I have rule A implemented with a macro that uses declare_directory to produce a set of files:
output = ctx.actions.declare_directory("selected")
Names of those files are not known in advance. The implementation returns the directory created by declare_directory with the following:
return DefaultInfo(
files = depset([output]),
)
Rule A is included in "srcs" attribute of rule B. Rule B is also implemented with a macro. Unfortunately the list of files passed to B implementation through "srcs" attribute only contains the "selected" directory created by rule A instead of files residing in that directory.
I know that Args class supports expansion of directories so I could pass names of all files in "selected" directory to a single action. What I need, however, is a separate action for every individual file for parallelism and caching. What is the best way to achieve that?
This is one of the intended use cases of directory outputs (called TreeArtifacts in the implementation), and it's implemented using ActionTemplate:
https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/blob/c2100ad420618bb53754508da806b5624209d9be/src/main/java/com/google/devtools/build/lib/actions/ActionTemplate.java#L24-L57
However, this is not exposed to Starlark, and has only a couple usages currently, in the Android rules AndroidBinary.java and C++ rules CcCompilationHelper.java. The Android rules and C++ rules are going to be migrated over to Starlark, so this functionality might eventually be made available in Starlark, but I'm not sure of any concrete timelines. It would probably be good to file a feature request on Github.
Related
I am writing a custom rule that takes inputs from cc_library, cc_binary, apple_static_library, and a few other platform-specific rules. I'd like to view each API given to me via referencing ctx.attr.foo inside the custom rule's implementation function.
There is a list of providers here https://docs.bazel.build/versions/master/skylark/lib/skylark-provider.html but it doesn't say which rules are using them.
Is there a best practice for viewing what these rules are providing me, or does it require going through the source for each one?
This is how you get all providers and output groups from a target:
bazel cquery my_target --output=starlark --starlark:expr="providers(target)"
You can get a list of providers for a given target with dir. Something like this is helpful for debugging:
def _print_attrs_impl(ctx):
for target in ctx.attr.targets:
print('%s: %s' % (target.label, dir(target)))
Printing from inside a rule you're developing is often helpful too, to verify targets are actually what you expect them to be.
You can also apply dir to the providers themselves, to see what fields they have.
Yes, I read dart import and part of directives in same file
I have this structure:
lib/
src/
one/
SomeClass.dart
one.dart
mylib.dart
main.dart
I'm trying to achieve this behavior:
All public and hidden variables are fully accessible inside library.
All public variables from library are accessible to main.dart.
There is a problem. For some weird reason I can't use any directive with 'part of'. So I can't use this in the one.dart:
part of mylib;
import 'SomeClass.dart';
//somecode
So I either need to move class definition from SomeClass.dart to one.dart (and that will make code less readable and mixed up) or I need to move 'import' in the mylib.dart.
library mylib;
import 'SomeClass.dart';
part ..
I don't like either of the options. In the second case I will need to parse all modules then and move import/exports. Which will definitely break something.
It may sound weird but the project will build from various modules automatically. And one/ is one of them.
This app design is bad, I know. But either I need to find a better way or just make all variables public and don't bother.
Default to defining one type per file, not using part, and importing only the files you need. This covers the majority of use cases.
Now, let's say you have two types that are commonly used together - for example, a Thing and a ThingException that gets thrown when Thing does bad things. Importing both of these files everywhere is tedious, so you have three options with their own tradeoffs:
Declare both types in the same file.
Declare each type in its own file, and have the 'primary' file export the other. So, thing.dart exports thing_exception.dart. Importing thing.dart gives the importing file access to both.
Declare each type in its own file, and have the other file be a 'part of' the primary file. So, thing_exception.dart declares that it is 'part of' thing.dart. Importing thing.dart gives the importing file access to both files.
For this simple type and its exception, your best bet is to use option 1. When the amount of code grows or the two types diverge in visibility, this option becomes less attractive. This puts options 2 and 3 are on the table.
When you have separate files, option 2 is often a better approach than options 3 because you maintain some flexibility - you could only import thing_exception.dart and not thing.dart. If you use option 3, you can't do this - you either import all of the parts or none of them. This is the error you are seeing when trying to do a part and import in the same file.
