[TxMt] Re: "no such file to load" error on require in Ruby Run command

[David Carter]

Sorry for not mentioning the TM version. This behavior existed as originally
described before the upgrade to the newest version [Version 1.5.8
(1498)] this morning. After I sent the previous message, I upgraded & now
the problem occurs every time, not just the first time. At least it's more
consistent now.
This script has been in almost daily use for over a year, with no recent
changes. I always run it from within TM since I've been too lazy to add
proper parameter handling to the script. I just launch it in TM, comment in
or out a line or two at the very bottom that controls what gets done, and
hit cmd-R.

The require is at line 56 because the script includes several embedded
classes in the same file. Poor form, I know, but it was one of those, "I'll
get around to it later" things that I've never gotten around to because "it
just worked".

Here's a snippet beginning at line 55:

class PostagePrinter
  require "builder"
  require "tempfile"


Okay - I've found a difference between TM environment & command line:

The TM execution window shows "ruby 1.8.6 (2008-03-03 patchlevel 114)
[universal-darwin9.0]"

>From terminal: "ruby 1.8.6 (2007-09-24 patchlevel 111) [i686-darwin9.2.0]"

Suggestions on where to look to resolve the different versions of ruby that
are being picked up?

Thanks!

---
David Carter
david at carter.net


On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:12 PM, James Gray <james at grayproductions.net>wrote:

> On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:31 AM, David Carter wrote:
>
> > I'm getting this message only the first time I cmd-R a ruby script.
>
> We've debated this over IRC a bit to try and think up a way this can
> happen.  Good problem.  :)
>
> About the only explanation we can think up is that the require you
> have is part of some conditional expression and thus doesn't always
> execute.  Or perhaps you change the environment sometimes, before Ruby
> tries the require.  Obviously, we're guessing.
>
> It does look like your require is a bit down in the logic though (line
> 56 according to the stack trace).  Does moving it to the top make the
> script fail more consistently?
>
> Also, in case our guesswork is bad, what version of TextMate are you
> using?  Did you just happen to upgrade to the new version and did this
> problem just surface then?
>
> James Edward Gray II
>
> _______________________________________________
> textmate mailing list
> textmate at lists.macromates.com
> http://lists.macromates.com/listinfo/textmate
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macromates.com/textmate/attachments/20090211/a0a050b1/attachment.html>