Cannot include assets without a file extension

[DanielHeath]

Unpacking javascript libraries into vendor/assets results in an error "Asset logical path has no extension" when compiling assets.

This is an issue as many 3rd party javascript libraries include a 'LICENCE' file.

For the moment we can just delete those files each time we upgrade the library but ideally that wouldn't be necessary.

[gunn]

+1 also, adding .txt as an extension is another workaround.

[vollnhals]

any update on this issue?

this is affecting us hard as we have many 3rd party git submodules under vendor/assets/javascripts.

[gunn]

@vollnhals is it still a problem with edge sprockets?

[vollnhals]

i am using sprockets-2.8.1 and have this error. there are only two commits on top in master that do not change anything related.
or am i misunderstanding "edge sprockets"?

[josh]

Nope.

[DanielHeath]

Why was this closed? Doesn't sound like there was any resolution.

[ajacksified]

have a dependency
pull it in as a submodule or subtree
it has a Makefile

never be able to use sprockets unless I manually link to everything

Why is this a nofix? And what is

Nope.

supposed to mean?

[afeld]

For anyone needing a workaround, see the Rakefile addition here: https://gist.github.com/afeld/5704079

[wadetandy]

I'm guessing most people here are running into this problem while using the Rails asset pipeline. The default Rails configuration tells sprockets to compile all files that aren't JS or CSS, and then allows the developer to whitelist specific js and css assets. This is one of the reason your LICENSE files are getting pulled into the compilation phase. I found it was better to remove this setting and replace it with a more specific one that only whitelists the extensions that I want compiled:

initializer 'setup_asset_pipeline', :group => :all  do |app|
  # We don't want the default of everything that isn't js or css, because it pulls too many things in
  app.config.assets.precompile.shift

  # Explicitly register the extensions we are interested in compiling
  app.config.assets.precompile.push(Proc.new do |path|
    File.extname(path).in? [
      '.html', '.erb', '.haml',                 # Templates
      '.png',  '.gif', '.jpg', '.jpeg',         # Images
      '.eot',  '.otf', '.svc', '.woff', '.ttf', # Fonts
    ]
  end)
end

[ajacksified]

Nice fix, @wadetandy.

[DanielHeath]

Perhaps rails should default to *.* instead of * in that case

[myabc]

Appears to occur with Rails 3.2.x and Sprockets 2.2.2.backport2. To reproduce:

rails _3.2.17_ new sprockets_fail
cd sprockets_fail
echo 'gem "sprockets", "2.2.2.backport2"' >> Gemfile
bundle update sprockets
touch app/assets/javascripts/README
bundle exec rake assets:precompile

[myabc]

Also reproducible issue with Rails 4.0.x and Sprockets (2.11.0).

rails _4.0.3_ new sprockets_fail
touch app/assets/javascripts/README
bundle exec rake assets:precompile

This appears to be a regression. Rails 3.2.x with latest supported (non-backported) Sprockets (2.2.2) does not appear to suffer from this issue.

[jrafanie]

@josh Is the recommendation to rename the assets so they have a file extension or to modify Rails to only precompile assets with specific file extensions, such as: https://gist.github.com/afeld/5704079 or how @myabc did it: opf/openproject@3d7ec71 . I'm not a license person but would some licenses prevent you from renaming a file to add an extension?

cc @myabc @DanielHeath I see some people went the route of renaming files or changing rails' default proc, I'm leaning towards the latter... what are your thoughts?

[DanielHeath]

Some licenses require you to send changes upstream; I'd shoot the project owners an email and call it done.

In Ruby projects where I hit a bug upstream, I typically write a monkey-patch over the bug.
This patch includes

• The fix (directly re-writing the method from the original source).
• A check on the version number of the upstream library (so that when I upgrade I can remove the patch).

[josh]

I see some people went the route of renaming files or changing rails' default proc, I'm leaning towards the latter... what are your thoughts?

Yes. I mostly don't find Rails' default compile list to be very bower friendly. I have some potential ideas to move away from config.precompile entirely. See #626.

[jrafanie]

Thanks. I went with the less painful option for now, exclude files without an extension, but it feels like a choice I'll have to revisit as it doesn't feel right.

[loureirorg]

+1. Same problem here. I'm monkey-patching my no-extension files :/

[cseelus]

+1

Also a problem with OSXs 'Icon\r' files used by Google Drive/Dropbox. See http://superuser.com/questions/298785/icon-file-on-os-x-desktop

[baweaver]

vitalets/angular-xeditable#426

Still a perpetual issue, and really not a fan of having to jump through multiple 'fixes' to resolve this every time it comes up. This needs to be fixed in the base code as a default option, not a configuration flag.

[mariohmol]

+1 same here