Iam writing a perl script ,in which iam using a module utils.pm and in utils.pm iam using another module DB.pm in which i have a sub routine connetToDB().
in utils.pm iam writing
use DB qw (connectToDB());
and below iam calling that subroutine as
my $connection=DB::connectToDB(); (This is line 30)
it is giving an error like follows. Can someone pls help?
Undefined subroutine &DB::connectToDB called at utils.pm line 30.
you can see the DB.pm code here
The direct error in the shown code is that inside qw() you need names. The use pragma
Imports some semantics into the current package from the named module
(my emphasis). The "connectToDB()", with parentheses, is not the correct name for the subroutine. The error message simply says that it didn't find such a sub.
So just drop the parens, use DB qw(connectToDB);.
The code for the package was added to the question and here are some comments.
A similar fix is needed with your #EXPORT: you need the subroutine names (lose &).
Perhaps more importantly, you defined the sub using prototypes. Your sub is consistent with the prototype you use so I'll assume that it's done on purpose.
This is a very advanced (mis?)feature, which is very different from similar looking devices in other languages and is normally not needed. Chances are that you expect wrong things from prototypes. Go search for it. I'd advise against.
A side note: the prototype-related () and & are not a part of the subroutine name.
The last executed statement that returns in a module must return true, or code won't compile. The convention to ensure this is to put 1; at the end of the package.
Finally, you shouldn't name the module DB as that namespace is used internally by Perl. Also, such a generic name is just not good for a module -- it makes it easy to run into conflicts.
use DB qw(connectToDB);
my $connection=DB->connectToDB();
or
if you have defined a constructor "new" in DB.pm module then
my $connection=DB->new();
my $result = $connection->connectToDB();
Related
I know specific instances of this question have been answered before:
How can I dynamically include Perl modules without using eval?
How do I use a Perl package known only in runtime?
There are also good answers at Perl Monks:
Writing a Perl module that dynamically loads other modules.
Creating subroutines on the fly
But I would like a robust way to add functionallity to a Perl application that will be:
Efficient: if the code is not needed it should not be compiled.
Easy to debug: error reporting if something goes wrong at the dynamic code, should point at the right place at the dynamic code.
Easy to extend: adding new code should be as easy as adding a new file or directory+file.
Easy to invoke: the main application should be able to use an "add on" without much trouble. An efficient mechanism to check if the "add on" has already been loaded and if not load it, would be a plus.
To illustrate the point, here are some examples that would benefit from a good solution:
A set of scripts that move data from different applications. For instance, moving data from OpenCart to Prestashop, where each entity in the data model has a specific "add on" that deals with the input or output; then an intermediate data model takes care of the transformation of the data. This could be used to move data in any direction or even between different versions of the same ecommerce.
A web application that needs to render different types of HTML in different places. Each "module" knows how to handle a certain information and accepts parameters to do it. A module outputs HTML, another a list of documents, another a document, another a banner, and so on.
Here are some examples that I have used and that work.
Load a function at run time and output the possible compile errors:
eval `cat $file_with_function`;
if( $# ) {
print STDERR $#, "\n";
die "Errors at file $file_with_function\n";
}
Or more robust using File::Slurp:
eval read_file("$file_with_function", binmode => ':utf8');
Check that a certain function has been defined:
if( !defined &myfunction ) {
die "myfunction is not defined\n";
}
The function may be called from there on. This is fine with one function, but not for many.
If the function is put in a module:
require $file_with_function; # needs the ".pm" extension, i.e. addon/func.pm
$name_of_module->import(); # need to know the module name, i.e. Addon::Func
$name_of_module->myfunction(...);
Where the require may be protected inside an eval and then use $# as before.
With Module::Load:
load $name_of_module;
Followed by the import and used in the same way. Security should not be a concern as it may be assumed that the dynamic code comes from a trusted place. Are there better ways? Which way would be considered good practice?
In case it helps, I will be using the solution (among other places, but not exclusively) within the Dancer framework.
EDIT: Given the comments, I add some more info. All cases that I have in mind have in common:
There is more than one dynamic piece of code. Probably many to start with.
Each bit of code has the same interface.
Given the comments and the lack of responses, I have done some research to answer my own question. Comments or other answers are welcome!
Dynamic code
By dynamic code I mean code that is evaluated at run-time. In general, I consider better to compile an application so that you have all the error checking the Perl compiler can offer before starting to execute. Added to use strict and use warnings, you can catch many common mistakes that way. So why using dynamic code at all? These are the reasons I consider:
An application performs many different actions that are chosen depending on the context of execution. For instance, an application extracts certain properties from a file. The way to extract them depends on the file type and we want to deal with many file types, but we do not want to change the application for each new file type we add. We also want the application to start quickly.
