Add AnnotateRb gem

[drwl]

Project

Adds AnnotateRb gem to the list of gems.

Rubygems
Github repo

What is this Ruby project?

It's an active and maintained hard fork of the old Annotate gem. It improves the developer experience by adding model database schemas as text comments in corresponding ActiveRecord models. It also supports annotating routes.

What are the main difference between this Ruby project and similar ones?

It's actively maintained compared to it's predecessor, the Annotate gem.

Closes #1143

[markets]

Hey @drwl 👋🏼 thanks for this!

Maybe we should replace (delete ✂️) the original repo too? Would be nice to wait for some official answer 👀 ctran/annotate_models#1028.

[drwl]

I don't know if/when we will get an official answer, there's ctran/annotate_models#1001 from earlier this year with also no answer.

As to whether or not to replace the original repo, I believe that's your decision. I can adjust the PR to delete it if you want.

[markets]

Yep, I've already seen that earlier issue too, but would be nice any kind of "official" movement/message from the original maintainers. For such relevant and used gems, it's much better any official communication to avoid confusions within the Ruby ecosystem (specially for new comers). Did you try to contact the original maintainer? If they don't want to maintain it anymore, at least a message in the README (pointing to your fork) would help a lot!

In terms of this PR, I'd also prefer to have only one resource, with the goal to make it clear for all the people. Having both links in this collection it seems that creates again confusion for users checking this list.

[drwl]

For such relevant and used gems, it's much better any official communication to avoid confusions within the Ruby ecosystem (specially for new comers).

Totally agree there.

Did you try to contact the original maintainer?

If they don't want to maintain it anymore, at least a message in the README (pointing to your fork) would help a lot!

Yes I have tried contacting in the past and no response. Also, an even earlier Github thread/issue.

ctran/annotate_models#913

In terms of this PR, I'd also prefer to have only one resource, with the goal to make it clear for all the people.

I can modify the PR to delete the old one, let me know if that's what you mean.

[markets]

Yes I have tried contacting in the past and no response

Ok! then let's do it! Your fork seems that is the one that people is using now, so it seems the better option to propose at this point 🤔? And the community already tried, for more than 2 years, to contact the original authors with no luck:

• Maintainer? ctran/annotate_models#913
• Next release? ctran/annotate_models#1001
• Is this gem still maintained or abandoned? ctran/annotate_models#1028

I can modify the PR to delete the old one, let me know if that's what you mean.

Yes, I think having only 1 link it's clearer for everybody visiting this collection. Also, since you already have a comment about the fork in your README, I'd like to suggest to remove last sentence in the proposed description.

[marcoroth]

FWIW, I've been using the annotate gem for a long time and haven't had any issue with it, also not in recent times. I think it's fair to say that it could be considered "done" from the maintainers POV.

But I also see there are a lot of open issues and new feature requests. @drwl have you contacted the RubyGems team to see if they can do something about it? I think they might be able to help with that, so we don't have to have forks, which are also very similarly named, which adds a lot of confusion in my opinion.

[markets]

Thanks for jump in @marcoroth! I'm also using the original one in a couple of small apps (Rails 6.1 and 7.0) with no issues at all. But I didn't introduced DB changes for months... so I'm really not sure about the current maintenance status of the original repo.

Maybe it's better idea to wait for any kind of official communication before moving forward and merge this PR now? Would be nice to talk about it with the current maintainers.

I'd like to avoid having both resources in the list, that will be confusing for people looking into it.

[drwl]

I think it's fair to say that it could be considered "done" from the maintainers POV.

Calling it "done" is an understandable opinion, and for most setups it is. The core functionality should work, because all the gem really does is find model files and reflect on their ActiveRecord columns. I would say there are some outstanding usability bugs in the old gem like swallowing comments, but if you don't come across that in your workflow then there really isn't a need to upgrade at this time (note: future Rails versions/changes could change things).

@drwl have you contacted the RubyGems team to see if they can do something about it? I think they might be able to help with that, so we don't have to have forks, which are also very similarly named, which adds a lot of confusion in my opinion.

Just curious, has there been precedent about this? Afaik there's no imminent security risk of the old gem being up, so not sure why they would do anything about it. As an example, the old CanCan gem is still on Rubygems even though it was community forked years ago. My gem/fork also is a hardfork in that it uses a new namespace.

Maybe it's better idea to wait for any kind of official communication before moving forward and merge this PR now? Would be nice to talk about it with the current maintainers.

Ultimately it's your decision regarding the awesome ruby list. Given that the oldest out of the 3 issues is 3 years old, I don't see anything changing in the coming years.

[marcoroth]

@drwl I was more alluding to the fact that they might be able to help you get ownership over the gem so you could continue maintaining and releasing it under the "old" name. But I guess this is too late already, since you have your fork and gem already.

[drwl]

Ahh got it, yeah I changed the namespace (and the name) because there were some big changes that I wanted to make (e.g. removing config in Rakefile) and thought it made more sense. Also, to signify that there were big breaking changes between the old gem and annotaterb.