Make Pry(a feature rich console) default rails console

[homakov]

Pry allows developer to go deep inside of ruby and rails class infrastructure - https://github.com/pry/pry
The console becomes very powerful, cd and ls make class/method navigation extremely comfortable.
Bonuses: highlighting, nice inspects, shell shortcuts and other - check the manual.

Huge thanks to @drogus for dd655d8 and 951b582

To discuss:
How to handle if user has no pry installed? Probably just downgrade to IRB and show a message "Pry is not found, using IRB"?
What about moving requirement process inside of rails? I mean config.console = :pry looks more neat.

[dmathieu]

I don't think there really is a problem about "if pry is not installed".
Add it to the Gemfile, it will be installed. Don't, the user will have to do it anyway.

[homakov]

@dmathieu I'm kinda agree with @wycats https://twitter.com/wycats/status/207673557021491200 we do not even need to add it to gem file. Pry is a 'standalone' gem and rails should not depend on it.
But requiring inside of application.rb as in this PR doesnt seem nice too. In my opinion
config.console = :pry config.console = :irb
Is the best option. @drogus your thoughts?

[wycats]

The easiest thing would be for pry to add a Railtie that added the console directive. Then, a simple gem "pry" would do the trick :)

[homakov]

@wycats genious :) I'm going to ask them for this feature! pry/pry#582

[dmathieu]

You can already do something like this with pry-rails.

[homakov]

@wycats it's not about the subject though. :) Currently adding gem 'pry-rails' works like a charm - we don't have issues with using it.
The thing is I propose to have pry as default. As you said(and it's reasonable) we should not add it to generated Gemfile(tons of dependencies..) so I added it to application.rb. Any other way to make it default? I don't see it

[homakov]

@dmathieu yes, it's not a big deal. pry-rails works fine and adding railtie directly to pry would be cool too, as wycats proposed.

But what I want in this PR is pry as default rails console. No matter which way :)

[drogus]

@homakov I agree with @dmathieu that pry-rails is the best option, there is no need to add support for rails in pry itself. I would just fix the implementation to use 951b582 rather than IRB = Pry with silence_warnings

[homakov]

@drogus fine, accepted. what about to make pry default
either add gem 'pry-rails' to Gemfile
or require it in config, as in this PR
I like the latter.

P.S. why to make it default?
Rails is a "standard" and should promote good stuff - it has sass, coffee and jquery "built in". Pry is not that popular as it should be. Thus, for me, making it default is as good as adding coffee years ago :) Agreed or no?

[goshacmd]

👍

But, I do not see any trouble adding pry-rails to the Gemfile.

[dmathieu]

@homakov: if you add pry-rails to the Gemfile, it'll make it a default.

[homakov]

@dmathieu haha yes. but I want it to be in generated template to be real default

@goshakkk Where are troubles? Everything is fine! Just want to tell about pry all the people :)

[spastorino]

Agree with @wycats, anyway I'd add commented out to the Gemfile gem 'pry' or gem 'pry-rails' if they don't add the railtie.
Then we can also support rails c pry and move the environment option to -e so we have the same setup as we have in rails s.
Currently if you want to use thin you have to add thin to the Gemfile and run rails s thin would be cool to support the same thing for rails c /cc @josevalim

[homakov]

@spastorino I like rails s thin. rails c pry nice

pry-rails is dirty https://github.com/rweng/pry-rails/blob/master/lib/pry-rails.rb#L10
were efforts of @drogus futile? - we should use config.console

[rf-]

We'll add the config.console thing to pry-rails sometime between now and the release of Rails 4. The old code will still have to be there for older versions of Rails though.

[homakov]

@rwfitzge I just wanted to PR you using config.console :) Glad to hear that.

One more time: my proposal was to make pry default rails console. Out of box rails c would run pry. Yes, I can use either config.console and pry-rails gem, but there are other developers who don't use it. I want to notify them how awesome pry is.

Probably it's too soon to discuss it. Just think about it and I hope someday we will get rails w/ default pry. Thanks

[dmathieu]

@rwfitzge could you not just keep the 0.x.x for rails 3 and release 1.x.x with rails 4 compatibility ?

[goshacmd]

@homakov No troubles. I just meant I think having gem 'pry-rails' in Gemfile is OK.

[homakov]

@goshakkk it's wycats' thought. It's OK: we should keep Gemfile template as short and concise as possible..

[goshacmd]

@homakov Look, I have gem 'pry-rails' in each of my Rails projects. And so many other developers have.

If you just propose to require 'pry' in Rails internals ... I don't know, it feels wrong without adding Pry as an additional development dependency. No?