Option 3 becomes valuable when you the code is in the two files is highly dependent on one another and they need the ability to access private members of each other. This is less common.
When you have a bunch of files like this together, it becomes a 'library' in the more traditional sense. You declare a main library file (your my lib.dart file) that exports files:
export 'public.dart';
export 'other_public.dart';
The bin script imports the library as a whole, but it can't see anything that isn't explicitly exported from my_lib.dart.
import 'package:mylib/mylib.dart';
Here's an example of a smallish package that uses all three of these options together for a good reference.
I think you will have better luck using import, and export with show. (Use of part of is now discouraged.)
Answers to this question may help you: When to use part/part of versus import/export in Dart?
Also the Creating library packages documentation: https://www.dartlang.org/guides/libraries/create-library-packages
I want to define a precompile string variable and use it in {$include} directive in delphi, for example:
{$define FILE_NAME "lockfile"}
{$include FILE_NAME'.txt.1'}
{$include FILE_NAME'.txt.2'}
...
For security reasons (this is part of our licensing system), we don't want to use normal strings and file reading functions. Is there any capability for this purpose in Delphi?
The $INCLUDE directive does not support indirection on the file name. So, the following code:
const
someconst = 'foo';
{$INCLUDE someconst}
leads to the following error:
F1026 File not found: 'someconst.pas'
If you must use an include file, you must apply the indirection by some other means. One way could be to use the fact that the compiler will search for the included file by looking on the search path. So, if you place each client specific include file in a different directory, then you can add the client specific directory to the search path as part of your build process.
FWIW, I find it hard to believe that this will make your program more immune to hacking. I think that a more likely outcome is that your program will be just as susceptible to hacking, but that it will become much more difficult and error prone for you to build and distribute the program.
You requirement may be better satisfied by the proper use of a VCS system. You need "branches" for every customer where customer-specific files contains customer-specific data. This will avoid to litter your code with complex directive to manage each customer - file names stays the same, just their content is different in each branch. Adding a new customer just requires to create a new branch and update files there.
Then you just need get each branch and compile it for each customer to get the final executable(s) with customer specific data built in.
I want to dynamically load code by traversing a directory structure and dynamically load whatever modules I find there.
The purpose for doing so is to run a series of validations. If a top-level validation fails, any child validations will not be run.
My thinking was that a controller object could scan the directories, build up a hierarchy of modules and then make the decisions on whether or not to traverse a particular part of the tree based on the success/failure of higher-level validations.
For example, I might have a series of validations I want to run against a regex, however, none of the validations should be run if the regex doesn't exist or is empty. In this case, the top level directory would contain just the exists validation, and a child directory would contain all the other validations to be run if the regex exists.
Being able to define these validations in separate files and create the needed hierarchy would be extremely useful for ease of adding additional validations later, rather than having to crack open an existing class and add methods.
Is there a way an application can dynamically scan a directory, save the filenames in a collection and then use the elements of that collection in a require? I don't think so. What about a load?
Is there any way to achieve such a design? Or am I thinking about it all wrong and should think of some other methodology instead?
Your request is very doable, but no language will do it for you automatically. You have to write the code to dive into the directories, determine the existence of the tests and then decide whether you should drill down further.
Ruby will help you though. There is the Find module, which is included in the standard library. This is from its docs:
The Find module supports the top-down traversal of a set of file paths.
For example, to total the size of all files under your home directory,
ignoring anything in a "dot" directory (e.g. $HOME/.ssh):
require 'find'
total_size = 0
Find.find(ENV["HOME"]) do |path|
if FileTest.directory?(path)
if File.basename(path)[0] == ?.
Find.prune # Don't look any further into this directory.
else
next
end
else
total_size += FileTest.size(path)
end
end
From that code you would look for the signatures of the files and embedded folders, to decide if you should drill down further. For each file found that is one you want, use require to load it.
You can find other examples out on the "internets" showing how people use Find. Also the Dir module has similar functionality using glob, only you have to tell it where to descend, and then can iterate over the returned results.
I'm currently writing some functions that are related to lists that I could possibly be reused.
My question is:
Are there any conventions or best practices for organizing such functions?
