RFC/WIP: Looks at what AMS would be like as a mountable rails engine

[bf4]

Just for review, right now. Merging would require editing in various
places.

Generated by

export RAILS_VERSION=master
bundle exec rails plugin new . --full --mountable --api --skip-spring
--skip-sprockets --skip-javascript --skip-gemfile --skip-git

and some editing...

Ref: dummy server setup in #1412
for how we could pare down the dummy app if we wanted to

[bf4]

I know there's a bunch of stuff commented out or duplicated.. just focus on what the changes would be and what they'd mean, at this point, rather than if they're complete

[bf4]

yard of course

# encoding: utf-8

require 'yard'

namespace :yard do
  YARD::Rake::YardocTask.new(:doc) do |t|
    t.stats_options = ['--list-undoc']
  end

  desc 'start a gem server'
  task :server do
    sh 'bundle exec yard server --gems'
  end

  desc 'use Graphviz to generate dot graph'
  task :graph do
    output_file = 'doc/erd.dot'
    sh "bundle exec yard graph --protected --full --dependencies > #{output_file}"
    puts 'open doc/erd.dot if you have graphviz installed'
  end
end

[remear]

Is this something we want to pursue?

[bf4]

I think we should....

B mobile phone

On Mar 17, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Ben Mills notifications@github.com wrote:

Is this something we want to pursue?

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

[bf4]

This is particular useful if we move our fixtures and controllers etc to the dummy app to both improve code organization and document an example app

[NullVoxPopuli]

This is particular useful if we move our fixtures and controllers etc to the dummy app to both improve code organization and document an example app

So if someone had a bug they wanted to report, they could fork this project, try to re-create the issue in here, and open a PR, proving the bug exists?

I think this would be a great way to have runnable examples, too.