I frequently code numerous experiments to test various algorithms, libraries, or hardware. All code, dependencies, and output of these experiments need to be annotated and saved, so that I can return to them later. Are there good common approaches to this problem? What do you do with your experiments after running them?
At a prior job we had a project in SVN called Area51 where people would write test code. The rules were
create a package namespace
start via a public static void main
add comments via javadocs
leave the project in a compilable state
the project can never be a dependancy of other code
On a three person team this worked out ok. We could put "what if" code there to share and it was easy to run it via ide or command line
When I do these, they are usually project specific, so they go in a subdirectory of the project (usually named "Investigations" in my case). This gets checked into the version control system with everything else.
Results (where appropriate) go into the same subdirectory of "Investigations" as the code used to produce the results.
http://subversion.tigris.org/
I just have a folder which I call OneOffCode
This is a folder of just code I have written either learning a new technology trying to prove a concept etc. . . This is non production code.
I usually back it up to a jump drive and move it with me from Job to job, or computer to computer.
I'm usually switching between C# and C++. So, I have a Test console application for C# and C++ in a "Sandbox" location, under source control. The console applications are both setup the same way where there is a Main which calls the test that I'm trying at that time. When I'm done I keep the old methods and comments and just clear out the Main when the next test comes about.
I don't know if it is the best, but after it is setup then it is pretty quick to get in, get the answers, get out and have it all saved for the next time.
Related
I am developing an OS for embedded devices that runs bytecode. Basically, a micro JVM.
In the process of doing so, I am able to compile and run Java applications to bytecode(ish) and flash that on, for instance, an Atmega1284P.
Now I've added support for C applications: I compile and process it using several tools and with some manual editing I eventually get bytecode that runs on my OS.
The process is very cumbersome and heavy and I would like to automate it.
Currently, I am using makefiles for automatic compilation and flashing of the Java applications & OS to devices.
All steps, roughly, for a C application are as follows and consist of consecutive manual steps:
(1) Use Docker to run a Linux container with lljvm that compiles a .c file to a .class file (see also https://github.com/davidar/lljvm/tree/master)
(2) convert this c.class file to a jasmin file (https://github.com/davidar/jasmin) using the ClassFileAnalyzer tool (http://classfileanalyzer.javaseiten.de/)
(3) manually edit this jasmin file in a text editor by replacing/adjusting some strings
(4) convert the modified jasmin file to a .class file again using jasmin
(5) put this .class file in a folder where the rest of my makefiles (the ones that already make and deploy the OS and class files from Java apps) can take over.
Current options seem to be just keep using makefiles but this is a bit unwieldly (I already have 5 different makefiles and this would further extend that chain). I've also read a bit about scons. In essence, I'm wondering which are some recommended tools or a good approach for complicated builds.
Hopefully this may help a bit, but the question as such could probably be a subject for a heated discussion without much helpful results.
As pointed out in the comments by others, you really need to automate the steps starting with your .c file to the point you can integrated it with the rest of your system.
There is generally nothing wrong with make and you would not win too much by switching to SCons. You'd get more ways to express what you want to do. Among other things meaning that if you wanted to write that automation directly inside the build system and its rules, you could also use Python and not only shell (should that be of a concern though, you could just as well call that Python code from make). But the essence of target, prerequisite, recipe is still there. And with that need for writing necessary automation for those .c to integration steps.
If you really wanted to look into alternative options. bazel might be of interest to you. The downside being the initial effort to write the necessary rules to fit your needs could be costly. And depending on size of your project, might just be too much. On the other hand once done with that, it'd be very easy to use (apply those rules on growing code base) and you could also ditch the container and rely on its more lightweight sand-boxing and external rules to get the tools and bits you need for your build... all with a single system for build description.
I have found that Edit-and-Continue does not work in linked files. I am working on a suite of 8 different utilities (C# winforms) and they all share several common classes, which have been added to each utility project as a linked file. I can set breakpoints in the linked files, and step thru the code in them, but not edit. When I try, I get the error "Changes are not allowed if the project wasn't built when debugging started." I've made sure to perform a clean and build before running, but that doesn't help. I've had some of my colleagues try it on their machines with the same results. These linked common classes are key to each of the utilities and where much of the code resides. Not being able to edit-and-continue is making debugging much more difficult and tedious. Edit and continue works in the non-linked non-common files. Can anyone suggest a workaround? I have considered merging all 8 utilities into one, but they each take different command line parameters and are really intended to be used individually.
Can I make a ruby file (e.g script.rb) unreadable to a user?
The file is on an Ubuntu (offline) machine. The user will use a local Sinatra app that will use some ruby files. I don't want the user to see the code in some of those files.
How can I do it?
EDIT:
Can I setup the project in a way that the user will be able to start the app but won't have access to specific files in it?
