we need to run some code after the compile step. Making things happen after the compile step seems easy:
compile in Compile <<= (compile in Compile) map{x=>
// post-compile work
doFoo()
x
}
but how do you run something in the freshly compiled code?
More info on the scenario: we are using less for css in a lift project. We wanted lift to compile less into css on the fly (if needed) to help dev, but produce less using the same code, during the build, before tests etc run. less-sbt may help but we are interested in how to solve this generally.
You can use the triggeredBy method like this:
yourTask <<= (fullClasspath in Runtime) map {classpath =>
val loader: ClassLoader = ClasspathUtilities.toLoader(classpath.map(_.data).map(_.getAbsoluteFile))
loader.loadClass("your.class.Here").newInstance()
} triggeredBy(compile in Compile)
This will instantiate your class that has just been compiled, using the runtime classpath for your application, after any compile.
It would probably help if you explained your use scenario for this, since there are some different possible solution paths here and choosing between them might involve considerations that you haven't told us.
You won't be able to just write down an ordinary method call into the compiled code. That would be impossible since at the time your build definition is compiled, sbt hasn't looked at your project code yet.
Warning: rambling and thinking out loud ahead.
One trick I can suggest is to access testLoader in Test to get a classloader in which your compiled classes are loaded, and then use reflection to call methods there. For example, in my own build I have:
val netlogoVersion = taskKey[String]("...")
netlogoVersion := {
(testLoader in Test).value
.loadClass("org.nlogo.api.Version")
.getMethod("version")
.invoke(null).asInstanceOf[String]
}
I'm not sure whether accessing testLoader in Test will actually work in your case because testLoader loads your test classes as well as your regular classes, so you might get a circular dependency between compile in Compile and compile in Test.
If you want to try to make a classloader that just has your regular classes loaded, well, hmm. You could look in the sbt source code at the implementation of createTestLoader and use it for inspiration, modifying the arguments that are passed to ClasspathUtilities.makeLoader. (You might also look at the similar code in Run.run0. It calls makeLoader as part of the implementation of the run task.)
A different path you might consider is to reuse the machinery behind the run task to run your code. You won't be able to call an arbitrary method in your compiled code this way, only a main method, but perhaps you can live with that, if you don't need a return value back.
The fullRunTask method exists for creating entire run-like tasks. See "How can I create a custom run task, in addition to run?" from http://www.scala-sbt.org/0.13.1/docs/faq.html . fullRunTask makes it very easy to create a separate task that runs something in your compiled code, but by itself it won't get you all the way to a solution because you need a way of attaching that task to the existing compile in Compile task. If you go this route, I'd suggest asking it that last piece as a separate question.
Consider bypassing fullRunTask and just assembling your own call to Run.run. They use the same machinery. In my own build, I currently use fullRunTask, but back before fullRunTask was added by sbt, here was what my equivalent Run.run-based code looked like:
(..., fullClasspath in Compile, runner, streams, ...) map {
(..., cp, runner, s, ...) =>
Run.run("name.of.my.MainClass",
cp.map(_.data), Seq(), s.log)(runner)
}
Pardon the sbt 0.12, pre-macro syntax; this would look nicer if redone with the 0.13 macros.
Anyway, hopefully something in this brain dump proves useful.
Related
We have a single MACHINE which we use to build two target images; foo-image and foobar-image. Both images consume the same version of a package, but we would like to add a change to the do_install task based on which image is built. So that the recipe file for the package looks something like this:
do_install (){
//Some work
}
do_install_append_foobar-image(){
//Some foobar work
}
Eventually when we do the build for the two images:
MACHINE=custom bitbake foo-image
MACHINE=custom bitbake foobar-image
The image for foobar will contain the installed package that has done the work in the appends task, but the image for foo will not.
Is there any way to do what I have outlined or what would be an alternative?
No, you can't perform different tasks in a recipe based on which image is being built. There might be a possibility of checking the image name in the do_install though I'm highly unsure.
What I'd do is the following:
In the recipe, add a 2nd package which includes the additional files (if that's what you want to do).
Have your 2nd image recipe include this 2nd package.
Another possibility, depending on if you can detect which image you have built, is to add a post_install-script, that does the modification for you. A third, maybe less good option would be to do changes in a ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND.
Which solution you choose, will depend on what kind of customization you want to.
After some deliberation we were probably thinking about this backwards. We probably want to inject separation at the MACHINE level. Since both will be separate products in the end this makes the most sense. Doing it this way will allow us to introduce changes to packages for that specific product.
Our build lines will become:
MACHINE=custom1 bitbake foo-image
MACHINE=custom2 bitbake foobar-image
And our install task for the package can be:
do_install (){
//Some work
}
do_install_append_custom2(){
//Some more work
}
I want to set a SettingKey[Seq[Tuple2[String, String]]] called IzPack.variables of a 3rd party plugin called sbt-izpack.
The documentation tells how to set this setting:
IzPack.variables in IzPack.Config <+= name {name => ("projectName", name)}
I think that the <+= syntax is old. There is no explanation about it in the 0.13.5 SBT documentation.
How can I append values that depends on tasks?
This is the syntax I'm using now:
IzPack.variables in IzPack.Config ++= Seq(
("appVersion", mySetting1.value),
("cocoonXconf", mySetting2.value),
)
but it complains when trying to use a task value with this message:
A setting cannot depend on a task
If it's a Setting it must be known at project load as Settings are only computed once. Tasks on the other hand are computed each time. A Setting can not depend on a Task but a Task can depend on a Setting.
See http://www.scala-sbt.org/0.13/tutorial/More-About-Settings.html#Tasks+with+dependencies.
