I am writing a small tool in c++. It is actually more of a framework that is open to customization. It has the following directory structure (simplified example).
src/
main/myexec # linked to libapple.so
apple/
coder/libapple.so
john/libapple.so
.
.
james/libapple.so
Here, the directory "coder" is a generic dummy, with some example code to generate libapple.so. Different users can checkout this tool, create directories of their own, copy the template code from "coder" and customize as they wish. Depending on the configure option (indicating the user), the respective libapple.so needs to be generated.
As I mentioned, this is a simplified example. It is not a matter of generic programming, inheritance etc. In fact, similar to the "apple" folder there are others like "scripts", "docs", "configs" etc each having similar user specific folders. Also, the tool will be maintained at a single repository location to allow me to support & maintain all the code that is not specific to user. As a policy, users are expected to modify and check-in only the contents of their folders.
The problem I am facing is with "configure.ac". I do not want to use "AC_ARG_WITH" option as it would require each new user to edit configure.ac. Also for each user the AC_CONFIG_FILE entries would be exactly the same except for his folder name. I tried using "--enable-user=User" and then AC_SUBST(USERDIR), which also helps in setting "SUBDIRS = #USERDIR#" in Makefile.am. Everything looks good except for the fact that "Makefile.in" is not getting created under the user folder when I specify "AC_CONFIG_FILE = ([apple/${USERDIR}/Makefile])".
Please advice how to overcome this issue. In the worst case I may end up in creating softlinks :(
After one full day of scratching my head, following is the solution that I have come up with.
Create a file "project_makefiles.m4.in" like this
AC_CONFIG_FILES([ apple/USERDIR/Makefile ]
Add the below to configure.ac
m4_include([project_makefiles.m4])
Create a wrapper script like "build.sh" which will create "project_makefiles.m4" from "project_makefiles.m4.in" by replacing "USERDIR". This is done before the automake.
Related
I am new to the Go programming language. I am hoping to integrate Go code, if possible, into existing code that contains heterogeneous code. My present organization of code is:
<reverse-TLD>/<component-path>/<code><extension>
where:
<reverse-TLD> is the domain with parts reversed. For example, com.mydomain.mysubdomain.
<component-path> is 1 or more subdirectories under which code lives. For example, image/jpeg.
<code> is the part of a code filename before the extension. For example, jpeg2000.
<extension> is the extension. For example, .sh, .py, etc. For example, this taken with the other elements above would have a path: com.mydomain.mysubdomain/image/jpeg/jpeg2000.go.
Note that code files other than Go files are in the same directory as Go files.
My issues are:
My existing structure above doesn't include src, pkg, or bin directories. Are there environment or Go env variables that allow me to specify these directories?
The directory <reverse-TLD> and all files under it is read-only. I need the output of the compilation to be based under another directory, given as $BUILD_DIR. That directory can have whatever directories are needed under it.
I am thinking that as a convention, I could use lowercase filenames for Go code that will become an executable command and leading-uppercase filenames for Go code that will become package objects. Is there a best practice naming convention for making this distinction in the Go community?
Is there any problem with my using reverse TLDs? For example, com.mydomain.mysubdomain vs. mysubdomain.mydomain.com.
If the src, pkg, and bin directories are hard requirements, then I think I'll have to write a script that finds Go files and copies them to a temporary directory that meets the requirements, compile them, and then move the built artifacts to the $BUILD_DIR. But, I'm hoping that Go is flexible enough to allow me to do this.
If it is possible, could you show me the commands or environment variables that are needed to compile given the constraints above? And, comments on items 1-4 above are appreciated. Thank you!
That against Go's conventions and is not a recommended practice
Can you include expressions in the "Output Files" section of a build rule in Xcode? Eg:
$(DERIVED_FILE_DIR)$(echo "/dynamic/dir")/$(INPUT_FILE_BASE).m
Specifically, when translating Java files with j2objc, the resulting files are saved in subfolders, based on the java packages (eg. $(DERIVED_FILE_DIR)/com/google/Class.[hm]). This is without using --no-package-directories, which I can't use because of duplicate file names in different packages.
The issue is in Output Files, because Xcode doesn't know how to search for the output file at the correct location. The default location is $(DERIVED_FILE_DIR)/$(INPUT_FILE_BASE).m, but I need to perform a string substitution to insert the correct path. However any expression added as $(expression) gets ignored, as it was never there.
I also tried to export a variable from the custom script and use it in Output Files, but that doesn't work either because the Output Files are transformed into SCRIPT_OUTPUT_FILE_X before the custom script is ran.
Unfortunately, Xcode's build support is pretty primitive (compared to say, make, which is third-odd years older :-). One option to try is splitting the Java source, so that the two classes with the same names are in different sub-projects. If you then use different prefixes for each sub-project, the names will be disambiguated.
A more fragile, but maybe simpler approach is to define a separate rule for the one of the two classes, so that it can have a unique prefix assigned. Then add an early build phase to translate it before any other Java classes, so the rules don't overlap.
For me, the second alternative does work (Xcode 7.3.x) - to a point.
My rule is not for Java, but rather for Google Protobuf, and I tried to maintain the same hierarchy (like your Java package hierarchy) in the generated code as in the source .proto files. Indeed files (.pb.cc and .pb.h) were created as expected, with their hierarchies, inside the Build/Intermediates/myProject.build/Debug/DerivedSources directory.
However, Xcode usually knows to continue and compile the generated output into the current target - but that breaks as it only looks for files in the actual ${DERIVED_FILE} - not within sub-directories underneath.
