GUILD-690: Initial draft of new Active Record Consumer Generator

[jenchanflipp]

Description

To create an ActiveRecordConsumer (one of our most common tasks) there are a number of steps that have to be taken - create a DB migration, Rails model, consumer, consumer config, Deimos schema class. We have now added a new ActiveRecordConsumer Generator, which will streamline this process into a single flow.

Notes for consideration:

• Currently the generator runs with command line options. The only mandatory argument is full schema name. There is one optional second argument, where the user can pass in an existing config file to add the Deimos config to.
• Question: Are all the above files absolutely necessary when creating a new Active Record Consumer so it is ok to automatically generate them all? Or should add some additional arguments where a user could specify, say, that they would not want to generate a Deimos schema class.
• Question: Is it preferred to have an interactive flow where the user is prompted with questions and can provide user input instead of having to specify arguments on the command line?

Fixes # (GUILD-690)

Type of change

New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

How Has This Been Tested?

• [ ] Test A: Unit tests via rspec where we are invoking the generator and validating that all the necessary files have been created

• [ ] See spec/generators/active_record_consumer_generator_spec.rb

• [ ] Test B: Manual tests that invoke the generator via command line in a ruby project that imports the deimos gem

• [ ] Ensure you have a Widget schema file located in your schema root and then execute command rails g deimos:active_record_consumer test.Widget and rails g deimos:active_record_consumer test.Widget config/initializers/myconfig.rb

Checklist:

• [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
• [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• [x] I have added a line in the CHANGELOG describing this change, under the UNRELEASED heading
• [x] My changes generate no new warnings
• [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• [x] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

[dorner]

This is a great first pass! I do think that having an interactive process will make more sense, especially because right now the templates are making a bunch of assumptions as to what needs to be filled in. Allowing the user to specify that will help a lot so they don't have to go into each of these files and edit them.

[jenchanflipp]

This is a great first pass! I do think that having an interactive process will make more sense, especially because right now the templates are making a bunch of assumptions as to what needs to be filled in. Allowing the user to specify that will help a lot so they don't have to go into each of these files and edit them.

Thanks for your feedback! An interactive process does sound like it would be more helpful to the user. So, the user would have to specify

1. existing config file name
2. key config

Is there anything else that they should provide?

[dorner]

I'd look through the template and generator files to see what assumptions are being made in the output, and try to add those as inputs.