I want to enforce coding standards for our Delphi codebase.
A few colleagues have suggested Code Healer and Pascal Analyzer. I've had a look at these tools and they aren't suitable.
I was hoping to be able to do the same thing that CheckStyle for Java or StyleCop for C# can do
Some newer editions of Delphi offer Audits and Metrics in the Model view, which can also be configured to set allowed limits. They do not run from command line for build integration afaik so I found them not very helpful.
I know the highly customizable Java (and .Net tools) like PMD, FindBugs and CheckStyle which generate XML or HTML statistic reports, and also integrate very well with build tools (Ant, Maven, Hudosn) - but for Delphi nothing comparable has crossed my road so far.
It seems those 2 are the most used. You can also try:
http://jedicodeformat.sourceforge.net/
The best one is Pascal Analyzer (PAL) by Peganza, which you said you tried and found unsuitable, but did not say why. I will say a bit in its favor: It's Commercial, inexpensive, and so worth it. They recently released version 5, and if version 5 doesn't do what you want, you should tell them what you want, because they have always answered my requests whenever I have mentioned a feature I wish the product would add.
We use it instead of the high-end SKUs of Delphi's metrics because it costs less and does more than the built-in $3000 stuff. I think it costs about $160 us.
I am a happy customer. Here is a sample of some of the metric areas that I like:
convention compliance - class names that don't start with T, exception types don't start with E, class fields not in private, identifiers with goofy names, class visibility confusion or bad order, local identifier/unit outer scope identifier clashes. Inconsistent case, Many many many more!
The weakness is that the output is plain text in a "TMemo" control. Of course, I have found a lot of ways to take that output and write my own small sort/filter utilities to mine even more useful stuff from the reports. A powerful tool that you won't be able to live without once you try it.
I realize you said in your answer that you tried that already, but if it's not what you want, it's already the best LINT like tool for Pascal that currently exists.
If you're into writing your own style checking, you can write a .exe in Delphi to look for bad things being committed. Call that in a pre-commit hook into your repository.
You can examine the differences of a checkin by using SVNLOOK.
ex:
excerpt from pre-commit.bat
SVNLOOK diff -t "%2" "%1" | MyCustomFilter.exe
IF %ERRORLEVEL% == 0 GOTO EOJ
EXIT 1
:EOJ
EXIT 0
Related
Having just switched to VS2019 I’m exploring whether to use code analysis. In the project properties, “code analysis” tab, there are numerous built-in Microsoft rule sets, and I can see the editor squiggles when my code violates one of these rules. I can customise these rule sets and “save as” to create my own.
I have also seen code analyser NuGet packages such as “Roslynator” and “StyleCop.Analyzers”. What’s the difference between these and the built-in MS rules? Is it really just down to more comprehensive sets of rules/more choice?
If I wanted to stick with the built-in MS rules, are there any limitations? E.g. will they still get run and be reported on during a TFS/Azure DevOps build?
What's the difference between legacy FxCop and FxCop analyzers?
Legacy FxCop runs post-build analysis on a compiled assembly. It runs as a separate executable called FxCopCmd.exe. FxCopCmd.exe loads the compiled assembly, runs code analysis, and then reports the results (or diagnostics).
FxCop analyzers are based on the .NET Compiler Platform ("Roslyn"). You install them as a NuGet package that's referenced by the project or solution. FxCop analyzers run source-code based analysis during compiler execution. FxCop analyzers are hosted within the compiler process, either csc.exe or vbc.exe, and run analysis when the project is built. Analyzer results are reported along with compiler results.
Note
You can also install FxCop analyzers as a Visual Studio extension. In this case, the analyzers execute as you type in the code editor, but they don't execute at build time. If you want to run FxCop analyzers as part of continuous integration (CI), install them as a NuGet package instead.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/code-quality/fxcop-analyzers-faq?view=vs-2019
So, the built-in legacy FxCop and NuGet analyzers only run at build time while the extension analyzers can run at the same time the JIT compiler does as you type. Also, you have to specifically say to run legacy code analysis on build, whereas the NuGet analyzers will run on build just because they are installed. And analyzers installed as NuGet or extensions won't run when you go to the menu option "Run Code Analysis".
At least, that's what I get out of that page.
There's a link near the bottom of that page that takes you to what code analysis rules have moved over to the new analyzers, including rules that are now deprecated.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/code-quality/fxcop-rule-port-status?view=vs-2019
The different analyzers attempt to cover different coding styles and things Microsoft didn't cover when they built FxCop. With the little research I just did on this, there's a whole rabbit hole to follow, Alice, that would take more time than I have right now to devote to it. And it seems to be filled with lots of arcane knowledge and OCD style code nitpicks that make Wonderland seem normal. But that's just my opinion.
