Is there anywhere a place where the rules regarding the folder structure is explained?
The most important one I understand, i.e. lwc must be the name of the parent folder of components, and can be referenced with c/.
Other than that, I don't know; there seem to be issues with having folders / files with the same name (I think) even when they belong to a different component.
I can't tell for sure because I'm having different compilation errors all the time.
I can't seem to reference subfolders properly without getting
compilation errors.
Sometimes when I change the name, one file is fixed then the other breaks.
Have been spending all day trying to fix basic import issues, seems like that thing is completely broken and I strongly regret that I have to work with it.
It seems that they use the #Babel/traverse npm library to compile (while we can't use npm directly, another thing that makes me wonder what the hell they're doing).
Some help is appreciated, although I'm afraid the community is tiny.
Thanks.
Knowing the following information will save you a LOT of trouble.
Not applying these rules will result in obscure compilation errors during the bundling process:
• Components should all be stored below a folder named ‘lwc’, this will place the components directly under the namespace c/;
• No duplicate component names should ever exist under the c/ namespace;
• You should not use ‘-‘ in component names, only alphanumeric characters and underscores;
• Component folder names should be unique, they should not correspond to folder names that are places directly in the root of the project;
Best is to deploy regularly and check if anything broke.
Personally I really don't like it because this is WAY too restrictive IMO.
But anyway, it works now.
Related
I wondered if there is a smoother way to work with modules pulled from a repo than extending the path with sys.path.extension.
We pull a project and need to save the file structure of it for every day once completed. Besides, I pull the whole project every time I start to work.
The path extensions needed are differently deep and we just use a lot of lines of code to describe locations of modules.
Is there an easier way to do this? Is there a way to generalize this path extensions?
We push and pull the repo quite often and since we are talking about a small collection of scripts we always pull the whole master(project) to work locally. So setting up the project's path extensions once locally to run does not solve the problem of the next day.
str_rel_par_folder = os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(os.path.realpath(__file__)))
sys.path.extend([os.path.join(str_rel_par_folder, r'some_file')])
It would be very nice if someone knows this problem and handles it somehow. Maybe you have some recommendation on how to use Github differently to avoid those kinds of issues.
So I came to the following insights how to handle this issue efficiently:
The easiest way is to structure the project in a way that no import needs to be take place from a higher level than the script that runs the import. This is probably self-explaining to someone with a deeper technical knowledge than me.
In case there is no way to structure the project differently than with imports from higher and lower levels one can always add the project path to the PATH/PYTHONPATH. This is no recommended because it causes problems and conflicts when you try to run your script on another machine.
I've been diving into some of the more advanced features of powershell modules and manifests recently, with a view to handling scenarios more advanced than just a basic export of a few functions. It sounds like it should be obvious, but I'm struggling to find a nice solution for sharing common 'helper' type functions across several large non trivial modules. In particular, I'm looking for a solution that:
Allows sharing of 'helper' type functions without necessarily being exported by anyone
Allow installation via PsGet from a local repo path
Let me go into some of the challenges I see.
First of all, as far as I can tell, PsGet does not handle module dependencies well. This implies sharing between modules is going to be a struggle. Maybe a solution to this is to avoid PsGet, and use a custom script to 'install' modules to the local module path, which might be more tolerant of dependencies and load order.
My point about not using module exports to share helper functions also seems to be an issue. The reason I can see for this is desiring aliases, helpers etc for common internal actions (needed inside useful functions), that are either useless or unsafe to expose. For example, a nice brief alias for getting the local script path (commonly used, noisier than it should be). Or I recently made a nice simple wrapper around PromptForChoice with fewer options. Maybe this whole thing isn't a real issue. But I can't help but feel that shipping a 'utils' module that exports low level functions that are useful inside real modules, but not to an end user, seems like the wrong way to go.
What I've been playing with is a small build structure that tests and then packs modules, and I want to get some code sharing possible. I've been looking for an alternative using ScriptsToProcess in the manifest, but these seem to be absolute paths, not relative.
Imagine a folder structure:
modules
utils
console_helpers.ps1
moduleA
moduleA.psm1
moduleA.psd1
moduleB
moduleB.psm1
moduleB.psd1
packed_modules
moduleA.zip
moduleB.zip
What I was considering was that you could list relative paths in each ScriptsToProcess, and then my pack phase will go and drag those relative paths in to each zip.
