just started making a new app, and have noticed
a weird problem:  I do my editing in gedit in linux, which saves backup
files as ''<filename>~'', eg "index.html.erb~"
for a view template.

I''m running mongrel, and when i refresh a page it''s loading
the backup
view file in preference to the ''proper'' file!  If
there''s no backup then
it loads the proper file.  I can''t work out why it''s doing
this - does
anyone have any ideas?

thanks
max
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

SOLVED - I upgraded to rails 2.3.2 (this problem was happening for me in 
2.3.0) and the problem went away.  It was definitely a problem with 
rails because i made a new app and it had the same problem, which also 
went away when i upgraded rails.

So, it seems that rails 2.3.0 prefers view files ending in
''.html.erb~''
to ones that end in ''html.erb''.  Something to watch out for. 
I''m still
curious as to why it was doing that, if anyone knows, and how to tell it 
not to (in case it starts happening again).
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

It''s related to how Rails is compiling templates.  It *more or less*
ignores the extensions and compiles all the files in all directories
under the app/view.  It can also bite you if you rename a file to move
it out to keep an original version while trying something or if you
have a straight html version of the file.  I''d suggest that you make
sure you don''t leave more than one view file with the same base name.
(i.e. if you try a haml version, rename the html.erb version.)
Remember this if you see a problem... else you would have to fix it by
overriding some core rails template code, which is a step on the road
to hurt!

Brendon

On Apr 22, 2:11 am, Max Williams
<rails-mailing-l...-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> SOLVED - I upgraded to rails 2.3.2 (this problem was happening for me in
> 2.3.0) and the problem went away.  It was definitely a problem with
> rails because i made a new app and it had the same problem, which also
> went away when i upgraded rails.
>
> So, it seems that rails 2.3.0 prefers view files ending in
''.html.erb~''
> to ones that end in ''html.erb''.  Something to watch out
for.  I''m still
> curious as to why it was doing that, if anyone knows, and how to tell it
> not to (in case it starts happening again).
> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.

HI brendon, thanks for answering.

I never saw this before v2.3.0 and it''s gone now that i upgraded again 
to 2.3.2.  Your answer suggests that it''s a natural behaviour of rails 
that one has to bear in mind, i''d disagree, it seems like a flat out 
bug.  In order to ''cure'' it without upgrading i''d
have to use a
different text editor, or set it to not make backups.  This isn''t
really
acceptable to me.  I''m not an authority on rails though, i''d
be
interested to know what others think.  Is it a bug?  or should i just 
keep backup files out of my view folders?  (in the hypothetical 
situation where i was forced to use v2.3.0)
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

On Apr 23, 8:22 am, Max Williams
<rails-mailing-l...-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> HI brendon, thanks for answering.
>  I''m not an authority on rails though, i''d be
> interested to know what others think.  Is it a bug?  or should i just
> keep backup files out of my view folders?  (in the hypothetical
> situation where i was forced to use v2.3.0)
2.3.0 was a release candidate - if you''re forced to use it something
is screwed up.

Fred
> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Hi Frederick

I''m not forced to use it at all, i already said i upgraded to 2.3.2. :)

I was just wondering about the hypothetical situation (in some parallel 
world) where i''m stuck using it and can''t just run away from
this
problem (like i did do by upgrading).
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

I may be talking rubbish here but I think when using a framework such as
Rails it might be considered bad practice to save backups in the project
directory structure.  In Rails the presence of a file is meaningful.  For
example it is not necessary to declare that a controller exists, if it is
present in the controllers directory then that controller exists.  As a
general principle then it could be argued that superfluous files should not
be saved in the project, just in case.

In addition many would argue that a version control system such as git
should be used, with commits to the local repository at every opportunity,
and therefore backups are not necessary at all.