There's lots of personal and professional opinion about various rules in these and basic Microsoft rules, so there's plenty of room to use what you want and disable what you don't. For a beginner, I'd suggest turning on only a few rules at a time. That way you aren't inundated with more warnings and errors than lines of code you might have. Ok, so that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but there's so many rules that really are nitpicks, especially on legacy code, that they aren't really worth it to have enabled, since you likely won't have time to fix it all. You will also want to do basic research and use "common sense" when you decide what to enable. ("Do I really need to worry about variable capitalization coding style consistency on an app that's been ported into 4 different languages over 15+ years and has 10k files?") This is both personal and professional opinion here, so follow it or not.
And don't forget the rules that contradict each other. Those are fun to deal with.......
I have a large application to manage consisting of of three or four executables and as many as fifty .dlls. Many of the source code files are shared across many of the projects.
The problem is a familiar one to many of us - if I change some source code I want to be able to identify which of the binaries will change and, therefore, what it is appropriate to retest.
A simple approach would be simply to compare file sizes. That is an 80% acceptable solution, but there is at least a theoretical possibility of missing something. Secondly, it gives me very little indication as to WHAT has changed; It would be ideal to get some form of report on this so I can then filter out irrelevant (e.g. dates/versions copyrights etc..)
On the plus side :
all my .dcus are in a row - I mean they are all built into a single folder
the build is controlled by a script (.bat)(easy, for example, to emit .obj files if that helps)
svn makes it easy to collect together any (two) revisions for comparison
On the minus side
There is no policy to include all used units in all projects; some units get included because they are on a search path.
Just knowing that a changed unit is used/compiled by a project is not sufficient proof that the binary is affected.
Before I begin writing some code to solve the problem I would like to ask the panel what suggestions they might have as to how to approach this.
The rules of StackOverflow forbid me to ask for recommended software, but if anyone has any positive experiences of continuous integration tools that would help - great
I am open to any suggestion or observation that is relevant in this context.
It seems to me that your question boils down to knowing which units are contained in your various executables. Since you are using search paths, it will be hard for you to work this out ahead of time. The most robust way to find out is to consult the .map file that the compiler emits. This contains a list of all units contained in your executable.
Once you know which units are contained in each executable, you need to know whether or not anything has changed in those units. That information is contained in your revision control system. Put this all together and you have the information that you need.
Of course, just because the source code for a unit has changed, you might argue that re-testing is not needed. Perhaps the only change made was the version, or the date in a copyright label or some such. But it is asking too much to be able to ask a computer to make such a judgement. At some point you need a human to step up and take responsibility.
What is odd about this though is that you are asking the question at all. It seems to me to be enormously risky to attempt partial testing. I cannot understand why you don't simply retest the entire product.
After using it for > 10 years for commercial in-house and freelancer work in large projects, I can recommend to try Apache Ant. It is a build tool which supports dependencies, and has many very helpful features.
Apache Ant also integrates nicely with CI tools such as Hudson/Jenkins, Bamboo etc.
Another suggestion - based on experience with Maven - is to design the general software architecture as modular as possible. If modules (single or multiple source or DCU files in one directory) use a version number in the directory name as a version number, it is possible to control exactly how application are composed from these modules.
If you want to program such a tool yourself the approach would be something like this:
First you need to detect wheter there were any changes made to seperate source files. As you already figured out comparing the file size is bad idea as the file size can stay the same despite lots of changes made to it (as long as there is same amount of text in pas file its size won't change). So instead you could check the last modification time for specific file or create some hash value like MD5 hash for comparison (can be quite slow).
Then you need to generate yourself a dependancy tree which will tell you which files are used for which project/subproject.
Finally based on changes detected in seperate files you check the dependancy tree to see which projects needs to be recompiled.
The problem of such approach is that you would probably have to update the dependancy tree manually each time when new unit is added to the project or an existing one is removed from the project.
But the best way would be to go and use some version controll software istead of reinventing the wheel. I myself like the way how GIT works and I belive that with proper implementation of GIT into the project mannager itself could be quite powerfull do to GIT support of branching/subbranching (each project is its own branch, each version of your software can be its own subbranch).
Now latest version of Delphi does have GIT integration done though SVN but this unfortunately limits some of best GIT functionality. So if you maybe decide to go and integrate GIT support directly into Delphi I'm first in line to use it.
We're trying to untangle a hairball of 100's of units, removing some.
It would be helpful if there was tool that would show us what units were explicitly using unit X.
Penganza doesn't seem to have a report that does that. (Although it has lots of other useful reports.)
Can anyone suggest a tool or strategy for doing this, other than just hiding unit x and then hitting F9 ... repeatedly?
MMX (Model Maker Code Explorer) has a nice unit dependency analyzer (it is especially good at detecting cycles).
For more details, see this answer.
--jeroen
From a similar question here
You might want to take a look at at
CnPack.
CnPack includes a Uses cleaner
wizard wich hasn't failed me yet.
GExperts can show Project Dependencies.