Is this a horrible crazy idea? Am I right that ps modules and PsGet really don't have decent dependency support? I would love to hear feedback from anyone who has looked into this space. I think the answer I'm hoping to get in rough priority might be:
Here's an example of sharing code without exposing it (probably a build/pack level solution)
Here's how to make module dependencies work nicely, using PsGet
Here's how to make module dependencies work nicely, but you can't use PsGet
Just expose everything from modules
This is a terrible idea and you're terrible
Thanks!
UPDATE as suggested by CalebB
Here's another example to illustrate what I'm trying to resolve. I find it useful to wrap up '&' style execution of commands with a wrapper function, to deal with stuff like checking exit codes etc. If i'm building half a dozen modules, many of them will want to make use of that helper (obviously).
My options today seem to be put it in a module and export it, but maybe I don't want it exported, I want more of a . source style access. And if I've got a family of modules all trying to use this stuff, the options for module dependency management are limited (PsGet limitation etc).
If I'm 'building' all the modules at once (with some decent psake and pester infrastructure), maybe I can use a hack at this point to embed scripts into my zipped modules to 'solve' all these problems?
Allows sharing of 'helper' type functions without necessarily being exported by anyone
Mhm... what is wrong with dot sourcing the scripts you need within particular module ? You could :
Keep your folder structure and symlink the desired functions into module folder.
Try to use AbsolutePath with ScriptProcess that has "relative part" in it, for example %PSScriptRoot%\..\utils (not tried in that context but generally works). If not, u can always add preprocessor to fix paths for you if it doesn't work
Delete undesired imported elements manually via function:, alias:, and var: provider.
Import extra utilities only when u use them then remove them at the end ? If the desire is that user can't see them you can encrypt them.
Here's how to make module dependencies work nicely, but you can't use PsGet
Chocolatey uses NuGet so it handles dependencies and can load from the local store. As a benefit, OneGet supports it which is something everybody will use eventually.
I've posted the solution I've come up with on github. I've rolled in a few other features I want when building modules, but the key solution for this question here uses reading and updating the psd1 of each module.
You include scripts that you want to embed in the NestedModules property of your manifest. My build phase will find each script and copy it into the module folder for packing and zipping. The manifest that ships in the package has the script paths converted to the now local file name.
I'm still not sure of this is ideal, but it seems to be a nice compromise to deal with the issues here.
A key issue I encountered along the way was that the ScriptsToProcess list is executed literally at module import time, so it is only useful for bootstrapping the import of your functionality. The NestedModules property is actually the list of additional scripts you want to be . sourced and available when your module is used.
I completed my very first project in zend framework!! Thanks to stackoverflow community!!
While uploading files, i didn't know how to include zend library so i uploaded the whole library in the /library folder of my project base.
Is there a way to determine which library is used and which in not (like compilation that automatically copies dependent files to library folder incase webhost does not provide zend library ..)? i would be awfully bad to manually add each file and test weather the particular library is added or not.
This answer essentially says don't worry about including the whole library. I usually put the whole library in the project library folder, just like you did.
But if it is truly problematic to include the whole library, you could take a look at Jani Hartikainen's Packageizer which, at least in a previous form that I played with, allowed you to specify the components you needed and it would chase the dependencies and wrap them in a neat little package.
Disk space is cheap. Just have the entire ./Zend library directory (and maybe ./ZendX, if you are using that) into your own library directory where it will used. With autoloading, nothing that isn't being used will take up any significant memory. taking even 5 minutes trying to figure out is time (and therefore money) that is more usefully spent writing code.
I wonder if it would be worthwhile/reliable to subclass the autoloader for this and have it optionally log each class it loads during site operation (sort of how Zend_Translate can log untranslated strings).
You could have it turned off normally but in your testing environment you would turn it on (via your application.ini), and have it build your dependency list while your unit tests are running.
I've been asked to put every single file in my project under source control, including the database file (not the schema, the complete file).
This seems wrong to me, but I can't explain it. Every resource I find about source control tells me not to put generated output files in a source control system. And I understand, it's not "source" files.
However, I've been presented with the following reasoning:
Who cares? We have plenty of bandwidth.
I don't mind having to resolve a conflict each time I get the latest revision, it's just one click
It's so much more convenient than having to think about good ignore files
Also, if I have to add an external DLL file in the bin folder now, I can't forget to put it in source control, as the bin folder is not being ignored now.
The simple solution for the last bullet-point is to add the file in a libraries folder and reference it from the project.
