I am using Ant 1.9.4.
I have two jar files and I would like to know if they are strictly equals.
Of course not only the name but every file in it.
My guess would be to have like a MD5 checker on something like that but I don't know if it is possible via ant.
Thank you for your help,
Regards
Ant core provides a checksum task :
Generates checksum for files. This task can also be used to perform checksum verifications.
May be used with conditon to make your build fail if binaries are not equal, f.e. :
<checksum file="path/to/foo.jar" property="fooMD5"/>
<fail message="Binaries not equal !!">
<condition>
<not>
<checksum file="path/to/fooo.jar" property="${fooMD5}"/>
</not>
</condition>
</fail>
There are also filesmatch and resourcesmatch conditions for file compare, see ant manual conditions.
Related
I want to use an condition property to set the property value to X if another property is defined and Y otherwise. However, I don't want the user to be able to override the condition property from the command line.
How can this be achieved?
Starting from ant 1.8 for some use cases local task may be applicable. Since a property is made local it starts with an empty value. It's scope is limited to current target, but you may pass it to subsequent targets using param argument in antcall.
Nope, you can't override a property set on the command line. At least, it's not easy to do. The whole purpose of overriding properties on the command line is to allow users to override defaults in order to make modification in the way your project builds. For example:
<property file="${basedir}/build.properties"/>
<property name="javac.debug" value="no"/>
<target name="compile">
<javac destdir="${main.destdir}"
debug="${javac.debug}">
By default, the Java code is compiled without debugging information. Maybe this is done to make jar files smaller, or faster interpretation, or maybe to make the code harder to decompile and read. Whatever reason, this build won't put debug information into the classfiles.
However, developers do want this debugging information, so they want to be able to override this setting:
$ ant -Djavac.debug=true compile
Or, they can create a build.properties file and put the value in there.
This type of issue comes up when you're not using Ant for builds. I know several sites that use Ant scripts to do deployments. I usually discourage this because Ant isn't really made for this type of thing. For example, Ant doesn't have any built in logic or loops. Once a property is set, it can't be changed. These are good ideas for a build language, but a terrible idea for a general purpose programming language.
Also, developers shouldn't be doing builds for QA or production. Those should be done by a build server that won't override defaults.
Now how to destroy this whole well thought out system and cause absolute havoc:
You can use the ant-contrib tasks in your project. Doing this will allow you to access the Ant Contrib var task to unset properties.
Download the ant-contrib.jar file (whatever the latest version is), and put it in a lib directory under your project. Then you can do this:
<project name="danger-will-robinson" default="package" basedir="."
xmlns:ac="http://ant-contrib.sourceforge.net">
<!-- Define the Ant-Contrib tasks -->
<taskdef=resource="net/sf/antcontrib/antlib.xml"
uri="http://ant-contrib.sourceforge.net">
<classpath>
<fileset dir="${basedir}/lib">
<include name="ant-contrib*.jar"/>
</fileset>
</classpath>
</taskdef>
<!-- Unset Property "foo", so you can use it -->
<ac:var name="foo" unset="true"/>
Note that the <classpath> points to the ant-contrib jar in the ${basedir}/lib directory. If you check that into your source repository, it will allow everyone who checks out your project to be able to do the build without installing the ant-contrib jar on their system.
Note that I've defined a "ac" XML namespace, so Ant-Contrib tasks won't overlap other possible third party tasks.
Properties in ant once set are immutable by design. You may overwrite an existing property with any scripting language that provides access to ant api, i.e. javascript.
JDK >= 1.6 already ships with a javascript engine, so you may use something like :
<project>
<property name="x" value="whatever"/>
<script language="javascript">
project.getProperty('x') ?
project.setProperty('foo', 'true') :
project.setProperty('foo', 'false');
</script>
<echo>$$[foo} => ${foo}</echo>
</project>
out of the box.But that won't help if someone uses ant -f yourbuild.xml -Dfoo=bla !! as userproperties (those properties defined via -Dkey=value) have a special protection.
So your requirement "..However, I don't want the user to be able to override the condition property from the command line". is not fullfilled.
But the let task from Ant addon Flaka provides the possibillity to overwrite even userproperties :
<project xmlns:fl="antlib:it.haefelinger.flaka">
<property name="x" value="whatever"/>
<!--
:= defines a new property whereas
::= overwrites any existing property
even userproperties
-->
<fl:let> foo ::= has.property['x'] ? 'true' : 'false'</fl:let>
<echo>$$[foo} => ${foo}</echo>
</project>
Run both scripts with ant -f yourbuild.xml -Dfoo=bla to see the difference.
Ant api has also method project.setUserProperty(String,String) so you may use also:
...
<script language="javascript">
project.getProperty('x') ?
project.setProperty('foo', 'true') :
project.setProperty('foo', 'false');
project.getUserProperty('x') ?
project.setUserProperty('foo', 'true') :
project.setUserProperty('foo', 'false');
</script>
...
to prevent the foo property to be set via .. -D .. and it will work even if property x is defined on commandline -Dx=whatever You have to make your choice, script task with javascript out of the box or Flaka let task
oneline solution but Flaka jar needed.
