#RubyOnRails - 15 May 2019
« Back 1 day Forward 1 day »
[01:13:04] weteamsteve: do you guys believe ruby on rails is still relevant? or should i go into angular
[02:10:01] brool: weteamsteve: it's definitely still relevant, especially for start-ups, but if you're going the JS route i get the impression that the react+express stack is more popular than angular
[02:24:59] Momentum: weteamsteve: Ruby on Rails is mostly a backend framework you can't compare it with Angular, Angular is for the front-end you can even use it with Ruby on Rails
[11:21:36] Silex: Hello, since rails 5.2 actionmailer methods don't take parameters but extract it all from `params`, while earlier it was parameters... should I always use params like in the examples? is there a rationale for it?
[11:39:43] Silex: tbuehlmann: hum, then https://guides.rubyonrails.org/v5.1/action_mailer_basics.html vs https://guides.rubyonrails.org/v5.2/action_mailer_basics.html is a bit misleading
[12:05:48] Silex: tbuehlmann: what I'll remember is that params is great for "global" parameters that affect all methods, e.g the locale. Named parameters for the specific stuffs
[17:31:22] dretnx: I'm watching some presentations on web, regarding Rails performance with new JIT compiler
[17:33:48] Dbugger: I am using this code to create a my model, but I was wondering if there is shorter way to do it: https://www.hastebin.com/iqubiyotub.rb
[19:30:40] maloik: Hi, Is there out anybody here? I need some help, I Spent many hours with an issue, recently I migrate my rails project using webpack3 to webpack4, everything seems fine, but... for some reasons when I use assets:precompile for now there are no non-digest assets
[20:36:30] havenwood: xco: It means that it's not documented, as in documentation (they grey stuff).
[20:37:25] havenwood: xco: Doc linters will complain when documentation is missing, but a :nodoc means it's meant to be not documented.
[20:37:55] havenwood: it usually means the coder doesn't want to bother documenting the thing, or doesn't know what to say
[20:38:26] havenwood: if you see a :nodoc, and documentation is called for, they'll probably accept a PR with good docs
[22:19:13] choke: i've got a small issue in production and i'm not sure what the actual problem is. if i run `rails s` within production, i'm getting `Mail is not a module` error, but nowhere in my code have I defined Mail as a module. https://gist.github.com/jblac/7e9d341882e825252eb7c0b78c8fcf9a is a link to the gist, any assistance provided is greatly appreciated.
[22:32:41] choke: @havenwood I do not, in fact the only models I have that start with m is message, message_observer, message_template and metric. This pull request also introduces a mail_helper within the helpers, which does make reference to SendGrid::Mail.new
[22:33:50] havenwood: (Grabbing the first non-inherited instance method and checking its source location.)
[22:35:31] havenwood: choke: As long as you haven't done an `include Sendgrid`, its Mail class shouldn't conflict at top level.
[22:36:20] havenwood: Assuming you're not in the Sendgrid namespace when you run into this? You could sanity check: Module.nesting
[22:36:38] choke: I actually have done an include SendGrid -- i wonder if i remove that, if the sendgrid will still work (i forget why I added it). as is, i can't even `rails c` from within the directory
[22:37:04] havenwood: choke: Ah, yeah, then you have a top level collision of the Mail class from Sendgrid and the module from Mail gem.
[22:37:22] havenwood: choke: Just use the full Sendgrid::Mail.new for Sendgrid, and the collision should go away.
[22:39:05] choke: i removed the include and i can indeed get it started... just clarifying more, I also have `require 'sendgrid-ruby'`, `require 'json'` and `include UrlHelper`. - any of those have customary no-nos attached to them that you're aware of?