My project structure looks like the picture
The Code directory has all the code that I am generating.
Is it possible to move everything (except Code) from Assembly-CSharp to another Assembly?
After each small change in the code, it takes a long time to load the project. Can it help?
Let me add that in some classes I use references to these additions.
Actually only code is placed in assemblies. You can however subdivide your code into several assemblies if that would make sense in your project.
This is what Assembly Definition is for. You create it in a folder and from then on every script in that folder and all its subfolders will be part of that separate assembly (unless a sub folder contains another Assembly Definition in which case that part of the hierarchy will become another .dll)
The cause of long pauses after every code modification is a long standing problem with newer versions of Unity (I think 2020+). It is discussed at length here:
Unity Forum
Splitting your code into assemblies may not necessarily help at all!
Unless you have large chunks of code that you hardly ever change.
Related
I would like to use two versions of the same Matlab software package at the same time (I would like to compare their outputs for testing). The package modifies the path so that functions in subdirectories can be found. This seems problematic since the package assumes that it is the only copy running on the machine. The path is essentially a global variable which is unintentionally shared between the two copies of the code.
Example simplified code structure:
/main_code.m
/compare_results.m
/code_a/somefn.m
/code_a/submethods/
/code_b/somefn.m
/code_b/submethods/
Note that somefn.m adds the submethods directory to the path, and calls code from the submethods folder by relying on the path.
Example of code that I would like to run:
for i = 1:1000000
% Run version A:
result_a = code_a.somefn(i);
% Run version B:
result_b = code_b.somefn(i);
% Compare the output from the two versions:
compare_results(a,b);
end
One solution that I can think of is to manually update the Matlab path every time that I want to switch to a different version of the package. This seems like unnecessary coding overhead, and potentially a performance problem (due to switching the path so often).
Another solution might be to rewrite the code to be object oriented, so that the functions are attached to objects, and I can create objects of different versions. The problem with this is that in reality the code package contains hundreds of files, and I was not the original author so rewriting would be a huge task .
(Yet another option would be to change directory all the time, so that the code to run is always in the current directory. This would be so much of a headache due to the number of subfolders that I do not think this is a serious solution. It also has potential performance overhead drawbacks similar to always changing the path.)
Is there a cleaner way to handle this? Can I somehow specify the folder of the code that I want to run? What is the best way to design such a code package so that this problem does not come up?
Just create packages, which can contain functions with the same names: Packages Create Namespaces
Basically create two folders named, say, +package1 and +package2. The "+" in the folder name is important. Then place your functions under both of them, say, foo.m. Then, you can call each separately without messing with MATLAB path as:
>> package1.foo
>> package2.foo
You can use private functions. Change the directory structure as:
/main_code.m
/compare_results.m
/+code_a/somefn.m
/+code_a/private/
/+code_b/somefn.m
/+code_b/private/
Each somefn has access to the functions contained in its private sub-folder. So there is no need to create global variable and to add private sub-folders to the path.
I use Delphi 7 and I encountered a very annoying thing. One of my projects has gone quite large and a form I used in one of the units became obsolete. I decided to get rid of it. It seems I can't. The IDE always asks for .dfm file, no matter what i tried (and I think i was very thorough).
Here's what I did:
First, I used the IDE's Remove from Project to remove the whole thing from the project. Then I commented out all sections that used anything in that unit and compiled, bulit and ran the project. It went without any errors or warnings. I saved all files and closed the Delphi IDE, started up a Notepad and removed the form's declaration from the unit, then deleted every associated file, except the .pas (with this, it became like any other regular unit).
Then I searched every file in the project's folder with Total Commander to see if any of them contained the name of the removed unit. None did.
I started Delphi and loaded the project.
With this I felt satisfied and added the unit's name to the uses list and pressed Compile.
IT STILL LOOKS FOR THE DAMNED DFM!!
If someone knows, please explain this to me. What did I miss?