Can someone please explain me with Example of Ant condition property with "if", "and", "not" and "istrue" with the code??
I'm new to Ant and need help on this.
Basically i need to download file using FTP. I have code to download it. but there are few condition i need to check before downloading.
Before downloading check the Downloadstatusvariable value (usually its true or false value")
check whether file is already downloaded or available in the path
if both the conditions fails then exec the FTP download code.
Thanks in advance.
ant-contrib is widely-used library and the if/else/for/foreach tasks will not only make it easier to write complex ant scripts, they'll make your ant scripts much more readable.
But, since you insist :)
The way I've handled this in the past is to set up a task A that only executes if property X is set, and make task A depend on some task B that checks the conditions and sets property X if they are true. For example:
<target name="get-ftp-file" depends="check-need-ftp-file" if="ftp.call.required">
<ftp ... />
</target>
<target name="check-need-ftp-file">
<condition property="ftp.call.required">
<and>
<not>
<!-- Checks if Downloadstatusvariable variable is true -->
<istrue value="${Downloadstatusvariable}"/>
</not>
<not>
<!-- Checks if file is present in filesystem -->
<available file="${my.file}"/>
</not>
</and>
</condition>
</target>
EDIT:
coolgokul, the <and> and <not> tasks are standard logical operators. The <available> condition in the example above evaluates to true if the file exists on the local machine. But we want to download the file only if the file does NOT exist on the local machine, so we wrap it up in the <not> task. Similar for the ${Downloadstatusvariable} check--we want to make sure it is not true, so we use <istrue> and then wrap it up in <not>.
Finally, we want to make sure that that the variable is not true AND the file does not exist, so we wrap up both those conditions in <and>. Translated to English, we're asking "Is Downloadstatusvariable not true, and is the downloaded file not available?"
Recommend you read more about conditional operators # http://ant.apache.org/manual/Tasks/conditions.html
Hope that helps.
The standard Ant does not have an "if" task, but you can do pretty much any conditional logic you need to by using the "condition' task. See http://ant.apache.org/manual/Tasks/condition.html for some examples.
There is a set of additional tasks including an "if" task in the ant-contrib library, but I'd advise against using this unless you really need to, due to the complexity it will add to your build environment.
Are you trying out using Ant Contrib Task?. If you click on the links over there, the document explains with example what you might want to achieve through each of the tasks
Some relevant examples might be here: Steve J's Blog
I am using the ProGuard ant task, and everything is great, except that my ProGuard configuration file is huge. Also, different tasks use different ProGuard configuration files, and there is a lot of copy-pasting that I would like to refactor into separate .pro files.
<taskdef resource="proguard/ant/task.properties" classpath="C:/Program Files/proguard4.7/lib/proguard.jar"/>
<target name="obfuscated_jar" depends="raw_jar">
<proguard configuration="core.pro lib1.pro lib2.pro">
<outjar path="prog_obfuscated.jar"/>
</proguard>
</target>
The above doesn't work, because it treats the multiple .pro files as one big filename. I'm a known idiot w.r.t. ant, am I missing something obvious? Thanks!
You can create a single main .pro file that contains -include options pointing to your actual .pro files.
This answer isn't great, but it works...
<taskdef resource="proguard/ant/task.properties" classpath="C:/Program Files/proguard4.7/lib/proguard.jar"/>
<target name="obfuscated_jar" depends="raw_jar">
<concat destfile="proguard_temp.pro">
<filelist dir="." files="core.pro,lib1.pro,lib2.pro"/>
</concat>
<proguard configuration="proguard_temp.pro">
<outjar path="prog_obfuscated.jar"/>
</proguard>
<delete file="proguard_temp.pro"/>
</target>
Looks like only one file allowed in configuration attribute.
Edited
And attributes allowed only on <proguard> element. I have another possible solution. Try to concatenate your config-files into one with Ant concat-task and pass this temporary file to <proguard configuration=""> attribute.
Also, it's possible to modify ProGuardTask-class to accept several files as arguments and concatenate them later. And same result could be achieved with Ant macrodef .
I'm currently looking to run static analysis over a pre-existing project. As the project is created and supplied by an off-site company, I cannot change the build process radically.
The project is split into a lot of sub-modules, located in various places. For other analyisi tools (JDepend, Google Testability Explorer, etc.), I have dynamically detected all build JAR files into a path element as follows:
<path id="built-libs">
<fileset dir="${overall-base}">
<include name="${some-common-base}/**/lib/*.jar" />
</fileset>
</path>
<property name="built-libs-string" refid="built-libs" />
For some tools, I use the build-libs, for others I use the string (in classpath form; x.jar;y.jar).
The trouble is, FindBugs uses a completely different format to any other;
<class location="x.jar"/>
<class location="y.jar"/>
...
Now, I could list all the JAR files manually, but then run the risk of this list going out of synch with the other tool's lists, or of introducing typos.