To frame this question, I would ideally like to "extend" the existing lists module such that I'm calling my new function the following way: lists:my_funcion(). At the moment I have lists_extensions:my_function(). Is there anyway to do this?
I read about erlang packages and that they are essentially namespaces in Erlang. Is it possible to define a new namespace for Lists with new Lists functions?
Note that I'm not looking to fork and change the standard lists module, but to find a way to define new functions in a new module also called Lists, but avoid the consequent naming collisions by using some kind namespacing scheme.
Any advice or references would be appreciated.
Cheers.
To frame this question, I would ideally like to "extend" the existing lists module such that I'm calling my new function the following way: lists:my_funcion(). At the moment I have lists_extensions:my_function(). Is there anyway to do this?
No, so far as I know.
I read about erlang packages and that they are essentially namespaces in Erlang. Is it possible to define a new namespace for Lists with new Lists functions?
They are experimental and not generally used. You could have a module called lists in a different namespace, but you would have trouble calling functions from the standard module in this namespace.
I give you reasons why not to use lists:your_function() and instead use lists_extension:your_function():
Generally, the Erlang/OTP Design Guidelines state that each "Application" -- libraries are also an application -- contains modules. Now you can ask the system what application did introduce a specific module? This system would break when modules are fragmented.
However, I do understand why you would want a lists:your_function/N:
It's easier to use for the author of your_function, because he needs the your_function(...) a lot when working with []. When another Erlang programmer -- who knows the stdlb -- reads this code, he will not know what it does. This is confusing.
It looks more concise than lists_extension:your_function/N. That's a matter of taste.
I think this method would work on any distro:
You can make an application that automatically rewrites the core erlang modules of whichever distribution is running. Append your custom functions to the core modules and recompile them before compiling and running your own application that calls the custom functions. This doesn't require a custom distribution. Just some careful planning and use of the file tools and BIFs for compiling and loading.
* You want to make sure you don't append your functions every time. Once you rewrite the file, it will be permanent unless the user replaces the file later. Could use a check with module_info to confirm of your custom functions exist to decide if you need to run the extension writer.
Pseudo Example:
lists_funs() -> ["myFun() -> <<"things to do">>."].
extend_lists() ->
{ok, Io} = file:open(?LISTS_MODULE_PATH, [append]),
lists:foreach(fun(Fun) -> io:format(Io,"~s~n",[Fun]) end, lists_funs()),
file:close(Io),
c(?LISTS_MODULE_PATH).
* You may want to keep copies of the original modules to restore if the compiler fails that way you don't have to do anything heavy if you make a mistake in your list of functions and also use as source anytime you want to rewrite the module to extend it with more functions.
* You could use a list_extension module to keep all of the logic for your functions and just pass the functions to list in this function using funName(Args) -> lists_extension:funName(Args).
* You could also make an override system that searches for existing functions and rewrites them in a similar way but it is more complicated.
I'm sure there are plenty of ways to improve and optimize this method. I use something similar to update some of my own modules at runtime, so I don't see any reason it wouldn't work on core modules also.
i guess what you want to do is to have some of your functions accessible from the lists module. It is good that you would want to convert commonly used code into a library.
one way to do this is to test your functions well, and if their are fine, you copy the functions, paste them in the lists.erl module (WARNING: Ensure you do not overwrite existing functions, just paste at the end of the file). this file can be found in the path $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/src/lists.erl. Make sure that you add your functions among those exported in the lists module (in the -export([your_function/1,.....])), to make them accessible from other modules. Save the file.
Once you have done this, we need to recompile the lists module. You could use an EmakeFile. The contents of this file would be as follows:
{"src/*", [verbose,report,strict_record_tests,warn_obsolete_guard,{outdir, "ebin"}]}.
Copy that text into a file called EmakeFile. Put this file in the path: $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/EmakeFile.
Once this is done, go and open an erlang shell and let its pwd(), the current working directory be the path in which the EmakeFile is, i.e. $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/.
Call the function: make:all() in the shell and you will see that the module lists is recompiled. Close the shell.
Once you open a new erlang shell, and assuming you exported you functions in the lists module, they will be running the way you want, right in the lists module.
Erlang being open source allows us to add functionality, recompile and reload the libraries. This should do what you want, success.