Please explain if and why putting generated output files under source control is wrong.
You haven't explained what "the database file" is.
I would certainly include 3rd party libraries in source control, as they're necessarily for the build and it's good to have a way of reproducing a build at a later time with the library versions you used at that particular moment. But yes, those libraries should be included from a "libraries" folder rather than the output directory.
I wouldn't generally include my own libraries built from the sources elsewhere in the same repository - although I have been in situations where that's been worth doing, where some projects didn't use the "latest and greatest" version of a common library, but just occasionally updated.
The most important practical argument I'd give against including everything, in a world where disk, processor and network are considered free and instantaneous, is that it makes it harder to tell what really changed for any given commit. It's easier to look down a list of 3 source files than 3 source files and 150 binaries from the obj/bin directories.
Generated output files (in general) are "dangerous" in a VCS because:
what you need to version is how to regenerate them: the day you will need to actually update them, chances are you won't remember how to do it
they can contain some private generated file which make them work on the committer desktop, but not on a client one ("works on my machine" TM syndrome)
some generated file are not easily stored in delta (binary especially), making them consuming lots of space (and the topic of cleaning that space will come-up someday...)
External libraries are not generated directly by your project, and can be put in a VCS, although external repositories like a public Maven repo are better at this kind of management.
Do we also put compiled object files such as class files, executables, DLLs build from our source? What about when we're doing serious volume testing and that database becomes many gigabytes or terabytes in size?
The clue is in the name: it's Source Code Management System.
I can understand the simplicity of put eveything in, it's more likely that developer doesn't forget some important file. But if you're doing regular automated builds then surely that gets picked up anyway?
I think the key phrase is here:
It's so much more convenient than
having to think about good ignore
files
Are you explicitly forbiden from having good ignore files? My guess is that already you are excluding .exe and .class (or whatever) files. Suppose you did take the trouble to exclude your database would that be a problem? Why? It's a concious action that you are chosing to take for the commone good. In Eclipse it's a couple of seconds work to add a new file type to the workspace's CVS ignore rules for all projects.
A rule of "No Ignore Files" is almost self-evidently absurd. Once you have the freedom the have some ignore files then why not just use them intelligently to exclude the DB? Who is inconveninced? Only yourself, if anyone, and you're prepared to do the extra work.
Almost any IDE creates lots of files that have nothing to do with the application being developed, they are generated and mantained by the IDE so he knows how to build the application, where the version control repository is and so on.
Should those files be kept under version control along with the files that really have something to do with the aplication (source code, application's configuration files, ...)?
The things is: on some IDEs if you create a new project and then import it into the version-control repository using the version-control client/commands embedded in the IDE, then all those files are sent to the respitory. And I'm not sure that's right: what is two different developers working on the same project want to use two different IDEs?
I want to keep this question agnostic avoiding references to any particular IDE, programming language or version control system. So this question is not exactly the same as these:
SVN and binaries - but this talks about binaries and SVN
Do you keep your build tools in version control? - but this talks about build tools (e.g. putting the jdk under version control)
What project files shouldn’t be checked into SVN - but this talks about SVN and dll's
Do you keep your project files under version control? - very similar (haven't found it before), thanks VonC
Rules of thumb:
Include everything which has an influence on the build result (compiler options, file encodings, ASCII/binary settings, etc.)
Include everything to make it possible to open the project from a clean checkout and being able to compile/run/test/debug/deploy it without any further manual intervention
Don't include files which contain absolute paths
Avoid including personal preferences (tab size, colors, window positions)
Follow the rules in this order.
[Update] There is always the question what should happen with generated code. As a rule of thumb, I always put those under version control. As always, take this rule with a grain of salt.
My reasons:
Versioning generated code seems like a waste of time. It's generated right? I can get it back at a push of a button!
Really?
If you had to bite the bullet and generate the exact same version of some previous release without fail, how much effort would it be? When generating code, you not only have to get all the input files right, you also have to turn back time for the code generator itself. Can you do that? Always? As easy as it would be to check out a certain version of the generated code if you had put it under version control?
And even if you could, could you ever be sure that didn't miss something?
So on one hand, putting generated code under version control make sense since it makes it dead easy to do what VCS are meant for: Go back in time.
