#301 Extracting a Ruby Gem pro

Nov 21, 2011 | 16 minutes | Testing, Plugins

In this episode I show how to extract a Ruby Gem from an existing Rails application, test it with RSpec and Supermodel, and add a Railtie.

Click to Play Video ▶

Download:
source codeProject Files in Zip (93.3 KB)
mp4Full Size H.264 Video (42.7 MB)
m4vSmaller H.264 Video (20.4 MB)
webmFull Size VP8 Video (23 MB)
ogvFull Size Theora Video (46.5 MB)

Leonardo Bessa almost 13 years ago

Great!

Here is the link to Readme Driven Development by Tom Preston-Werner

Michael-Keith Bernard almost 13 years ago

Excellent cast. Here is a link to the Engine Yard Blog mentioned in the screen cast.

Matt Bridges almost 13 years ago

Ryan,

It looks like you blog-after directory in the source code is not updated with the format_url method.

Felipe Iketani almost 13 years ago

Nice screencast!

But I believe that screencasts that help people to grow the community like creating ruby gems should not be PRO screencasts.

Nunzio Fiore almost 13 years ago

Ryan
blog_after and blog_before are not updated in download package

Terry Schmidt over 12 years ago

Just an FYI, I had to add Rake as a dependency in my .gemspec file. I was using Bundler 1.1.3 when I worked through this episode.

Celso de Sá over 11 years ago

which app was Rails extracted from?

InBedMe IT over 11 years ago

Basecamp

Jeff Dickey over 11 years ago

Had a problem with local testing of my newly-built Gem. Bundler couldn't find the Gem at all when specified using :path => ~/src/rails/my_gem/pkg. When I pushed to Github and changed the Gemfile line to use :git =>, running bundle pulled the built Gem down from Github but then had a message that said

          
Could not find gem '(redacted) (>= 0) ruby' in git://github.com/jdickey/(redacted).git (at master).
Source does not contain any versions of '(redacted) (>= 0) ruby'

It would only work when I pushed the Gem to rubygems.org. This strongly implies to me that I should have added a source line to my Gemfile, but the episode didn't seem to cover that. Should it have?