[homakov]

No?

of course no

And so many other developers have

I dont have statistics. Probably big part. I wanted to make the rest to use pry too! :)

[rafaelfranca]

I disagree with the addition of pry as the default console. I strongly prefer irb and I don't like the idea to not use the default interactive ruby in the Rails.

I'm ok with a commented entry in the Gemfile

[arunagw]

👍 Agree with commented entry in the Gemfile

[drogus]

@spastorino rails c pry feels weird. It's common to use different servers, but I can't imagine why would you use pry one time and irb another time

[homakov]

@rafaelfranca old school ? :) why to use irb when pry is available. anyway seems most of you are OK to have it in generated Gemfile..

@drogus example - I use pry on my local machine but sometimes I need to fire up console on the production server. I'm unable to install pry there(right away) so I'd like to downgrade to irb

[goshacmd]

Agree. I like pry but not everybody does, a commented line in Gemfile would be ok.

Gosha Arinich
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Rafael Mendonça França wrote:

I disagree with the addition of pry as the default console. I strongly prefer irb and I don't like the idea to not use the default interactive ruby in the Rails.

I'm ok with a commented entry in the Gemfile

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#6549 (comment)

[rafaelfranca]

@homakov hahah. Yes old school ;).

Actually I don't use much the console, so I'm 👎 to add another dependency to a thing that I don't often use.

[spastorino]

Commented out doesn't hurt anybody ;)

[rafaelfranca]

I'm fine with the Gemfile entry. Commented or not ;)

[homakov]

by adding 'pry-rails' we avoid using special tools: dd655d8 and 951b582
and it becomes a dependency in bundler even if you are not using console as @rafaelfranca does.

it's PR for rails 4 so we definitely have config.console working. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
config.console = Pry - 1 gem, gem 'pry-rails' = 2 gems

[banister]

@ arunagw how do i do the 'thumbs up' icon? it's pretty impressive and i'd like to use it

[shime]

@banister they are called Emoji emoticons. you can look at this cheat sheet for details: http://www.emoji-cheat-sheet.com/

[homakov]

Probably it's too soon to discuss it. Just think about it and I hope someday we will get rails w/ default pry. Thanks

someday!

[drogus]

I'm still 👎 on it - pry is yet another dependency and since we can set the console easily now, using pry is a matter of adding gem 'rails-pry' to your Gemfile

[homakov]

@drogus this point is reasonable, but look at the coffeescript case: It was convenient, useful, not so popular while it also was a 'yet another dependency'. Now when years passed everybody is happy to have it by default In Gemfile. Same here

[drogus]

@homakov yup, that's true, but there is no coffeescript equivalent in stdlib. Anyway, it doesn't matter to me so much as it will be just another entry in Gemfile - I can just remove it - so if others are ok with this, I won't argue.

[rafaelfranca]

Actually with our last discussion about what we put in the default stack of Rails I prefer to not add it wither as a commented entry in the Gemfile.

There is a lot of great alternatives in the Ruby world. rspec as an alternative to test_unit/minitest. less as an alternative to sass. datamapper as a alternative to activerecord.

If we put all the alternatives in the Gemfile so, one day we will generate a Gemfile with many commented lines.

👎 for this one

[steveklabnik]

I love Pry, but yeah, we should be keeping stuff out of core rails as much as possible. 👎

[justinko]

As part of the puts crowd, I vote 💩

[lexmag]

If you use pry, you use it in all of yours projects.
Why do not simple create global ~/.pryrc?

#!env ruby
if File.exist?(rails = File.join(Dir.getwd, 'config', 'environment.rb'))
  require rails

  require 'rails/console/app'
  require 'rails/console/helpers'

  if Rails.version =~ /^3.2/
    extend Rails::ConsoleMethods
  end
end

And you’ll have access to application models and console helpers.

~/myapp% pry

No extra gems in Gemfile. You still can use rails c

[homakov]

@lexmag main point of this PR - make pry more popular. I can use pry in different ways. But I also want other users to use it.

[robin850]

Maybe we can pass a --pry option when we call rails new ? I allow myself to create a pull request for this suggestion.

[rafaelfranca]

I really don't think that this is a good idea. We don't add a --rspec option when we call rails new I don't see why we should add a --pry. I'm closing this one since I think we should not change the suggested Rails stack.

[homakov]

@rafaelfranca no problem. that day wasn't "someday" :)

[rodrigoalvesvieira]

Issue is closed now, but anyway, disagree with the addition of Pry. Besides, vanilla IRB + the Rails stack doesn't load very fast already, imagine it with Pry.

[homakov]

@rodrigoalvesvieira it's not in Gemfile since not every one uses console. but if u run console you will get an exception if it's not installed.
Oh, you exaggerate