CoffeeScript compiler doesn't add source map url comment - coffeescript

I'm having trouble forcing the CoffeeScript compiler to add a source map url comment to the end of file.
I attempted to use: coffee -mo script/lib -cw scripts/src
This command creates a source map, but doesn't always add the appropriate comment to file. Therefore Chrome cannot find the source map and I'm unable to see the associated CoffeeScript.
I also tried passing the --bare option to no avail.

Unfortunately, inline source maps are not possible with coffee
Take a look at this command line utility that will do it for you though: https://github.com/gromnitsky/coffee-inline-map

I found that coffee doesn't the comment while watching for changes. If stop it and then compile changes once the comment appears.

Related

Cond statement doxygen does not work

I am trying to separate out internal and external documentation using the doxygen constructs of cond; but i just cant seem to get get it working. I would essentially like to exclude some files completely and not conditionally. Regardless of where i add the tag (before include, before header guards etc) , the files and source both show up.
What i have tried in vain is to take the test file from doxegen repo for
conditional test and add it to the project.
Steps to reproduce [Linux]
create a new directory.
copy paste the above file (had to rename it to .h as .c was passed over?).
generate dummy config via doxygen -g.
update Doxyfile ENABLED_SECTION = COND_ENABLED.
Run doxygen.
check html/index.html
This however is still visible in the html documentation it generates for the project. I have set the ENABLED_SECTION variable with other values , but cond_enabled function still shows up. Running the testing directory of the project (doxygen) it passes. So i am lost.
Any suggestions?
Tried with latest version 1.8.14.
Thanks!
Regarding the \cond problems (not an answer directly to the real problem you face, I think, but to long for a comment).
The mentioned file is used in the, limited, testing doxygen can do / does and the first lines contain some instructions on what to do. Furthermore there is a default Doxyfile with the tests in use. It is hard to run a separate test outside the doxygen build tree.
Regarding the remark "Running the testing directory of the project (doxygen) it passes." This is correct, here, at the moment, only testing is done against the XML output and the generated output is compared to a once created version of the XML output. No tests are done, at the moment, in respect to HTML or PDF / LaTeX. Recently the test framework has been slightly extended so in the future this should be possible (compare the xhtml and tex output, but some work has still to be done here).
The version of the parser sees the \cond in the first line (normal C comment) as a doxygen command and skips everything till the first \endcond (your friend in these cases is always doxygen -d preprocessor). I think that removing / modifying the first line will result in an already better result. There is however another hiccup for e.g. HTML output. As the function cond_enabled is not documented and EXPAND_ALL is not set to YES the function will not appear in the documentation. So best is also to add a line of documentation with the function cond_enabled.
Regarding the seen HTML problems I modified the the relevant test in doxygen slightly and pushed a proposed patch to github (pull request 714, https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/pull/714).
Note: the problem of skipping the \cond in normal C comment is quite a bit harder to implement (seen the logical complexity of the doxygen code in pre.l and commentcnv.l.
EDIT: 2018/06/10: The push request has been integrated in the master version on github.

LLDB: Specifying source search folders for flattened folder structure

I'm using VSCode + CodeLLDB + LLDB to debug a JIT'ed language (KL), however I'm having trouble getting LLDB to recognize the source files.
This is a duplicate question to LLDB equivalent of gdb "directory" command for specifying source search path?, however it's accepted answer doesn't work for me.
LLDB seems to think every source unit is compiled to the local directory - so if I execute
kl /MyWork/someFile.kl
and this file includes /any/other/path/external.kl, LLDB will believe the file is located as /MyWork/external.kl
So far, I'm (mostly) working around this problem by using
settings set target.source-map /MyWork/ /any/other/path/
However this only seems to work for a single folder. If I tried:
settings set target.source-map /MyWork/ /any/other/path/
settings set target.source-map /MyWork/ /I/use/many/dependencies/
Then LLDB seems to not be able to find -any- files in either folder. Interestingly, when I tried this LLDB errored with accurate messages
can't find external.kl in /I/use/many/dependencies/
can't find dependencies.kl in /any/other/path/
Which are accurate messages, but seems almost as if LLDB is just looking for an excuse to error-out :).
Note - I can set breakpoints and view locals, I just can't seem to view the source code at that spot.
Anywho - is there any suggestions on how to deal with this issue? There are 3 possibilities to work with:
- Modify/work with LLDB to find the source files
- Modify CodeLLDB to modify paths between LLDB + VSCode
- Somehow convince VSCode to ignore the path given to it, and search its own folders for any file matching the name.
My suspicion is that LLDB is the right place to fix this, but I am open to any suggestions (right up to the point of linking each and every source file into a flat folder I can redirect to).
lldb only knows about source paths from what is written in the debug information. The rule in DWARF (the debug format lldb uses) is that if an include file is just given by relative path or base name then it is taken to be relative to the compilation directory. Looks like that's what is happening in your case. That sounds like a compiler bug. lldb's not going to be able to reconstruct the file hierarchy at this point.
The source maps should give you a manual way to fix this, and from the sound of it, what you are describing should work. But maybe there's something else odd in the DWARF output from kl that is confusing it. You'll need to file a bug with some example binary to http://bugreporter.apple.com.

How to produce a .js file from a haskell source file with haste?

