I need to preprocess my launch storyboard file to change its background color based on same build time configuration. I've added the following rule under Xcode Build Rules:
But I'm having some problems getting this to work. Actual script is fine.
First, the rule is not being executed. I guess if fails to match the file name. When I specify to match *.storyboard, it gets executed, but I do not want it matching all storyboard files, just that one. Of course, I could check the file name in the script itself.
Secondly, when it gets executed, it does not cause any side effects. I guess that the rules that follow, more specifically Storyboard compiler, fail to pick this file up. It might be that I'm using wrong file paths, or that my change is being overwritten with original file sometime later in the build process. Does anyone have more experience in this?
Related
I would like a set of rules from my_package.bzl to be accessible to all BUILD files of a workspace without having to load my_package.bzl in the BUILD files. Basically I want the rules in the package to look like native rules. How can I achieve this?
I was thinking maybe there's a line I could add to one of the .bazelrcs or to the WORKSPACE file of the the project.
This can be achieved by adding a prelude_bazel file at //tools/build_rules:prelude_bazel (this must be a package, so tools/build_rules must contain a BUILD file).
This will be loaded and prepended to all BUILD files loaded by Bazel.
However, there are a few things to consider before going this route. It's currently undocumented, and while doing some searching to find any info on this feature, it's unclear if it will remain a part of Bazel.
It may also have performance / scaling problems. If the prelude were to change (or any of its dependencies), every BUILD file would have to be reloaded, and this may take some time depending on the size of the build graph.
I have inherited development of an iPhone app that was originally created overseas. The original developers are no longer available for questions. The app is currently available on the app store. So I assume the zip file that I received of the project is current and complete.
When I first open the project in xcode and do a build, I get hundreds of errors. They are all the same basic error. There are hundreds of .h files with one line:
../../../FBSDKCoreKit/FBSDKCoreKit/FBSDKCoreKit/Internal/ServerConfiguration/FBSDKServerConfiguration.h
I get the error "expected identifier or '(' on the first character of this line in every file.
I tried changing the line to:
#include "/../../../xxxxxxxxx"
and that worked. But as I said, there are several hundred of these files in the project. If this was a running app 'supposedly' from this source code, why should I need to go change hundreds of files and add #include to each line?
This project uses an old version of swift, and I had to go all the way back to xCode 7 to find a development environment that would support it. Is the .h syntax in these files some sort of deprecated syntax that stems from an even older version of xCode? Can some seasoned iPhone app developer tell me about this particular .h file syntax of including another .h file (and why it's failing for me now)?
Basically, if I need to change all of the .h files, then so be it. But I'm more than a bit concerned making this drastic a change to code that supposedly recently built a running app.
Suggestion? Enlightenments? Thanks.
Jerry
The "syntax" you described -- just a single line containing a file name (with a relative path)
../../../FBSDKCoreKit/FBSDKCoreKit/FBSDKCoreKit/Internal/ServerConfiguration/FBSDKServerConfiguration.h
has never ever been correct C/C++/Objective C (preprocessor) syntax. Either is some strange, proprietary custom preprocessing is running, or it's just garbage.
Using
#include "/../.."
is also nonsense: If you start a path with /, you start at the root directory, so navigating up with .. will lead you to root again, and xxxxxxxxx is expected exactly there in the root directory.
This was to the syntax. The semantics is hard to tell without the project.
Maybe it might just help if you completely remove those strange header files,
or comment out the erronous lines
or you need to adjust your include paths in the project to help Xcode find the files
Is there a way to specify optional dependencies in Bazel?
I'd like to make a rule to somewhat mirror Kitware's ExternalData, but I would like to see if I can enable workflows where the developer edits the file in-tree, ideally without needing to modify the BUILD file.
Ideal Workflow
Define a rule, external_data, which can fetch a file from a given server given its SHA-512.
If the file already exists, check it's SHA-512.
If that is what is requested, symlink / copy this file (ensuring that no tests can modify the original file).
If it is different, print a warning, but proceed as normal, to allow for developers to quickly modify the large files as they need.
I would like to do this such that Bazel can switch between the file being present and not, and be robust to false-positives on caching. An example scenario that I would like to avoid, if I were to not include it as an optional dependency:
In a prior run, the file was in the workspace, Bazel built the target, everything's fine and dandy.
Developer removes the file from the workspace after uploading, satisfied with their changes and wanting to test the download process.
When running the downstream target, Bazel doesn't care about the change in the workspace since it's not an explicit dependency, and the symlink is invalidated, and the test crashes and burns.
To me, it seems like I'd run into this if I tried to implement a repository_rule rule which manually checks for the file existence, and conditionally executes (I'm not sure if analysis would retrigger this rule being "evaluated" if Step 2 happens.).
Workaround
My current thought for an alternative workflow is to have an explicit option for external_data, use_workspace: if False, it will download the file; if True, it will just mirror exports_files([]). The developer can then set this when modifying files.
(Ideally, I'd like to optionally include a file which indicates the SHA (${file}.sha512), but this seems to go back to the original ask.)
One workaround is to use Bazel's glob(...) method to effectively check for file existence.