Thanks
Does that correspond to what you are searching for ?
chmod yourfile.rb 711
As I said in my comment it is literally almost impossible to hide the content of your ruby source file, many people try this in many different ways but it is almost always trivial to reverse engineer. There are some "suggestions" for making your code hidden but they never really work still, here are a few;
Obfuscation - The process of making your code executable but unreadable, using a tool like ProGuard for Java (there are ones for most major languages) will try to make your code a mess, and as unreadable as possible while still maintaining execution speed. Normally this consists of renaming variables, using strange characters and generally hiding, moving or wrapping functions in complicated structures.
Package the interpreter - You can use a tool like ocra to package the script up inside an executable with the interpreter and standard library, but anyone with even a tiny bit of experience in reverse engineering will be able to easily tear out the source code given a small amount of time
Write a custom interpreter - Now we are getting somewhere with making it harder. Writing a custom interpreter will allow you to compile your script to a "bytecode" that can then be executed. This is of course a very time consuming, expensive and incompatible solution when it comes to working with other code bases.
Write most of your code in C and then call out to it via extensions - Again this mostly moves the problem but its still there. It will take more time but anyone can easily pull apart the machine code of the C library you load in and bob is your uncle they have the source code.
Many more alternatives - This isn't a comprehensive list, I am probably missing a few ideas or suggestions.
As far as it goes making code unreadable is hard a better solution might just to be consider providing a licence agreement with your code. That way, someone reads or modifies the source file you can take them to court for a legal settlement.
Extract your code and its functionality to an external API. And then provide it as a service. This way you don't have to expose your source code to your 'users'.
I'm looking for a good VB6 source code library (to extend the language) for things like parsing a path into root, directory, filename, extension, does a file exist, etc.
I'm happy to pay for such a resource if it's a good one (ideally with some sort of reviews/feedback).
I've found one already:
SourcePlus from AxTools
Only downside is that all of their source code is in Classes and I have 12 or so different VB6 apps that all share a lot of common code (.bas modules). So if I use one of the classes in on of my Common.Bas routines I then need to add the class to 12 different programs that all use that Common.Bas module.
I'd really prefer to have the code in either one big class or a .bas module so I can add it one time to each VB6 app and be done with it.
FYI, I've also used with good success http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/ and of course StackOverflow but I'd be happy to buy something comprehensive and well done.
I'm in favour of buying libraries in general, but you really can do a lot of file related tasks with free code. Karl E Peterson's excellent VB6 website has some great objects written entirely in VB6 - I think they're as reliable as most things I've ever bought. You could just put them in a COM DLL if you dislike managing the classes.
Convert a file path to drive and directory only.
Check whether a directory exists.
Check whether a file exists.
...I could go on
Can you build their source as a COM dll and just refer to it from your own projects?
We're going through a massive migration project at the minute and trying to validate the code that is deployed to the live estate matches the code we have in source control.
Obviously the .net code is easy to compare because we can disassemble. I don't believe this is possible in vb6 exes because of the manner of compilation.
Does anyone have any ideas on how I could validate the source code and the compiled executable matches the file I have in Live.
Thanks
Visual Basic had (has) two ways of compiling, one to the interpreter ( called P-code) that would result in smaller binaries, and a second one that generates "regular" windows .exe file (called native) that was introduced because it was supposed to be fastar than p-code; although the compiled file size increased with this option.
If your compilation was using p-code, it is in theory possible to restore the sources.
Either way is pretty difficult to do, but there are tools that claim they can partially do this, one that I know of ( never tried but there is a trial version ) is VB-decompiler
http://www.vb-decompiler.org/
Unfortunately that's almost impossible. Bear in mind that VB6 code compiled on different machines will have different exe sizes and deployment requirements.
This is why the old VB'ers had a dedicated machine to compile their code.
This won't help you with already deployed items, but if you upped the revision number on every compile (there is a project setting to do this for you automatically) then you could easily compare version numbers.
My old company bought a copy of that VB-Decompiler and as noted before VB5/6 generates P-Code extra, that tool did produce some code and if not Assembly code which could be "read".
If you have all the code you compiled, you could compare the CRC's of that code to what is deployed in the field. But if you don't have the original compiled code, depending upon how you compiled the code you (if you used P-Code rather than Native Code you may be able to disassemble but the disassembly will look nothing like your source code). I doubt you would have shipped the PDB's with the exe's, but if you did, you could certainly use those to compare with the source code in your repository.
Have a trusted computer that can check out the various libraries and exes you make and compile them automatically. Keep those in a read-only but accessible location. Then do a binary comparison between the deployed site and your comparison site.
However I am not sure of the logic over disassembling the the complied units. My company and most other places I know of use a combination of a build computer and unit testing. In our company the EXE we make is a very thin shell over a bunch of libraries. For example a button click will be passed to a UI Active X DLL that does the actual processing. What we do after a build is run a special EXE that perform our list of unit test. If they all passed we know our libraries, where 90% of our code is, are good. As for the actual EXE we have a hand procedure that takes about two hours to do and then we are good. IIt is rare for any errors to happen in the EXE.