Also it makes it easy to see the differences. Code generators are buggy, too. If I fix a bug and have 150'000 files generated, it helps a lot when I can compare them to the previous version to see that a) the bug is gone and b) nothing else changed unexpectedly. It's the unexpected part which you should worry about. If you don't, let me know and I'll make sure you never work for my company ever :-)
The major pain point of code generators is stability. It doesn't do when your code generator just spits out a random mess of bytes every time you run (well, unless you don't care about quality). Code generators need to be stable and deterministic. You run them twice with the same input and the output must be identical down to least significant bit.
So if you can't check in generated code because every run of the generator creates differences that aren't there, then your code generator has a bug. Fix it. Sort the code when you have to. Use hash maps that preserve order. Do everything necessary to make the output non-random. Just like you do everywhere else in your code.
Generated code that I might not put under version control would be documentation. Documentation is somewhat of a soft target. It doesn't matter as much when I regenerate the wrong version of the docs (say, it has a few typos more or less). But for releases, I might do that anyway so I can see the differences between releases. Might be useful, for example, to make sure the release notes are complete.
I also don't check in JAR files. As I do have full control over the whole build and full confidence that I can get back any version of the sources in a minute plus I know that I have everything necessary to build it without any further manual intervention, why would I need the executables for? Again, it might make sense to put them into a special release repo but then, better keep a copy of the last three years on your company's web server to download. Think: Comparing binaries is hard and doesn't tell you much.
I think it's best to put anything under version control that helps developers to get started quickly, ignoring anything that may be auto-generated by an IDE or build tools (e.g. Maven's eclipse plugin generates .project and .classpath - no need to check these in). Especially avoid files that change often, that contain nothing but user preferences, or that conflict between IDEs (e.g. another IDE that uses .project just like eclipse does).
For eclipse users, I find it especially handy to add code style (.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs - auto formatting on save turned on) to get consistently formatted code.
Everything that can be automatically generated from the source+configuration files should not be under the version control! It only causes problems and limitations (like the one you stated - using 2 different project files by different programmers).
Its true not only for IDE "junk files" but also for intermediate files (like .pyc in python, .o in c etc).
This is where build automation and build files come in.
For example, you can still build the project (the two developers will need the same build software obviously) but they then could in turn use two different IDE's.
As for the 'junk' that gets generated, I tend to ignore most if it. I know this is meant to be language agnostic but consider Visual Studio. It generates user files (user settings etc..) this should not be under source control.
On the other hand, project files (used by the build process) most certainly should. I should add that if you are on a team and have all agreed on an IDE, then checking in IDE specific files is fine providing they are global and not user specific and/or not needed.
Those other questions do a good job of explaining what should and shouldn't be checked into source control so I wont repeat them.
In my opinion it depends on the project and environment. In a company environment where everybody is using the same IDE it can make sense to add the IDE files to the repository. While this depends a bit on the IDE, as some include absolute paths to things.
For a project which is developed in different environments it doesn't make sense and will be pain in the long run as the project files aren't maintained by all developers and make it harder to find "relevant" things.
Anything that would be devastating if it were lost, should be under version control.
In my opinion, anything needed to build the project (code, make files, media, databases with required program info, etc) should be in repositories. I realise that especially for media/database files this is contriversial, but to me if you can't branch and then hit build the source control's not doing it's job. This goes double for distributed systems with cheap branch creation/merging.
Anything else? Store it somewhere different. Developers should choose their own working environment as much as possible.
From what I have been looking at with version control, it seems that most things should go into it - e.g. source code and so on. However, the problem that many VCS's run into is when trying to handle large files, typically binaries, and at times things like audio and graphic files. Therefore, my personal way to do it is to put the source code under version control, along with general small sized graphics, and leave any binaries to other systems of management. If it is a binary that I created myself using the build system of the IDE, then that can definitily be ignored, because it is going to be regenerated every build. For dependancy libraries, well this is where dependancy package managers come in.
As for IDE generated files (I am assuming these are ones that aren't generated during the build process, such as the solution files for Visual Studio) - well, I think it would depend on whether or not you are working alone. If you are working alone, then go ahead and add them - they will allow you to revert settings in the solution or whatever you make. Same goes for other non-solution like files as well. However, if you are collaborating, then my recomendation is no - most IDE generated files tend to be, well, user specific - aka they work on your machine, but not neccesarily on others. Hence, you may be better of not including IDE generated files in that case.
tl;dr you should put most things that relate to your program into version control, excluding dependencies (things like libraries, graphics and audio should be handled by some other dependancy management system). As for things directly generated by the IDE - well, it would depend on if you are working alone or with other people.