Apparently, links are not supposed to connect objects of modules which reside in different projects. I failed trying to create some, both manually as well as DXL-based.
My script
Module modA = edit("/foo/foo", true, false)
Module modB = read("/bar/bar", false)
Object objA = object(1472, modA)
Object objB = object(781, modB)
objA -> objB
The script prints the error:
-R-E- DXL: <Line:78> A linkset pairing restriction prevents the creation of links
from /foo/foo to /bar/bar.
No link will be created.
-I- DXL: execution halted
Is there any trick to bypass that and create a link using magic or hidden features?
That is not a restriction for linking across Projects. This error is telling your two things:
There is no Linkset defined between the two documents specified.
The setting for Mandatory linksets is turned on in the document you are linking from.
I HIGHLY recommend leaving the Mandatory linksets turned on for all modules. Linksets give you the ability to organize the type of links that you are creating. If you turn this off, users can create linksets from anything to anything with any linkset they define on the fly. I have seen this cause big problems at different companies because you can't easily identify what links you want to analyze for traceability.
We have instead created a handful of link modules that we use for all links in our database. For Example:
Traceability Links
Reference Links
Glossary Links
etc...
This way, in any document we can reuse the same views and filters to view traceability across the Project or Projects. We then set up the linksets to use these link modules only.
Long story short, you need to create a linkset between Module A and Module B in Module A properties.
Related
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.
my question is quite the same as this one :
How to Iterate over target objects of outgoing links in DXL, in Modules not previously loaded
but regarding incoming links.
I would like to use the source objects of incoming links but there are located in module that are not previsously loaded.
I don't want to open and close module each time because it would cost too much time. I would like to open them once and close them at the end.
Two solution for this :
be able to know if the module is already open or not so that I don't open it again (is there a "is_open" function in DXL + store the list of open module in a table and close them all at the end.
or better :
before start of loop, use a loop using the link module and the target module to find all module in the database that could be linked to the target module. And I load them all (even if there is no links between them. But my script would be simpler this way). How can I do this ? I tried something like :
ModName_ src_mod_linkset
for src_mod_linkset in "target_module"<-"linkmodulename" do
{
print "test"
}
but in this kind of loop, it doesn't work because "target_module" should be an object and not the complete module.
https://www.ibm.com/mysupport/s/forumshome has a lot of information on this. A query "Engineering Requirements Management DOORS" incoming links brings you some example scripts. I prefer this approach (load the ModuleVersion if its data is null): https://www.ibm.com/mysupport/s/forumsquestion?language=de&id=0D50z00006HIDztCAH
About "is_open": there is a loop for module in database, which gives you a list of all open modules. You might want to store all open modules at the star of your script in a Skip list and when iterating over the incoming modules check to see whether you have to close the module at the end of your script.
I would not use your second approach if you plan to run your script on baselines, it might happen that the link set in the link module has been deleted in the meantime, so you will not get all possible in links. Anyway, the link modules could be anywhere in your database, not necessarily near your incoming module.
I have been given the task of creating a DXL script. First problem is that I have never used DXL before, even though I have many years experience with DOORS itself. I have been surfing the Net to seek guidance on my particular problem. I also have a few specimen DXL scripts for reference.
My new client requires that for each View of a given Module, of which there are many Views, new "reduced" Modules are to be produced reflecting each View.
By "reduced", I mean that these new Modules are to contain nothing that isn't actually needed for that View., i.e. Columns, Attributes etc. These new Modules will only have the single View.
So, the way forward as I see it, is to take copies of the single master Module, one for each View, rename those copies to reflect a given Master Module/Required View, select that required View in the given copy Module and then delete everything that is not needed by that View, i.e. available Columns, Attributes etc.
This would be simple if I had the required DXL knowledge, which I am endeavouring to pick up as fast as I can.
If at all possible, this script has to be generic and be able to work upon any of the master Module copies to produce the associated "reduced" Module reflecting a particular View.
The client aims to use the script periodically for View archiving (I know, that's the way they want it).
Clarification
Some clarification of what I believe is required, given the following text from my original question:
If at all possible, this script has to be generic and be able to work upon any of the master Module copies to produce the associated "reduced" Module reflecting a particular View.