Peganza Pascal Analyzer can do the work. I haven't worked with it much, but a former dev here wrote a system that uses PAL to do the analysis, then dumped the results into a database, and then there's a browser app that lets you enter a unit name and it returns the list of units affected, whether they would need to be rebuilt if the unit changed, or if the interface changed. We use lots of BPLs so you can sometimes change a unit and you don't have to re-build other binaries that use your unit, unless the interface changed. This saves us lots of work (hundreds of BPLs and EXEs).
Chris
Headway Software's Structure 101g (and Restructure 101g) can do that really well, with the Delphi plugin.
Disclaimer: I wrote the flavors to analyze Delphi. I use them professionally, helping clients.
We've just released a freeware utility that does exactly what you need plus quite a bit more. It's called the Delphi Unit Dependency Scanner (DUDs) and you can download it here: http://www.easy-ip.net/delphi-unit-dependency-scanner.html
Sorry it's a bit late!
I was going to mention Icarus, but when I googled them I got this stack overflow answer, which you might want to check out.
Then again, sometimes I just like to delete my whole Unit Output Directory, then count my new DCU's, and that works too.
The reason you may like Icarus and not GExperts is that it doesn't rely on you to have properly maintained the uses statements in your project file.
A newcomer in this field is the Delphi Plugin for Sonar. It does not list unit dependencies but can find unused files and "dead" code (and more).
Implemented features:
Counting lines of code, statements, number of files
Counting number of classes, number of packages, methods, accessors
Counting number of public API (methods, classes and fields)
Counting comments ratio, comment lines (including blank lines)
CPD (code duplication, how many lines, block and in how many files)
Code Complexity (per method, class, file; complexity distribution
over methods, classes and files)
LCOM4 and RFC
Code colorization
Unit tests reports
Assembler syntax in grammar
Include statement
Parsing preprocessor statements
Rules
Code coverage reports
Source code highlight for unit tests
“Dead” code recognition
Unused files recognition
Does anyone know of an equivalent to FxCop/StyleCop for Delphi? I would really like to get the automatic checking of style, etc. into Continuous Integration.
There's Pascal Analyzer from Peganza: http://www.peganza.com/products_pal.htm
I don't know how the features compare to FxCop, since I haven't really used either one.
The closest I've seen is CodeHealer from SOCK software. We use it, and we have integrated it into our FinalBuilder build. It differs from FxCop in one important way: It analyzes the source code, rather than the produced executable. It also doesn't check quite as much as FxCop does. But I think it is the best thing which is available in this category for Delphi.
Delphi 2009 support isn't there just yet, but they say they're working on it.
Delphi Code Analyzer is another one that is open source.
The DGrok project started with something like FxCop some years ago. The parser and analysis parts are still available, read more at "DGrok 0.8.1: multithreading, default options, GPL" - The parser is a .Net project but
DGrok is a set of tools for parsing
Delphi source code and telling you
stuff about it. Read more about it on
the DGrok project page.
There is a new Delphi plugin for Sonar, which uses a Delphi grammar to run automatic tests over the source code.
I've heard of something called Delforex but haven't used it myself (yet)
Delforex is great for actually formatting the code. It does not do much more than that though. (we have/do use it).
I would second the votes for either Pascal Analyzer or Code Healer.
Vaccano
Doesn't Delphi output .net compatible IL code? I haven't used it in an age but I thought newer versions output .net assemblies.
If so then I would have thought FXcop would work and you could always add some of your own custom rules to it. Stylecop would not work but you could at least get FXCop running.
Are there any support tools like coderush or resharper for F#?
Preview version of FSharpRefactor released in Visual Studio Gallery.
http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/339cbae9-911d-4f99-9033-3c3564676f45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6-YjUULNCA/
F# Refactor open source project on CodePlex (Apache license).
Take a look at the open-source Visual F# Power Tools project. They've got a rename refactoring, some code generation stuff (eg. record stub generation), graying out of unused declarations, as well as some other things. They're moving pretty fast at the moment, with lots of new features getting added all the time.
There's an effort to support F# in ReSharper via an external plug-in (itself written in F#). You can find preliminary info here.
FSharpRefactor 0.1 (Preview version) Released on the Visual Studio Gallery.
http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/339cbae9-911d-4f99-9033-3c3564676f45?SRC=Home
Not yet, as far as I know. I was also looking for something similar to no success. I suspect as soon as F# hits VS2010 as its integral part, or even a bit earlier, such tools will eventually emerge.
As far as ReSharper is concerned, you may want to drop JetBrains a quick email, it would be interesting to know whether these guys have any plans regarding F#.
Since the push in f# is towards light mode the reformatting possible is likely to be both limited, and hard to implement.
Normally reformatting takes the structural information and uses that to create the textual position. In the case of #light the textual position (of indenting at least) is the structure. As such any reformatting would be at best to sort inter symbol spacing, hardly onerous to do yourself.
I would therefore not expect a commercial product for it at least until the 'proper' integration with the IDE (I do not consider the current CTP proper in this regard since several outstanding bugs with it exist which will not be fixed in 2008)
CodeRush is working in F# editor. At least some code assistance and code templates. But code templates are not defined yet (you have to create your own).