Is there a fast way to see how many lines of code are in my Stata do-file (.do), not counting the comments? I could make a new version and delete all the comments out by hand, but that's too tedious for what I need.
My intent is to compare the lengths of an old version vs. a new version of the do file. I want to see whether I have made the code more efficient. However, I have some large commented sections of non-vital code in the files that I don't need to count.
A closely related question: is there a way to quickly see a total of all lines of code in a project (rather than just the do-file) - either including or excluding comments? Thank you.
Related
I have a large source code where most of the documentation and source code comments are in english. But one of the minor contributors wrote comments in a different language, spread in various places.
Is there a simple trick that will let me find them ? I imagine first a way to extract all comments from the code and generate a single text file (with possible source file / line number info), then pipe this through some language detection app.
If that matters, I'm on Linux and the current compiler on this project is CLang.
The only thing that comes to mind is to go through all of the code manually and check it yourself. If it's a similar language, that doesn't contain foreign letters, consider using something with a spellchecker. This way, the text that isn't recognized will get underlined, and easy to spot.
Other than that, I don't see an easy way to go through with this.
You could make a program, that reads the files and only prints the comments out to another output file, where you then spell check that file, but this would seem to be a waste of time, as you would easily be able to spot the comments yourself.
If you do make a program for that, however, keep in mind that there are three things to check for:
If comment starts with /*, make sure it stops reading when encountering */
If comment starts with //, only read one line - unless:
If line starting with // ends with \, read next line as well
While it is possible to detect a language from a string automatically, you need way more words than fit in a usual comment to do so.
Solution: Use your own eyes and your own brain...
I'm using the opensource tool ReportGenerator to show the details of the XML output generated from using OpenCover and mstest. For one particular project I see the following metrics:
Covered Lines: 3611
Uncovered lines: 3587
Coverable lines: 7198
Total lines: 35609
Ok, Covered + Uncovered = Coverable lines and this makes sense. However Total lines is significantly above this value and I want to know what constitutes or defines all these additional lines of code to make up Total lines.
The documentation for ReportGenerator is sparse at best, but I would guess it encompasses commenting, whitespace, things like using statements (for importing namespaces), declarations of methods, classes, etc. that are not testable. However I'm not sure, and I plan on using this tool for a lot of projects and need to be able to explain what's behind this number.
Does anyone know or can explain what the Total lines value is comprised of beyond the total testable lines?
According to Codefile.cs it is
string[] lines = System.IO.File.ReadAllLines(this.Path);
this.TotalLines = lines.Length;
and then these are aggregated at the class/assembly level
However if they are based on files recorded in the PDB then it will not be all your source files there are no sequence points (i.e. a place you can put a break point) that require the file to be recorded in the PDB.
Is there a way to compare two text files and show the diff if they are not identical in dunit?
The easy start is to read them to TStringList, however the code for comparing two text file is much more complicated, and the gui in the DUnitGui is not sufficient for this.
Any idea? suggestion?
There is a nice little unit that comes with some examples called TDiff, this is available from http://angusj.com/delphi/ and will allow you to compare 2 files and see the differences, it also allows for merging.
It is a very simple Utility that you can download the entire source for.
Looking for tips and/or tools on how to efficiently work with gettext PO files when making small edits to large msgid values.
Example: We have lots of multi-sentence/multi-paragraph messages that are stored in our PO message catalog files. If we make a very minor change to a message, perhaps editing a single sentence or even correcting punctuation, we lose our original translation when we run the msgmerge utility.
Rather than re-translate long messages (that have already gone through an editorial approval process) from scratch, our translators return to backup copies of their PO files and manually search for the text of the last msgid/msgstr translation pair which they then diff against the current msgid values to see what has changed, followed by a copy and paste of the last translation which they then edit to reflect the updated msgid value.
That's a lot of work! Certainly there must be a better way of handling this type of workflow?
Is there a best practice way to archive and find previous translations that are no longer in a PO file? One idea that comes to mind is to store a unique msg id in the text of our messages or in the comments that precede our message and use this id to retrieve previous msgid/msgstr translation pairs for review. Or are there PO editors or online services that make this process more efficient?
Thank you,
Malcolm
I've been looking for a way to make minor changes to msgids without disturbing existing translations - for instance, typo fixes in the source text. Here's a recipe I've just worked out that doesn't involve websites:
Use msgen from GNU gettext to generate an English-to-English po file:
msgen project.pot >corrections.po
Manually edit the msgstrs in "corrections.po" to reflect the typo fixes made in the source text, so we have a mapping from uncorrected to corrected strings. (I haven't thought about how to automate this bit.)
For each "real" translation (for example ca.po): abuse poswap from the Translate Toolkit (translate-toolkit in Ubuntu) to change the msgids:
poswap -i corrections.po -t ca.po -o ca.new.po
This does seem to lose header comments and obsolete strings from GNU gettext po files, but manually fixing those up is much less work than manually tweaking msgids in each translation (and could probably easily be scripted).
(Obviously, this should only be used in exceptional circumstances, where you're absolutely sure that none of the translators need the opportunity to re-review their translations.)
Virtaal's translation memory support can probably help with this. If your original units are in the translation memory, it will be shown (with differences) within a certain margin of change (based on Levenshtein distance). It will still contain the original (unmodified) translation, but at least the original text is more easily accessible and the differences highlighted.
I'm not 100% sure, but Pootle might also offer a web based solution. If you need any help, ask in #pootle on FreeNode.
The more general improvement is, of course, to separate/segment the units as far as possible.
Sadly, a project that I have been working on lately has a large amount of copy-and-paste code, even within single files. Are there any tools or techniques that can detect duplication or near-duplication within a single file? I have Beyond Compare 3 and it works well for comparing separate files, but I am at a loss for comparing single files.
Thanks in advance.
Edit:
Thanks for all the great tools! I'll definitely check them out.
This project is an ASP.NET/C# project, but I work with a variety of languages including Java; I'm interested in what tools are best (for any language) to remove duplication.
Check out Atomiq. It finds code that is duplicate that is prime for extracting to one location.
http://www.getatomiq.com/
If you're using Eclipse, you can use the copy paste detector (CPD) https://olex.openlogic.com/packages/cpd.
You don't say what language you are using, which is going to affect what tools you can use.
For Python there is CloneDigger. It also supports Java but I have not tried that. It can find code duplication both with a single file and between files, and gives you the result as a diff-like report in HTML.
See SD CloneDR, a tool for detecting copy-paste-edit code within and across multiple files. It detects exact copyies, copies that have been reformatted, and near-miss copies with different identifiers, literals, and even different seqeunces of statements.
The CloneDR handles many languages, including Java (1.4,1.5,1.6) and C# especially up to C#4.0. You can see sample clone detection reports at the website, also including one for C#.
Resharper does this automagically - it suggests when it thinks code should be extracted into a method, and will do the extraction for you
Check out PMD , once you have configured it (which is tad simple) you can run its copy paste detector to find duplicate code.
One with some Office skills can do following sequence in 1 minute:
use ordinary formatter to unify the code style, preferably without line wrapping
feed the code text into Microsoft Excel as a single column
search and replace all dual spaces with single one and do other replacements
sort column
At this point the keywords for duplicates will be already well detected. But to go further
add comparator formula to 2nd column and counter to 3rd
copy and paste values again, sort and see the most repetitive lines
There is an analysis tool, called Simian, which I haven't yet tried. Supposedly it can be run on any kind of text and point out duplicated items. It can be used via a command line interface.
Another option similar to those above, but with a different tool chain: https://www.npmjs.com/package/jscpd