So, say there are ten views of the master Module, outside of the DXL script, I would copy the master Module ten times, renaming each copy to reflect each of the ten views. Unless you know different, each of those ten copies will reflect the same “Absolute Number”s as are in the master Module, so no problem there?
So, starting with the first of the copied Modules, each named to reflect the View it will eventually represent, its View would be set from the ten Views available to it, that which matches its title.
The single generic DXL script would then be run against that first copy Module, the aim being to delete everything not actually needed for that view, i.e. Attributes, Columns etc. Would some kind of purging command be required in the script for any aforementioned deleted items?
The single generic DXL script would then delete ALL views from that copy Module. The log that is produced when running the script also needs capturing, but I’m not sure whether this should be done from within the script, if possible or as a separate manual task outside of the script.
The aforementioned (indented) process would then be repeated, using the same generic script, against the remaining nine copied Modules. The intension is to leave us with ten copy Modules, each one reflecting one of the ten possible Views, with each one containing only the Attributes, Columns etc. required for that View.
Creating a mirror of a module with this approach is not so easy IMO. Think e.g. about "Absolute Number". If the original module contains the numbers 15 (level 1), 2000 (level 2), 1 (level 1), you will have to create 2000 objects, purge 1997 of them and move them to the correct place.
There is a "duplicate" tool at https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/topic?id=43862118-113d-4eac-b3f1-21d3b73959d1 which tries to do this, but as stated there, this script is said not to work correctly in all situations.
So, I would rather use the approach "string clipCopy (Item i); string clipPaste(Folder folderRef)". Should be faster and less error prone. But: all Out-Links will also be copied with this method, you will probably have to delete these after the copy or else the link target module(s) will have lots of In-Links.
The problem is still not so easy to solve, as every view might have DXL columns that rely on some or other attribute, and it might contain DXL attributes which again might rely on sth else. I doubt that there is a way to analyze DXL code "on the fly" and find out which columns may be deleted.
Perhaps a totally different approach would be feasible: open each view and create an export to Excel, this way you will get rid of any dynamic dependencies. Then re-import the excel sheet to a new DOORS module. You will still have the "Absolute Number" problem, but perhaps you can make a deal that you will have a pseudo attribute "Original Absolute Number" and disregard the "new" "Absolute Number"'
Quite a big task for a DXL beginner....
Update: On second thought, perhaps you might want to combine these approaches
agree with your employer that you will use an alternative attribute for Absolute Number
use a loop like Russel suggested, when creating objects remember that objects might have to be created "below" or "after" its predecessor or sibling
for DXL attributes do not copy the DXL code but the actual current value of the object
for DXL columns create pseudo attributes _ and create a new view that uses these pseudo attributes instead of the original value
Copying the entire module, then deleting everything not in that view, seems worse than just copying the things you need from each particular view.
I would take the following as the outline of your program:
for view in main module do {
for column in view do {
Find attribute for each column and store (possibly in a skip list?)
Store name of column
}
create new module
create needed types / attributes in new module
create new view in new module
for object in main module {
create object in new module
for attribute in main module {
check if attribute is in new module {
copy info from old object to new
}
}
}
}
Each of these for X in y loops should be in the DXL reference manual in some for or another.
If you need more help, let me know!
I have been reading topic regarding linux libraries
http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LibraryArchives-StaticAndDynamic.html
it mentions:
"The benefit is that each and every object file need not be stated when linking because the developer can reference the individual library"
I am not following this statement. I wonder if someone could have a further explanation or an example please?
Thanks
It's not the best phrasing in the world, IIUC, and is a bit misleading. IMHO, instead of
The benefit is that each and every object file need not be stated when linking because the developer can reference the individual library
it should say
The benefit is that each and every object file need not be stated when linking because the developer can reference the entire library (as a named entity)
Basically, it means the following. In the absence of libraries, the author of what is now a library, could simply build a list of object files, like this:
a0.cpp -> a0.o
a1.cpp -> a1.o
...
and then she could write in the documentation "if you want functions x, y, and z", then you need to link with a3.o (because it contains x and z), a42.o (for y), but also a23.o, a15.o, and a72.o, because they contain necessary underlying parts.
This is of course unwieldy. A saner approach, as your link explains, is to create a single library from a state of common-purpose functions and classes. The instructions become "if you want the functionality of shooting up foo aliens, link with the foo_alien_shooting library".
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.