Could you please explain better "Output Files are transformed into SCRIPT_OUTPUT_FILE_X" ? I do not understand.
I am working on a module that supplies methods for navigating directories and manipulating files. Basically it will be a combination of the Dir and File classes, with options specific to the needs of a project I'm working on.
Right now I have started writing tests for some of these methods and things are getting messy.
Example
One of the methods I have is a tree function that returns a hash of files and folders where you can pass options like tree(only: 'folders', limit: 3). In order to test that it only goes down 3 levels, I would have to have 4+ subfolders with dummy files in them.
The Problem
Right now I'm testing on folders outside the project since the subfolders are already there, but I want to move away from this, especially considering the implausibility of testing on system files once I start testing methods equivalent to rm -rf (as well as the lack of portability).
I'm starting to think that I need to create a "lab rat" type folder that I do all my "experiments" on, but I have no clue how to approach creating it.
Do I create a function that creates the files?
Do I pull files and folders from another location?
Do I use some sort of "lorem ipsum" generator for file structures?
Do I make all these files and folders manually(ugh)?
Do I just mock and stub the hell out of everything and not actually create/delete the files and folders?(I don't see this happening)
So...
How would someone normally approach testing excessive amounts of file and folder manipulation?
I don't think you want to use mocks/stubs. The file system of your OS should be well tested and fast, so the benefit of mocks/stubs is minimal. Creating a mock/stub system increases the complexity without much benefit.
Here's my answers:
Do I create a function that creates the files?
Yes. You can create tests for these functions to make sure that they are correct. Instead of calling Dir and File, write helper functions that make the code simple and readable. Maybe you can share the helper functions between the source/test code...
Do I pull files and folders from another location?
Not sure what this is for...
Do I use some sort of "lorem ipsum" generator for file structures?
Yes, if you mean create functions that generate file structures.
Do I make all these files and folders manually(ugh)?
No.
Do I just mock and stub the hell out of everything and not actually create/delete the files and folders?(I don't see this happening)
No. One benefit of creating files/directories is that you can manually check what is going on and not be 100% dependent on the tests. This is actually a good approach because without it there could be a bug where both the source code and test code is not doing what you expect, but you wouldn't know because everything seems to be working.
I use ack and I like it.
However from time to time I need to search for something in my code base and I want to ignore all the files residing in test directory. Basically all the files which have test in their absolute path should be not included in the search.
How do I achieve that?
I am willing to have a custom bash script. Something like
ack_no_test "application" -> search for "application" in all files but ignore files residing in test directory
From man ack:
--[no]ignore-dir=DIRNAME
Ignore directory (as CVS, .svn, etc are ignored). May be used
multiple times to ignore multiple directories. For example, mason
users may wish to include --ignore-dir=data. The --noignore-dir
option allows users to search directories which would normally be
ignored (perhaps to research the contents of .svn/props
directories).
one could add "test" to the "repodirs" var in findrepo.
Personally I think ack to too complicated/slow and "non unixy",
as it doesn't reuse the existing unix toolkit.
I'm writing some code that at run time may create or delete directories within the project path. I haven't really used ruby for file processing so i'm really uneasy about having code that, with a few mistypes weeks down the line, could result in wiping other directories outside of my project path.
Is there anyway to make it impossible for the program to delete files outside of its own path regardless of whats typed in destructive calls?
Pathname is a wrapper class for almost any file operations.
require "pathname"
path= Pathname.new("/home/johannes")
path.directory? # => true
path.children # => [#<Pathname:.bash_history>, #<Pathname:Documents>, #<Pathname:Desktop>]
path.children.each do |p|
p.delete if p.file?
end
Pathname#children does not contain . or .. so you don't accidently walk up the tree instead of down. If you still don't trust in the code, you can even check if on path is contained in another
Pathname.new("test") <=> Pathname.new("test/123") # => -1
You might want to create a wrapper method around your favourite delete method (or, perhaps, around whole class, because not only deleting files is potentially destructive file operation), which would expand all the submitted paths and check whether they begin with your "sandbox" path). You can also try to redefine delete method, if you are willing to cripple it through whole application.
And maybe the cleanest solution of them all would be to create a new user on your system and run your program as him.
On a POSIX system, you can use Dir.chroot to change the root that your application sees. Then ALL actions, not just delete ones, will be limited to the project directory. This does mean that external commands will be unavailable unless you make them part of your project directory as well.
This is the standard 'sandboxing' method used in Unix based systems. It can be difficult to setup (eliminating all external dependancies is sometimes hard), but affords significant protection when configured properly.
You could generate an Array of filenames in your project directory using
my_files = Dir["/bla/bla/your/directory/**/*"]
and then simply check if the filename passed to your "delete" function exist in your my_files array.
I'm sure there is a more elegant solution, but this could work ^_^
You could use File.expand_path and File.dirname on the input, and check that against __FILE__. So something like this might work:
File.delete(path) if File.dirname(File.expand_path(path)).include? File.dirname(File.expand_path(__FILE__))
I've got automated tests that routinely create and wipe out directories. I've taken two approaches:
Use /tmp as much as possible. The 'tmpdir' standard library module will create temporary directories which will be destroyed when your program exits. Or,
When the code creates a directory that it will later be deleting, it drops a marker file into the directory. When it comes time to delete the directory, if the marker file is not found, the code refuses to delete the directory. A marker file might be called ".ok_to_delete", for example.