2009/4/23 Max Williams
<rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org>
>
> Hi Frederick
>
> I''m not forced to use it at all, i already said i upgraded to
2.3.2. :)
>
> I was just wondering about the hypothetical situation (in some parallel
> world) where i''m stuck using it and can''t just run away
from this
> problem (like i did do by upgrading).
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Colin Law wrote:
> I may be talking rubbish here but I think when using a framework such as
> Rails it might be considered bad practice to save backups in the project
> directory structure.  In Rails the presence of a file is meaningful. 
> For
> example it is not necessary to declare that a controller exists, if it 
> is
> present in the controllers directory then that controller exists.  As a
> general principle then it could be argued that superfluous files should 
> not
> be saved in the project, just in case.
> 
> In addition many would argue that a version control system such as git
> should be used, with commits to the local repository at every 
> opportunity,
> and therefore backups are not necessary at all.
> 
> 2009/4/23 Max Williams
<rails-mailing-list-ARtvInVfO7ksV2N9l4h3zg@public.gmane.org>
Yeah, tbh i think you''re probably right.  I should just tell gedit to 
stop making backups, i very *very* rarely ever use them.  I already had 
to tell git to ignore them and occasionally one manages to slip through 
anyway, not great.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

I''d say that is rubbish, since many editors create backup files, swap
files and other junk following some pretty well defined conventions.
Rails template compile code is very greedy and doesn''t care much about
extensions, even extensions it doesn''t understand.  That is the bug.
Rails should not be the first application to completely ignore file
extensions and equate foo.html, foo.txt, foo.backup, foo.html.erb,
foo.rjs, foo.haml, foo.rhtml and foo.moved_out_the_way.html.erb as all
being equivalent...

As a general principle, source control systems ignore these files and
so should rails.  You are proposing that anything in the file tree is
100% fair game for Rails which would require many normal development
activities to be modified in inconvenient ways...

On Apr 23, 1:55 am, Colin Law
<clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> I may be talking rubbish here but I think when using a framework such as
> Rails it might be considered bad practice to save backups in the project
> directory structure.  In Rails the presence of a file is meaningful.  For
> example it is not necessary to declare that a controller exists, if it is
> present in the controllers directory then that controller exists.  As a
> general principle then it could be argued that superfluous files should not
> be saved in the project, just in case.
>
> In addition many would argue that a version control system such as git
> should be used, with commits to the local repository at every opportunity,
> and therefore backups are not necessary at all.
>

2009/4/23 Brendon <brendon-gi94QSVkwfGt/hvpvFFPbQ@public.gmane.org>
>
> I''d say that is rubbish, since many editors create backup files,
swap
> files and other junk following some pretty well defined conventions.
> Rails template compile code is very greedy and doesn''t care much
about
> extensions, even extensions it doesn''t understand.  That is the
bug.
> Rails should not be the first application to completely ignore file
> extensions and equate foo.html, foo.txt, foo.backup, foo.html.erb,
> foo.rjs, foo.haml, foo.rhtml and foo.moved_out_the_way.html.erb as all
> being equivalent...
>
> As a general principle, source control systems ignore these files and
> so should rails.  You are proposing that anything in the file tree is
> 100% fair game for Rails which would require many normal development
> activities to be modified in inconvenient ways...
>
I was not suggesting that this is not a deficiency in Rails (I leave that
discussion to others). I was suggesting that by not saving extraneous files
in the project then the issue could be avoided.  That is not rubbish, it is
defensive programming.

>
> On Apr 23, 1:55 am, Colin Law
<clan...-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > I may be talking rubbish here but I think when using a framework such
as
> > Rails it might be considered bad practice to save backups in the
project
> > directory structure.  In Rails the presence of a file is meaningful. 
For
> > example it is not necessary to declare that a controller exists, if it
is
> > present in the controllers directory then that controller exists.  As
a
> > general principle then it could be argued that superfluous files
should
> not
> > be saved in the project, just in case.
> >
> > In addition many would argue that a version control system such as git
> > should be used, with commits to the local repository at every
> opportunity,
> > and therefore backups are not necessary at all.
> >
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---