If you have a file, say basic.bin.sha512, and you want a rule to switch modes based on that file's existence, you can use glob(["basic.bin.sha512"]), which will either match the package file exactly or return an empty list.
I had tinkered around with using this on larger sets of files, and it appears to work. However, for the time being, I've erred to having a sort-of explicit "development" mode for the target definition to keep the Bazel build relatively consistent, regardless of what files may be checked out.
Here's an example usage:
https://github.com/EricCousineau-TRI/external_data_bazel/blob/4bf1dff/WORKFLOWS.md#edit-files-in-a-sha512-group
I'm at a complete loss as to what I did to cause this:
For the second time since I started using XCode about a month ago (my first time seriously using it after taking one class several years ago) I try to run my project and the next thing I know I have errors because I have duplicate references. I looked at the project and it appeared that most of the files in my project had duplicated themselves, however I discovered that they are not duplicate files just duplicate references. This happened to me today when I tried to build on an actual iphone for the first time but it also happened to me a few weeks ago while using the simulator. Neither time do I recall doing anything unusual. I have built and tested the project probably 100+ times and normally all goes ok. I was able to fix it the first time but I think I have made it worse this time and am probably going to add the files back into a new project. My co-worker also mentioned this happening to him (he has about as much experience with xcode as I do). He told me he ended up with files nested in folders (groups?) nested in other folders about 20 deep.
My question is this: Does anyone know what I may have done to cause this. I would really like to avoid this problem in the future since it is proving to be quite a headache. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
E.T.A. xcode version 4.6.2 (possibly an earlier version the first time it happened)
Try this instead:
Highlight all the duplicate files
Right click on one of the files and press "Delete"
When prompted for which delete option, click "Remove Reference"
Also you asked for "any advice".
If you aren't already using git source control in your Xcode projects, start now.
You can spot many mistakes like this earlier and fix them more easily using git.
When you add files as a copy, the Xcode project navigator shows added files with an A and modified files with an M.
If the file is inside a closed group folder, the folder shows an A.
If you add a reference without a copy the project navigator won't show an A but MyApp.xcodeproj will show M.
In Xcode you can discard a change before committing it.
In the case below, you would discard changes to all added or modified files.
Typically you review and commit changes frequently.
Using a gui tool such as SourceTree, you have a good chance of spotting an accidental change before you commit. For example, you can see changes to the project file.
If you accidentally commit an unintended change, you can go back later and reverse a commit.
By committing frequently, you have more control over which changes you undo and which ones you keep.
References:
http://www.raywenderlich.com/13771/how-to-use-git-source-control-with-xcode-in-ios-6
http://git-scm.com/doc (scroll down to see videos)
http://www.sourcetreeapp.com
http://gitimmersion.com
I had the same 20 deep nesting of my main folder of images. If its not a bug its very strange behaviour. I just backed it all up !! Then I opened the folder in finder, found the point at which it was starting to nest and deleted it.
I did a rebuild, but I don't think Xcode even noticed. It made no difference to the size of my app so Xcode was not putting unnecessary files in the binary.
This happened to me when I imported a file. Suddenly I had two nested directories containing what looked like copies of all my files. The compiler complained about duplicate classes.
I found a solution, but it's a ball-ache and a time sink.
1: Click on your project in the navigator to open up the project settings in the main view.
2: Open the 'Compile Sources' accordion entry.
(This allows you to see which files are being used in the compilation process.)
3: Find any duplicates in here and delete them.
(At this stage your project should compile again.)
4: In your navigator view, slow-double-click one of the files that's duplicated there. This should allow you to rename it. Change the name (not the extension) slightly.
5: You should notice that the copy becomes red. Select it and hit delete.
(This avoids the delete operation removing the file from the 'Compile Sources')
6: Rename the original file back to its original name again.
7: Repeat from 4 until done, or until bored.
8: Explain to your boss why a simple copy change took half a day.
This process can be optimised up by first renaming all duplicated files, then deleting the duplicates all at once. However this means that you can't test for successful compilation between steps, which allows you to narrow the culprit down to a single file. And takes even more time.
If compilation fails, ensure all the files you need are still in the 'Compile Sources' section, as this process can cause them to be lost from there. The compiler will normally give some reasonable errors about missing classes and variables, but a missing AppDelegate will produce a more confusing error.
I'm right-clicking a class category and choose fileOut for exporting it to an .st file. The problem is that it never asks me where to save to, instead just choosing a folder by itself (seems to be the same folder containing the image file).
How can I change it, forcing it to actually ask me where to save the file to? Previous Squeak versions (3.9.x) did ask me.
Squeak version is 4.2, OS is Ubuntu.
It looks like if you don't mind filing out twice, the default behaviour in 4.3 is to prompt if you would overwrite an existing file. Something like Class.st already exists, then select choose another name and you can write to the correct place in any directory, albeit with a second copy in the directory with the image.
I've checked in Pharo and it's the same, the menus just offer to file out to a predefined location.
However, it's still perfectly possible to trigger a file out by script. Look for implementors of #fileOut and #fileOutOn: for examples; evaluating something along the lines of `myProgramEntity fileOutOn: aFileStream' should do it.