Another complication is that I also want to run the reports in Jenkins, in this case the extract directory for individual modules will depend on the job that has previously built the module (pipeline builds, modules extracted from SCM and built in parallel, the reporting occurring at the end of the pipline).
I could make a call out to the OS to run FindBugs, passing in the JARs in a space separated list (as in Invoking FindBugs from Ant: passing a space-separated list of files to java). However, I prefer a, Ant solution to an OS <exec... hack.
Note I know I have a similar problem for the sourcepath element, however, I'm assuming that solving the class element problem also solves the sourcepath one.
Ideally, FindBugs should be taking a resource collection rather than separate class elements. I'm not familiar with FindBugs, so I can't comment on why they have chose to go the class element route instead of a resource collection, however your comment about using exec implies that using a resource collection is a valid design alternative.
I would try rolling your own Ant macro, which invokes FindBugs directly using the java task. This should give you the control you need and avoiding the redundancy that the FindBugs Ant task would introduce.
Another option (which is an ugly hack) is to use the fileset to write a mini ant file with a FindBugs target, which you then invoke using the ant task. shudders
The Findbugs Ant task allows you to specify a filelist which can be used to specify multiple files. Quoting from the Findbugs documentation
"In addition to or instead of specifying a class element, the FindBugs
task can contain one or more fileset element(s) that specify files to
be analyzed. For example, you might use a fileset to specify that all
of the jar files in a directory should be analyzed."
Example that includes all jars at ${lib.dir}:
<findbugs home="${findbugs.home}" output="xml" outputFile="findbugs.xml" >
<auxClasspath path="${basedir}/lib/Regex.jar" />
<sourcePath path="${basedir}/src/java" />
<fileset dir="${lib.dir}">
<include name="*.jar"/>
</fileset>
</findbugs>
I'm currently working with some developers who like to set up Ant tasks that define environment specific variables rather than using properties files. It seems they prefer to do this because it's easier to type:
ant <environment task> dist
Than it is to type:
ant -propertyfile <environment property file> dist
So for example:
<project name="whatever" default="dist">
<target name="local">
<property name="webXml" value="WebContent/WEB-INF/web-local.xml"/>
</target>
<target name="remote">
<property name="webXml" value="WebContent/WEB-INF/web-remote.xml"/>
</target>
<target name="build">
<!-- build tasks here --->
</target>
<target name="dist" depends="build">
<war destfile="/dist/foo.war" webxml="${webXml}">
<!-- rest of war tasks here -->
</war>
</target>
I am finding it hard to convince them that properties files are they right way to go. I believe properties files are better because:
They provides more flexibility - if you need a new environment just add a new properties file
It's clearer what's going on - You have to know about this little "trick" to realize what they're accomplishing
Doesn't provide default values and the ability to use overrides - if they used property files they could provide defaults at the top of the project but have the ability to override them with a file
Script won't break if an environment task isn't supplied on command line
Of course all they hear is that they need to change their Ant script and have to type more on the command line.
Can you provide any additional arguments in favor of properties files over "property tasks"?
Properties tasks tightly couple the build file to environments. If your fellow developers are arguing that they "have to change their ant script" with your suggestions, why aren't they arguing about changing it every time they have to deploy to a new environment? :)
Perhaps you can convince them to allow both properties file and command-line configuration. I set up my Ant builds so that if a build.properties exists in the same directory as the build.xml, it reads it in. Otherwise it uses a set of default properties hard-coded into the build. This is very flexible.
<project name="example">
<property file="build.properties"/>
<property name="foo.property" value="foo"/>
<property name="bar.property" value="bar"/>
...
</project>
I don't provide a build.properties with the project (i.e. build.properties is not versioned in SCM). This way developers aren't forced to use the property file. I do provide a build.properties.example file that developers can reference.
Since Ant properties, once set, are immutable, the build file will use properties defined in this order:
Properties provided with -D or -propertyfile via the command line
Properties loaded from build.properties
Default properties within build.xml
Advantages of this approach:
The build file is smaller and therefore more maintainable, less bug-prone
Developers that just can't get away from setting properties at the command line can still use them.
Properties files can be used, but aren't required
The arguments you have are already pretty compelling. If those arguments haven't worked, then arguing isn't going to solve the problem. In fact, nothing is going to solve the problem. Don't assume that people are rational and will do the most practical thing. Their egos are involved.
Stop arguing. Even if you win, the resentment and irritation you create will not be worth it. Winning an argument can be worse than losing.
Make your case, then let it go. It's possible that after a while they will decide to switch to your way (because it actually is better). If that happens, they will act like it was their own idea. There will be no mention of your having proposed it.
On the other hand, they may never switch.
The only solution is to work towards a position of authority, where you can say how things are to be done.
The problem with the first solution (using ant property) is basically hardcoding.
It can be convenient when you start a project for yourself but quickly you have to remove that bad habit.
I'm using a property file close to what said robhruska except that I have committed the build.properties file directly. This way you have a default one.
In other hand, I understand I could add those default values in the build.xml. (I will probably try that in the next hours/days ;-) ).
Anyway, I really don't like the first approach and I would force those guys to follow the second one ...