The solution I've finally done is to refactor my own code, so that a task that generates a file, is split in a setting that defines the output file, and a task that creates the file contents.
The setting is used for initializing the setting IzPack.variables, whereas my custom task is made dependant of the task that uses IzPack.variables.
I've managed to successfully create an ‘AdminProgram’ which is used to build the installer for my main project. It creates required configs/packages in file system correctly, updates all .xml files and copies all required elements into the correct places before building the installer, which is pretty great.
However, I am now looking to customize my installer to do a little more so that it is able to install a few drivers into the windows registry and at a later date remove existing installs before proceeding with a new one. I have studied the ‘instructions’ ( http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/qtifw-1.4/scripting.html#predefined-variables) for some time now and have been unable to quite grasp how exactly these Custom Operations are implemented (where the example code is supposed to be written, how the overridden operations are accessed etc.).
I find that the instruction are a little ambiguous for a programmer as inexperienced as myself and would very much appreciate some help from anyone who can give it?
In order to set entries in the registry you need to add GlobalConfig operations in your component script.
Overload the method Component.prototype.createOperations and add additional commands such as:
function Component() {
'use strict';
}
Component.prototype.createOperations = function () {
'use strict';
// call default implementation
component.createOperations();
component.addOperation("GlobalConfig",
"HKEY_CURRENT_USER\\Software\\#Publisher#\\#ProductName#\\entry",
"key",
"value");
}
The list of operations available are here
I found that some options in CompilerOption are not exported to the command line.
For example, alias all strings is available in the Closure Compiler's Java API CompilerOption but I have no idea how set this in the command line.
I know I can create a new java class, like:
Compiler c = new Compiler();
ComppilerOptions opt = new ComppilerOptions();
opt.setAliasAllString(true);
c.compile(.....);
However I have to handle the command line args myself.
Any simple idea?
============================
In order to try the alias all string option, I write a simple command line application based on compiler.jar.
However I found that, the result I got when open the alias all string is not what I expected.
For example:
a["prototype"]["say"]=function(){
var a="something string";
}
Given the above code, the something string will be replaced by a variable like this:
var xx="something string";
....
var a=xx;
....
This is fine, but how about the string "say"? How does the closure compiler know this should be aliased(replace it use variable) or exported(export this method)?
This is the compiled code now:
a.prototype.say=function(){....}
It seems that it export it.
While I want this:
var a="prototype",b="say",c="something string";
xx[a][b]=function(){.....}
In fact, this is the google_map-like compilation.
Is this possible?
Not all options are available from the command line - this includes aliasAllStrings. For some of them you have the following options:
Build a custom version of the compiler
Use the Java API (see example).
Use plovr
Getting the same level of compression and obfuscation as the Maps API requires code written specifically for the compiler. When properly written, you'll see property and namespace collapsing, prototype aliasing and a whole host of others. For an example of the style of code that will optimize that way, take a look at the Closure Library.
Modifying http://code.google.com/p/closure-compiler/source/browse/trunk/src/com/google/javascript/jscomp/CompilationLevel.java?r=706 is usually easy enough if you just want to play with something.
Plovr (a Closure build tool) provides an option called experimental-compiler-options, which is documented as follows:
The Closure Compiler contains many options that are only available programmatically in Java. Many of these options are experimental or not finalized, so they may not be a permanent part of the API. Nevertheless, many of them will be useful to you today, so plovr attempts to expose these the experimental-compiler-options option. Under the hood, it uses reflection in Java, so it is fairly hacky, but in practice, it is a convenient way to experiment with Closure Compiler options without writing Java code.
I'm trying to use Flex Compile Time Constants to include the date and time the SWF was built (source control revision/timestamp such as SVN:Keywords is not sufficient for our needs, we need to know the actual build time, not the commit time).
I've tried using actionscript (like the documentation suggests you should be able to):
-define+=COMPILE::Timestamp,"new Date()"
But this gives "The initializer for a configuration value must be a compile time constant"
I've tried getting it to drop to shell and use the date command (using various single and double quote configurations), for example:
-define+=COMPILE::Timestamp,`date +%Y%m%d%H%M%S`
I can only get it to work with simple strings and simple constant expressions (eg, I can do 4-2 and it'll be 2 at runtime. But I can't get it to do anything whose value wouldn't be explicitly known at the time I declare the define.
Has anyone had any luck with something like this?
I had the same problem and ended up using this blog post as a starting point. Worked really well for me. Just had to update a few bits of the class to flex 4. Pulled the date right out of the complied swf.
The key to your problem is most likely in the following statement by Adobe referring to Compile Time Constants:
The constant can be a Boolean, String, or Number, or an expression that can be evaluated in ActionScript at compile time.
I would assume that the Timestamp is not available at compile time.
However, you may try using a string instead (something like this)
public function GetUnixTime():String{
var myDate:Date = new Date();
var unixTime:Number = Math.round(myDate.getTime()/1000);
return unixTime.toString();
}
Another thought is that you could get the information from the compiled file.
Hope this helps.
After extensive research, I've concluded that this simply isn't doable.
If you don't use FlexBuilder to do your builds you can do it quite easily.
I do something like this with FlexMojos in Maven.
In the relevant config section:
<definesDeclaration>
<property><name>BUILD::buildVersion</name><value>"${project.version}"</value></property>
<property><name>BUILD::buildRevision</name><value>"${buildNumber}"</value></property>
<property><name>BUILD::buildTimestamp</name><value>"${timestamp}"</value></property>
</definesDeclaration>
FlexBuilder pretty much sucks as a build environment for reasons like the one you mention