An application needs to be expanded on the fly in a way that does not require the application to restart.
We have a large application that contains a number of features. When we deploy the application, we do not want to provide all the possible features all the time, maybe because we licence them separately, maybe because not all of them are able to run under all platforms. By throwing in only the files with the features we want, we have a distribution that does not require changing any code or config files.
How do we do it?
Given the possibilities that Perl offers, solutions to adding dynamic code come in two flavors: using eval and using require. Then there are modules that may help do things in an easier or more maintainable way.
The quick and dirty way
The eval way uses the form eval EXPR to compile a piece of Perl code at run-time. The expression could be a string but I suggest putting the code in a file and grouping other similar files in a convenient place. Then, if possible using File::Slurp:
eval read_file("$file_with_code", binmode => ':utf8');
if( $# ) {
die "$file_with_code: error $#\n";
}
if( !defined &myfunction ) {
die "myfunction is not defined at $file_with_code\n";
}
Specifying the character set to read_file makes sure that the file will be interpreted correctly. It is also good to check that the compilation was correct and that the function we expect was defined. So in $file_with_code, we will have:
sub myfunction(...) {
# Do whatever; maybe return something
}
Then you may invoke the function normally. The function will be a different one depending on which file was loaded. Simple and dynamic.
The modular way (recommended)
The way I would do it with maintainability in mind would be using require. Unlike use, that is evaluated at compile-time, require may be used to load a module at run-time. Out of the various ways to invoke require, I would go for:
my $mymodule = 'MyCompany::MyModule'; # The module name ends up in $mymodule
require $mymodule;
Also unlike use, require will load the module but will not execute import. So we may use any functions inside the module and those function names will not polute the calling namespace. To access the function we will need to use:
$mymodule->myfunction($a, $b);
See below as to how the arguments get passed. This way of invoking a function will add an argument before $a and $b that is usually named $self. You may ignore it if you don´t know anything about object orientation.
As require will try to load a module and the module may not exist or it may not compile, to catch the error it will be better to use:
eval "require $mymodule";
Then $# may be used to check for an error in the loading+compiling process. We may also check that the function has been defined with:
if( $mymodule->can('myfunction') ) {
die "myfunction is not defined at module $mymodule\n";
}
In this case we will need to create a directory for the modules and a file with the .pm extension for each one:
MyCompany
MyModule.pm
Inside MyModule.pm we will have:
package MyCompany::MyModule;
sub myfunction {
my ($self, $a, $b);
# Do whatever; maybe return something
# $self will be 'MyCompany::MyModule'
}
1;
The package bit is essential and will make sure that whatever definitions we put inside will be at the MyCompany::MyModule namespace. The 1; at the end will tell require that the module initialization was correct.
In case we wanted to implement the module by using other libraries that could polute the caller namespace, we could use the namespace::clean module. This module will make sure the caller does not get any additions to the namespace coming from the module we are defining. It is used in this way:
package MyCompany::MyModule;
# Definitions by these modules will not be available to the code doing the require
use Library1 qw(def1 def2);
use Library2 qw(def3 def4);
...
# Private functions go here and will not be visible from the code doing the require
sub private_function1 {
...
}
...
use namespace::clean;
# myfunction will be available
sub myfunction {
# Do whatever; maybe return something
}
...
1;
What happens if we include a module more than once?
The short answer is nothing. Perl keeps track of which modules have been loaded and from where using the %INC variable. Both use and require will not load a library twice. use will add any exported names to the callers namespace. require will not do that either. In case you want to check that a module has been loaded already, you could use %INC or better yet, you could use module::loaded which is part of the core in modern Perl versions:
use Module::Loaded;
if( !is_loaded( $mymodule ) {
eval "require $mymodule" );
...
}
How do I make sure Perl finds my module files?
For use and require Perl uses the #INC variable to define the list of directories that will be used to look for libraries. Adding a new directory to it may be achieved (among other ways) by adding it to the PERL5LIB environment variable or by using:
use lib '/the/path/to/my/libs';
Helper libraries
I have found some libraries that may be used to make the code that uses the dynamic mechanism more maintainable. They are:
The if module: will load a module or not depending on a condition: use if CONDITION, MODULE => ARGUMENTS;. May also be used to unload a module.
Module::Load::Conditional: will not die on you while trying to load a module and may also be used to check the module version or its dependencies. It is also able to load a list of modules all at once even checking their versions before doing so.