If the compiler is looking for the .dfm file it will be because the compiler is including a unit that contains this:
{$R *.dfm}
That is what tells the compiler to link the .dfm file with the same name as the unit.
It seems likely that you still refer to the unit somewhere in your project. The compiler must be finding either a .pas file or a compiled .dcu file for your unit. Search for all files named <UnitName>.pas and <UnitName>.dcu. Remove these files. Then you will encounter compiler errors whenever you have code that attempts to use those units. Deal with those by removing the unit from the uses clause that names it. Then you should be done.
I may not fully understand the wiki article on scoping, so forgive me if this sounds dumb.
Intro:
I have a solution (ABC.sln) with over 40 projects and am trying to implement OpenWrap for package management.
So I did the following in the solution's root folder:
o init-wrap -all
That worked fine: I now have a file called SLN.wrapdesc in the solution's root folder. All of the .csproj files in the subfolders contain the OpenWrap targets line.
I then proceded to add the different wraps to the solution with:
o add-wrap -Name xxx
Again, this worked fine: I have some wraps in the wraps folder, and the build doesn't break after removing the old references from the projects.
Problem:
All of the contents of the wraps are going to all of the projects, even for those that don't need it. I would like to be able to specify which wraps go where, eg AjaxControlToolkit only goes into web projects.
What I tried
First, I removed the AjaxControlToolkit from the wrapdesc:
o remove-wrap AjaxControlToolkit
This causes the build to break (as expected). Then I tried the following:
1. Try to add the wrap back with a scope:
o add-wrap -Name AjaxControlToolkit -scope webproject
This simply puts the wrap back in the wraps folder. I then added <OpenWrap-Scope>customscope</OpenWrap-Scope> to the project file, but the build still broke.
2. Try and manually add a file called ABC.webproject.wrapdesc to the root folder. This causes the following error when I try to open the solution:
The "exists" function only accepts a scalar value, but its argument "#(_WrapFile->'%(FullPath)')" evaluates to "D:\Projects\ABC.webproject.wrapdesc;D:\Projects\ABC.wrapdesc" which is not a scalar value.
I guess it doesn't like 2 wrapdesc files. That is strange because the wiki says "...you can add a second descriptor alongside your default descriptor..."
So now I'm stuck. Anyone have any ideas?
The per-msbuild file is really not a recommended approach to managing dependencies. Doing it per project is not quite the design philosophy behind OpenWrap, so the system is not quite optimized for those scenarios.
If you don't need something from those assemblies then the easiest way to solve it is to not use the references by not using any code from those packages. This solves the problem very easily as nothing will get loaded (or even need to be on disk) if no code has been added to it.
That said, add-wrap -scope newscope will create an additional .wrapdesc file that will add the new dependency to the new scope, by creating a myProject.newscope.wrapdesc file independently of the original myProject.wrapdesc.
If you do want to do this per-project, have you tried using the convention-based scoping? Something like:
directory-structure: src\*{scope: Web=WebProjects}*
Would take any project in a folder child of src containing Web in the name and assign those to the WebProjects scope.
I know that one has worked fine for my projects so far, although you do have to restart VS as it aggressively caches certain files and will not see the change.
Customizing the msbuild file itself is not fully tested (and the wiki entry was very much a design spec rather than final documentation, not all of it has been built that way) so it may or may not work. Happy to take a look if you can open a bug ticket on http://github.com/openrasta/openwrap/issues
I have a legacy java project that we have been moving to buildr/artifactory from ant/jars in svn.
The primary code is in the default (src/main/java) folder, but we have a few external source paths, for various tests that we can't move into the default folder, but we want to have access with it.
Currently, when adding a new library/regenerating IDE fields, it does not pick up these source paths, and I can't find a succinct discussion in the buildr manual for how to actually add them, rather than re-adding everything manually in eclipse (which just gets wiped out on the next regen).
Any idea how to have multiple source paths get picked up explicitly by buildr so that the idea/eclipse targets generate properly?
