### Author:  [@sam](https://meta.discourse.org/u/sam)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2014, 12:18am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implement-gist-onebox/14041/1 "2014-03-24T00:18:03Z")
We had a naive implementation for Gist oneboxes, however it failed miserably due to dynamic loading:
In particular this:
>
To resolve this issue:
The [Gist oneboxer](https://github.com/discourse/onebox/blob/master/lib/onebox/engine/github_gist_onebox.rb) should use a similar approach to the [blob oneboxer](https://github.com/discourse/onebox/blob/master/lib/onebox/engine/github_blob_onebox.rb)
1. It must take care of truncating huge files
2. It must take care of displaying gists with multiple files
Syntax highlighting is to be handled by our pre-existing syntax highlighting engine, all the onebox is to do is to decorate divs with the guessed syntax.
* * *
I thought of possibly using therubyracer to evaluate the gist js, but it inserts stylesheets. Additionally there is a possibly iframe approach but it will be both slower (and impact rendering) and more fragile.
---
### Author:  [@Guilherme\_Carreiro](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Guilherme_Carreiro)
#### Post date: [November 23, 2014, 10:07pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implement-gist-onebox/14041/2 "2014-11-23T22:07:43Z")
I’m working on it.
It’s relevant, right?
(I’m asking because is an “old topic” rs)
Thanks.
---
### Author:  [@Guilherme\_Carreiro](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Guilherme_Carreiro)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implement-gist-onebox/14041/3 "2014-11-24T23:25:45Z")
Hi,
I was following a similar approach to the blob oneboxer, that is to make requests to “Gist API” and build a HTML component on server side. It sounded clean for me.
However, I’m concerned about something that read here ([GitHub REST API documentation - GitHub Docs](https://developer.github.com/v3/#rate-limiting)):
“For unauthenticated requests, the rate limit allows you to make up to 60 requests per hour.”
I think that is a bad idea to make requests to Gist API from server side, considering that low limit. So, what do you think about to make these requests from the client side
@sam?
Some JavaScript would be added in the mustache templete to keep the component decoupled.
Thanks!
---
### Author:  [@mcwumbly](https://meta.discourse.org/u/mcwumbly)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2014, 11:45pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implement-gist-onebox/14041/4 "2014-11-24T23:45:00Z")
I think the onebox content is all baked into the cooked HTML, which means that the server only needs to hit the Gist API once for any given link.
---
### Author:  [@Guilherme\_Carreiro](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Guilherme_Carreiro)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2014, 12:04am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implement-gist-onebox/14041/5 "2014-11-25T00:04:52Z")
Hmm… I don’t think so…
The flow that I’m thinking is:
1. The “Gist URL” is detected in the message:
[https://gist.github.com/karreiro/208fdd59fc4b4c39283b](https://gist.github.com/karreiro/208fdd59fc4b4c39283b)
2. We detect the URL and the sha: 208fdd59fc4b4c39283b
3. We make a request to “Gist API” to obtain the information:
[https://api.github.com/gists/GIST\_ID](https://api.github.com/gists/GIST_ID)
[https://api.github.com/gists/208fdd59fc4b4c39283b](https://api.github.com/gists/208fdd59fc4b4c39283b)
Finally, we manipulate the JSON response to cook the HTML through a mustache template, that would be something like this:
```
{{#gist_files}}
{{filename}}
{{content}}
{{#truncated}}
This file has been truncated. show original
{{/truncated}}
{{/gist_files}}
```
So, every time that we detect a Gist URL, we’ll need to make a different request to “Gist API” to obtain specific information.
Am I right? .-.
Thanks! 🙂
---
### Author:  [@sam](https://meta.discourse.org/u/sam)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2014, 12:17am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implement-gist-onebox/14041/6 "2014-11-25T00:17:42Z")
Correct, so a condition where users on your site are posting more than 60 gists per hour in posts would be … presumably … quite rare.
Also … we are open to a PR that wires in GitHub OAuth stuff if you really want it.
---
### Author:  [@Guilherme\_Carreiro](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Guilherme_Carreiro)
#### Post date: [November 25, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implement-gist-onebox/14041/7 "2014-11-25T00:38:40Z")
Ohh! Now I realised what @mcwumbly said!
Thank you guys.
I’ll keep the server side approach, without the OAuth implementation, for while.
Thanks again. 😉
---
### Author:  [@Guilherme\_Carreiro](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Guilherme_Carreiro)
#### Post date: [November 28, 2014, 1:41am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implement-gist-onebox/14041/8 "2014-11-28T01:41:14Z")
[https://github.com/discourse/onebox/pull/258](https://github.com/discourse/onebox/pull/258)
---
### Author:  [@digitalsurgeon](https://meta.discourse.org/u/digitalsurgeon)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2014, 12:22pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implement-gist-onebox/14041/9 "2014-12-22T12:22:18Z")
Can we now mark this as closed/implemented?
---
### Author:  [@sam](https://meta.discourse.org/u/sam)
#### Post date: [December 22, 2014, 12:25pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implement-gist-onebox/14041/10 "2014-12-22T12:25:29Z")
Nope,
>
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2015, 7:52am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implement-gist-onebox/14041/11 "2015-08-18T07:52:04Z")
I guess it is working now! ⛅
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [August 18, 2015, 7:52am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implement-gist-onebox/14041/12 "2015-08-18T07:52:08Z")