Taken from the Module::Load::Conditional documentation:
use Module::Load::Conditional qw(can_load);
my $use_list = {
CPANPLUS => 0.05,
LWP => 5.60,
'Test::More' => undef,
};
print can_load( modules => $use_list )
? 'all modules loaded successfully'
: 'failed to load required modules';
I'm using the package URI::Escape. Usually, I can call the functions directly by naming it, e.g. uri_unescape('some text') but actual I'm getting AH01215: Undefined subroutine &MyFunctions::uri_unescape called at ...
This happens in an own package ('MyFunctions') of me. I got the use URI::Escape line. When I use &URI::Escape::uri_unescape it seems to work fine. But I just don't get why it is looking for this subroutine in my package...
Can someone explain it to me? Is there any way to solve this? I really don't wanna write this whole package-name::funktion every time I call this function :/
The subroutines are imported into the current namespace. You have to put the use line after the package declaration:
package MyFunctions;
use URI::Escape;
Otherwise, the functions are imported into the previous namespace, which is probably main in your case (you can verify by running main::uri_unescape().
I have a Perl module file named genbank.pm, it has a subroutine new; this Perl module didn't use Exporter and didn't define #EXPORT or #EXPORT_OK. In the same directory I have a Perl file named test.pl, the code of test.pl is:
require 'genbank.pm';
use strict;
our $result = genbank::new();
When I run it with Komodo , it reports:
Undefined subroutine &genbank::new called at /home/mrs/scripts/test.pl line 3;
After I changed the code from
our $result = genbank::new();
to
our $result = genbank->new();
it said:
Can't locate object method "new" via package "genbank"(perhaps you forgot to load "genbank"?) at /home/mrs/scripts/test.pl line 3.
You haven't provided enough information to be entirely certain of the problem, but the most likely cause is that the new sub is in a package other than genbank.
When you attempt to call genbank::new (or genbank->new), Perl looks for a sub named new in the package genbank, not in the file genbank.pm. By convention, the file genbank.pm will contain a package named genbank, but this is purely a matter of convention and convenience. It is not enforced by the language and there is absolutely no automatic connection between file names and package names.
To find out what package your subs are being placed in, look in genbank.pm for any lines saying package xxxx;. The last one to appear before the sub new line will tell you the package that new belongs to. If there isn't a package statement before its definition, it will be in the package main by default.
(If you are responsible for the genbank.pm source code, I would also suggest either adding package genbank; to the file or renaming the file to match the package it actually contains, so as to avoid this sort of confusion in the future.)
Edit in response to OP's comment:
Since the module currently starts with package MRS::Scripts::genbank, then that's the package the new sub is created in. You have two options for calling it:
Call it as MRS::Scripts::genbank::new (or, if it actually is an object constructor, MRS::Scripts::genbank->new). If you want to call it using a package name, then you have to use the correct package name.
Export it from the MRS::Scripts::genbank package and modify your calling script to import symbols from that package (either by moving genbank.pm to MRS/Scripts/genbank.pm and changing your require to use MRS::Scripts::genbank; or by adding MRS::Scripts::genbank->import; after the require), then call it as just new(). While this would work within the limited scope of your question, I advise strongly against it because, as soon as you repeat this with another module containing a sub new, it will all fall apart, since there can't be two news at the same time in the same place.
The cleanest way to resolve this would be to move genbank.pm to MRS/Scripts/genbank.pm, change your require to require MRS::Scripts::genbank.pm (or use; if you don't export anything, they're equivalent), and then call the sub as MRS::Scripts::genbank::new or MRS::Scripts::genbank->new. This approach will bring the file name and package name into sync with each other, which will make life easier for whoever has to maintain the code in the future (which will probably be you...).
I have been USEing .pm files willy-nilly in my programs without really getting into using packages unless really needed. In essence, I would just have common routines in a .pm and they would become part of main when use'd (the .pm would have no package or Exporter or the like... just a bunch of routines).
However, I came across a situation the other day which I think I know what happened and why, but I was hoping to get some coaching from the experts here on best practices and how to resolve this. In essence, should packages be used always? Should I "do" files when I just want common routines absorbed into main (or the parent module/package)? Is Exporter really the way to handle all of this?
Here's example code of what I came across (I won't post the original code as it's thousands of lines... this is just the essence of the problem).