There are two ways that I know will work with IDEA. The second one might also work with Eclipse, while the first is specific to the idea task.
The IDEA-specific solution:
define 'proj' do
# ...
iml.main_source_directories << _('src/other')
end
iml also has test_source_directories and excluded_directories arrays you can append to.
The possibly eclipse-compatible solution, with more background than you probably want:
The iml object gets its default values for the main and test source directory arrays from project.compile.sources and project.test.compile.sources (slight simplification; resources are considered also). Buildr defines these .sources project attributes from the layout, so instead of explicitly appending to the iml attributes, you could use a custom layout for your project that includes your special source paths. That might work with the eclipse task, but I haven't tried it.
We have a lot of MATLAB code in my lab. The problem is there's really no way to organize it. Since all the functions have to be in the same folder to be called (or you have to add a bunch of folders to MATLAB's path environment variable), it seems that we're doomed have loads of files in the same folder, all in the global namespace. Is there a better way to organize our files and functions? I really wish there were some sort of module system...
MATLAB has a notion of packages which can be nested and include both classes and functions.
Just make a directory somewhere on your path with a + as the first character, like +mypkg. Then, if there is a class or function in that directory, it may be referred to as mypkg.mything. You can also import from a package using import mypkg.mysubpkg.*.
The one main gotcha about moving a bunch of functions into a package is that functions and classes do not automatically import the package they live in. This means that if you have a bunch of functions in different m-files that call each other, you may have to spend a while dropping imports in or qualifying function calls. Don't forget to put imports into subfunctions that call out as well. More info:
http://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/matlab_oop/scoping-classes-with-packages.html
I don't see the problem with having to add some folder to Matlab's search path. I have modified startup.m so that it recursively looks for directories in my Matlab startup directory, and adds them to the path (it also runs svn update on everything). This way, if I change the directory structure, Matlab is still going to see all the functions the next time I start it.
Otherwise, you can look into object-oriented code, where you store all the methods in a #objectName folder. However, this may lead to a lot of re-writing code that can be avoided by updating the path (there is even a button add with subfolders if you add the folder to the path from the File menu) and doing a bit of moving code.
EDIT
If you would like to organize your code so that some functions are only visible to the functions that call them directly (and if you don't want to re-write in OOP), you put the calling functions in a directory, and within this directory, you create a subdirectory called private. The functions in there will only be visible to the functions in the parent directory. This is very useful if you have to overload some built-in Matlab functions for a subset of your code.
Another way to organize & reuse code is using matlab's object-oriented features. Each Object is customarily in a folder that begins with an "#" and has the file(s) for that class inside. (though the newer syntax does not require this for a class defined in a single file.) Using private folders inside class folders, matlab even supports private class members. Matlab's new class notation is relatively fully-featured, but even the old syntax is useful.
BTW, my startup.m that examines a well-known location that I do my SVN checkouts into, and adds all of the subfolders onto my path automatically.
The package system is probably the best. I use the class system (#ClassName folder), but I actually write objects. If you're not doing that, it's silly just to write a bunch of static methods. One thing that can be helpful is to put all your matlab code into a folder that isn't on the matlab path. Then you can selectively add just the code you need to the path.
So say you have two projects, stored in "c:\matlabcode\foo" and "c"\matlabcode\bar", that both use common code stored in "c:\matlabcode\common," you might have a function "setupPaths.m" like this:
function setupPaths(projectName)
basedir = fullfile('c:', 'matlabcode');
addpath(genpath(fullfile(basedir, projectName)));
switch (projectName)
case {'foo', 'bar'}
addpath(genpath(fullfile(basedir, 'common')));
end
Of course you could extend this. An obvious extension would be to include a text file in each directory saying what other directories should be added to the path to use the functions in that directory.
Another useful thing if you share code is to set up a "user specific/LabMember" directory structure, where you have different lab members save code they are working on. That way you have access to their code if you need it, but don't get clobbered when they write a function with the same name as one of yours.