So I noticed, while answering this question, that the one who asked the question appears to be a javascript developer. And as the code I wrote in haskell is easy enough, I thought I give haste a try and try to compile it to javascript.
So, I downloaded the Windows binary package of haste (why does the .msi require a reboot?!!?), added it to my path, issued haste-cabal update and haste-cabal install split and after a bit of reading the output of hastec --help, I issued:
PS E:\h\stackoverflow> hastec -o hexagon.js --pretty-print hexagon.hs
as my best guess on how to get the output I am looking for.
Opposite to my expectation, haste output was this:
hastec.exe: user error (shell expression failed in readModule: Data.Binary.Get.runGet at position 8: not enough bytes)
So, my question: What do I have to do to get a java script source file?
Is it possible that you have an old version of Haste lying around, or have intermediate files (.jsmod, for instance) from a different version of the compiler in your source directory? This sounds like the (quite unhelpful) error message Haste produces when it runs into a corrupted intermediate file.
Check that the version of the binary you're calling is what you expect (hastec --version). Then, try getting rid of all intermediate files in the directory as well as any files in %USERPROFILE%\AppData\Roaming\haste, reinstalling split, and recompiling with the -fforce-recomp flag. You should also add a main function, so that Haste has an entry point to your program from which to start linking. If all you want to do is to make some Haskell function available to external JavaScript, you can use the export foreign function interface:
{-# LANGUAGE OverloadedStrings #-}
module Main where
import Haste.Foreign
import Hexagon
main = export "picture" Hexagon.picture
You will probably also want to compile your program with the --onexec flag, to make sure that main runs and exports picture immediately when loaded, and not on page load which is the default:
> hastec -o hexagon.js --pretty-print --onexec hexagon.hs
After doing this, any code included after hexagon.js will be able to call e.g. Haste.picture(5); in order to produce a picture of size 5.
(Re: MSI installer requiring a reboot, this is required since it adds the Haste binaries to your %PATH%, which does not take effect immediately. I assume that a re-login would be enough to make it take effect, however.)

how to create a Doxygen link to the same file

I would like to write a Doxygen comment that names the file in which the comment occurs. Rather than write the filename explicitly, I would like Doxygen to supply me with it. Thus, if I change the name of the file, or move some of the content into a different file, I don't need to change hard-coded instances of the name.
For a concrete example, let's say I'm adding comments to functions in array.hpp, and I want the comment for certain functions to say "This function should only be used within array.hpp." I want to be able to write
/**
* This function should only be used within #thisfile.
*/
where #thisfile is a Doxygen expression that translates into array.hpp within the file array.hpp.
I've looked at the Doxygen documentation, including "Automatic link generation/Links to files" and the entire "Special Commands" section, but I haven't found what I'm looking for. Does such functionality exist?
Note that essentially the same question was asked on the Doxygen mailing list a few weeks ago. It has not received any replies.
General
As far as I know such functionality does not exist out-of-the-box. But you can add it by configuring an INPUT_FILTER in your Doxyfile. The path to the file is passed as an argument to the filter by doxygen. This can be used by the filter to replace your keyword (for example #thisfile) with the path to the file.
Below I give an example how to implement this with bash. A solution for other shells or Windows should be quite similar.
Example for bash
Write a short bash script infiltrate_filename.sh:
#!/bin/bash
pathToScript=`pwd`"/"
sed -e "s:#thisfile:${1/$pathToScript/}:g" $1
This script truncates the path to the file by the working directory. The resulting string is used to replace the keyword of your choice (here: #thisfile).
Make your script executable: chmod +x infiltrate_filename.sh
Set the INPUT_FILTER in your Doxyfile to INPUT_FILTER = ./infiltrate_filename.sh
That's it! 🎉 Now you can use #thisfile in your documentation blocks and it will be replaced by the path to the file. As the paths are relative to Doxygen's working directory they will automatically be linked to the file.
Notes
This solution assumes that the filter script is located in the working directory of doxygen (for example ~/my_project) and that the INPUT files are in subdirectories of the working directory (for example ~/my_project/src/foo/bar).
I have tested this example on a minimum working example. I am not a bash or sed expert. This solution may be improvable.

Validate against an Eclipse formatting profile from command line

I'm looking for a way to verify Java code against an Eclipse code formatting profile from the command line. The goal is to create a Mercurial hook which rejects any commit that doesn't match the profile. Is there a way to do this?
I'm aware of the possibility to call Eclipse's formatter from the command line. What I'm looking for is something which just validates (yes/no). I guess I could use the formatter and then compare the two, but it seems like a clumsy approach.
Background: The reason we want to try this is because we currently get many unnecessary merge conflicts because of formatting differences. We have an environment where multiple IDE:s are used, although only one is officially supported. We want to enforce the official profile, and everyone can continue using the tools they prefer as long as they set it up to format the code correctly.
In brief, follow those steps:
Duplicate the original Java file in a temporary place ;
Format the temporary duplicate using the Eclipse Java code formatter ;
Check whether the files are identical or not.
Tricks to help you out:
To call the Eclipse Java code formatter from command line, see Formatting your code using the Eclipse code formatter.
To know whether files are identical, using the diff utility: diff --text --quiet >/dev/null, the error code will tell you what you're seeking for.