Pgm1.pl:
use PM1;
use PM2;
print "main\n";
&pm2sub1;
&pm1sub1;
PM1.pm:
package PM1;
require Exporter;
#ISA=qw(Exporter);
#EXPORT=qw(pm1sub1);
use Data::Dump 'dump';
use PM2;
&pm2sub1;
sub pm1sub1 {
print "pm1sub1 from caller ",dump(caller()),"\n";
&pm2sub1;
}
1;
PM2.pm:
use Data::Dump 'dump';
sub pm2sub1 {
print "pm2sub1 from caller ",dump(caller()),"\n";
}
1;
In essence, I'd been use'ing PM2.pm for some time with its &pm2sub1 subroutine. Then I wrote PM1.pm at some point and it needed PM2.pm's routines as well. However, in doing it like this, PM2.pm's modules got absorbed into PM2.pm's package and then Pgm1.pl couldn't do the same since PM2.pm had already been use'd.
This code will produce
Undefined subroutine &main::pm2sub1 called at E:\Scripts\PackageFun\Pgm1.pl line 4.
pm2sub1 from caller ("PM1", "PM1.pm", 7)
main
However, when I swap the use statements like so in Pgm1.pl
use PM2;
use PM1;
print "main\n";
&pm2sub1;
&pm1sub1;
... perl will allow PM2.pm's modules into main, but then not into PM1.pm's package:
Undefined subroutine &PM1::pm2sub1 called at PM1.pm line 7.
Compilation failed in require at E:\Scripts\PackageFun\Pgm1.pl line 2.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at E:\Scripts\PackageFun\Pgm1.pl line 2.
So, I think I can fix this by getting religious about packages and Exporter in all my modules. Trouble is, PM2.pm is already used in a great number of other programs, so it would be a ton of regression testing to make sure I didn't break anything.
Ideas?
See my answer to What is the difference between library files and modules?.
Only use require (and thus use) for modules (files with package, usually .pm). For "libraries" (files without package, usually .pl), use do.
Better yet, only use modules!
use will not load same file more than once. It will, however, call target package's import sub every time. You should format your PM2 as proper package, so use can find its import and export function to requestor's namespace from there.
(Or you could sneak your import function into proper package by fully qualifying its name, but don't do that.)
You're just asking for trouble arranging your code like this. Give each module a package name (namespace), then fully qualify calls to its functions, e.g. PM2::sub1() to call sub1 in package PM2. You are already naming the functions with the package name on them (pm2sub1); it is two extra characters (::) to do it the right way and then you don't need to bother with Exporter either.
How can I perform a "shallow" syntax check on perl files. The standard perl -c is useful but it checks the syntax of imports. This is sometimes nice but not great when you work in a code repository and push to a running environment and you have a function defined in the repository but not yet pushed to the running environment. It fails checking a function because the imports reference system paths (ie. use Custom::Project::Lib qw(foo bar baz)).
It can't practically be done, because imports have the ability to influence the parsing of the code that follows. For example use strict makes it so that barewords aren't parsed as strings (and changes the rules for how variable names can be used), use constant causes constant subs to be defined, and use Try::Tiny changes the parse of expressions involving try, catch, or finally (by giving them & prototypes). More generally, any module that exports anything into the caller's namespace can influence parsing because the perl parser resolves ambiguity in different ways when a name refers to an existing subroutine than when it doesn't.
There are two problems with this:
How to not fail -c if the required modules are missing?
There are two solutions:
A. Add a fake/stub module in production
B. In all your modules, use a special catch-all #INC subroutine entry (using subs in #INC is explained here). This obviously has a problem of having the module NOT fail in real production runtime if the libraries are missing - DoublePlusNotGood in my book.
Even if you could somehow skip failing on missing modules, you would STILL fail on any use of the identifiers imported from the missing module or used explicitly from that module's namespace.
The only realistic solution to this is to go back to #1a and use a fake stub module, but this time one that has a declared and (as needed) exported identifier for every public interface. E.g. do-nothing subs or dummy variables.
However, even that will fail for some advanced modules that dynamically determine what to create in their own namespace and what to export in runtime (and the caller code could dynamically determine which subs to call - heck, sometimes which modules to import).
But this approach would work just fine for normal "Java/C-like" OO or procedural code that only calls statically named predefined public subs, methods and accesses exported variables.
I would suggest that it's better to include your code repository in your syntax check. perl -I/path/to/working/code/repo/local_perl/ -c or set PERL5LIB=/path/to/working/code/repo/local_perl/ prior to running perl -c. Either option should allow you to check against your working code, assuming you have it in a directory structure similar to your live code.
I guess you could make stubs for the missing libraries in your home folder.
Have you looked into PPI? I think it does follow imports, however it could perhaps be more easily modified to guess what looks like a function name.