audited vs paper_trail

Overview

paper_trail

Stacks50

Followers0

Votes0

GitHub Stars6.6K

Forks885

audited

Stacks15

Followers0

Votes0

GitHub Stars3.2K

Forks628

audited vs paper_trail: What are the differences?

Introduction:

When comparing audited and paper_trail, there are key differences that set them apart in terms of functionality and use within Ruby on Rails applications.

Database Usage: Audited stores its data directly in the application's database tables, making it easy to access and query audit logs without any additional setup. On the other hand, paper_trail uses a separate table to store its versions, keeping the main database tables clean and separate from the audit data.
Configuration Options: Audited provides a wide range of configuration options to customize the audit logs based on specific requirements, such as the ability to track changes on specific attributes or ignore certain models. In contrast, paper_trail offers a more simplified configuration setup with fewer customization options compared to audited.
Storage of Changes: Audited only tracks the final result of an action, capturing the new values after a change has been made in the database. Meanwhile, paper_trail stores the full history of changes, enabling developers to track and view every modification made to a record over time.
Performance Impact: Audited can potentially have a higher performance impact on the application due to its direct storage of audit data in database tables, which can lead to increased query times when accessing audit logs. On the other hand, paper_trail's separate table for versions can help in reducing the performance impact on the main database tables.
Active Record Integration: Audited seamlessly integrates with Active Record callbacks to automatically track changes to models without the need for manual triggers. Paper_trail also offers integration with Active Record, but requires explicit setup of versioning for each model that needs to be audited.
Support for Associations: When it comes to associations between models, audited handles these relationships by default and automatically logs changes made to associated records. In contrast, paper_trail requires additional setup to track associations and changes between related models.

In Summary, audited and paper_trail differ in database usage, configuration options, storage of changes, performance impact, Active Record integration, and support for associations within Ruby on Rails applications.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

paper_trail	audited
Track changes to your models, for auditing or versioning. See how a model looked at any stage in its lifecycle, revert it to any version, or restore it after it has been destroyed.	Log all changes to your models.
Statistics
GitHub Stars 6.6K	GitHub Stars 3.2K
GitHub Forks 885	GitHub Forks 628
Stacks 50	Stacks 15
Followers 0	Followers 0
Votes 0	Votes 0

What are some alternatives to paper_trail, audited?

rake

Rake is a Make-like program implemented in Ruby. Tasks and dependencies are specified in standard Ruby syntax. Rake has the following features: * Rakefiles (rake's version of Makefiles) are completely defined in standard Ruby syntax. No XML files to edit. No quirky Makefile syntax to worry about (is that a tab or a space?) * Users can specify tasks with prerequisites. * Rake supports rule patterns to synthesize implicit tasks. * Flexible FileLists that act like arrays but know about manipulating file names and paths. * Supports parallel execution of tasks.

pry

An IRB alternative and runtime developer console.

rspec

BDD for Ruby.

rails

Ruby on Rails is a full-stack web framework optimized for programmer happiness and sustainable productivity. It encourages beautiful code by favoring convention over configuration.

simplecov

Code coverage for Ruby 1.9+ with a powerful configuration library and automatic merging of coverage across test suites.

puma

Puma is a simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server for Ruby/Rack applications. Puma is intended for use in both development and production environments. It's great for highly concurrent Ruby implementations such as Rubinius and JRuby as well as as providing process worker support to support CRuby well.

pg

Pg is the Ruby interface to the {PostgreSQL RDBMS}[http://www.postgresql.org/]. It works with {PostgreSQL 9.2 and later}[http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/]. A small example usage: #!/usr/bin/env ruby require 'pg' # Output a table of current connections to the DB conn = PG.connect( dbname: 'sales' ) conn.exec( "SELECT * FROM pg_stat_activity" ) do |result| puts " PID | User | Query" result.each do |row| puts " %7d | %-16s | %s " % row.values_at('procpid', 'usename', 'current_query') end end.

rspec-rails

Rspec-rails is a testing framework for Rails 3+.

rubocop

Automatic Ruby code style checking tool. Aims to enforce the community-driven Ruby Style Guide.

byebug

Byebug is a Ruby debugger. It's implemented using the TracePoint C API for execution control and the Debug Inspector C API for call stack navigation. The core component provides support that front-ends can build on. It provides breakpoint handling and bindings for stack frames among other things and it comes with an easy to use command line interface.

Related Comparisons

audited vs paper_trail: What are the differences?

Introduction:

When comparing audited and paper_trail, there are key differences that set them apart in terms of functionality and use within Ruby on Rails applications.

Database Usage: Audited stores its data directly in the application's database tables, making it easy to access and query audit logs without any additional setup. On the other hand, paper_trail uses a separate table to store its versions, keeping the main database tables clean and separate from the audit data.
Configuration Options: Audited provides a wide range of configuration options to customize the audit logs based on specific requirements, such as the ability to track changes on specific attributes or ignore certain models. In contrast, paper_trail offers a more simplified configuration setup with fewer customization options compared to audited.
Storage of Changes: Audited only tracks the final result of an action, capturing the new values after a change has been made in the database. Meanwhile, paper_trail stores the full history of changes, enabling developers to track and view every modification made to a record over time.
Performance Impact: Audited can potentially have a higher performance impact on the application due to its direct storage of audit data in database tables, which can lead to increased query times when accessing audit logs. On the other hand, paper_trail's separate table for versions can help in reducing the performance impact on the main database tables.
Active Record Integration: Audited seamlessly integrates with Active Record callbacks to automatically track changes to models without the need for manual triggers. Paper_trail also offers integration with Active Record, but requires explicit setup of versioning for each model that needs to be audited.
Support for Associations: When it comes to associations between models, audited handles these relationships by default and automatically logs changes made to associated records. In contrast, paper_trail requires additional setup to track associations and changes between related models.

audited vs paper_trail

Overview