I have been on a "cleaning spree" lately at work, doing a lot of touch-up stuff that should have been done awhile ago. One thing I have been doing is deleted modules that were imported into files and never used, or they were used at one point but not anymore. To do this I have just been deleting an import and running the program's test file. Which gets really, really tedious.
Is there any programmatic way of doing this? Short of me writing a program myself to do it.
Short answer, you can't.
Longer possibly more useful answer, you won't find a general purpose tool that will tell you with 100% certainty whether the module you're purging will actually be used. But you may be able to build a special purpose tool to help you with the manual search that you're currently doing on your codebase. Maybe try a wrapper around your test suite that removes the use statements for you and ignores any error messages except messages that say Undefined subroutine &__PACKAGE__::foo and other messages that occur when accessing missing features of any module. The wrapper could then automatically perform a dumb source scan on the codebase of the module being purged to see if the missing subroutine foo (or other feature) might be defined in the unwanted module.
You can supplement this with Devel::Cover to determine which parts of your code don't have tests so you can manually inspect those areas and maybe get insight into whether they are using code from the module you're trying to purge.
Due to the halting problem you can't statically determine whether any program, of sufficient complexity, will exit or not. This applies to your problem because the "last" instruction of your program might be the one that uses the module you're purging. And since it is impossible to determine what the last instruction is, or if it will ever be executed, it is impossible to statically determine if that module will be used. Further, in a dynamic language, which can extend the program during it's run, analysis of the source or even the post-compile symbol tables would only tell you what was calling the unwanted module just before run-time (whatever that means).
Because of this you won't find a general purpose tool that works for all programs. However, if you are positive that your code doesn't use certain run-time features of Perl you might be able to write a tool suited to your program that can determine if code from the module you're purging will actually be executed.
You might create alternative versions of the modules in question, which have only an AUTOLOAD method (and import, see comment) in it. Make this AUTOLOAD method croak on use. Put this module first into the include path.
You might refine this method by making AUTOLOAD only log the usage and then load the real module and forward the original function call. You could also have a subroutine first in #INC which creates the fake module on the fly if necessary.
Of course you need a good test coverage to detect even rare uses.
This concept is definitely not perfect, but it might work with lots of modules and simplify the testing.
Related
In this question i saw two different answers how to directly call functions written in C++
Inline::CPP (and here are more, like Inline::C, Inline::Lua, etc..)
SWIG
Handmade (as daxim told - majority of modules are handwritten)
I just browsed nearly all questions in SO tagged [perl][swig] for finding answer for the next questions:
What are the main differences using (choosing between) SWIG and Inline::CPP or Handwritten?
When is the "good practice" - recommented to use Inline::CPP (or Inline:C) and when is recommented to use SWIG or Handwritten?
As I thinking about it, using SWIG is more universal for other uses, like asked in this question and Inline::CPP is perl-specific. But, from the perl's point of view, is here some (any) significant difference?
I haven't used SWIG, so I cannot speak directly to it. But I'm pretty familiar with Inline::CPP.
If you would like to compose C++ code that gets compiled and becomes callable from within Perl, Inline::CPP facilitates this. So long as the C++ code doesn't change, it should only compile once. If you base a module on Inline::CPP, the code will be compiled at module install time, so another user never really sees the first time compilation lag; it happens at install time, just before the testing phase.
Inline::CPP is not 100% free of portability isues. The target user must have a C++ compiler that is of similar flavor to the C compiler used to build Perl, and the C++ standard libraries should be of versions that produce binary-compatible code with Perl. Inline::CPP has about a 94% success rate with the CPAN testers. And those last 6% almost always boil down to issues of the installation process not correctly deciphering what C++ compiler and libraries to use. ...and of those, it usually comes down to the libraries.
Let's assume you as a module author find yourself in that 95% who have no problem getting Inline::CPP installed. If you know that your target audience will fall into that same category, then producing a module based on Inline::CPP is simple. You basically have to add a couple of directives (VERSION and NAME), and swap out your Makefile.PL's ExtUtils::MakeMaker call to Inline::MakeMaker (it will invoke ExtUtils::MakeMaker). You might also want a CONFIGURE_REQUIRES directive to specify a current version of ExtUtils::MakeMaker when you create your distribution; this insures that your users have a cleaner install experience.
Now if you're creating the module for general consumption and have no idea whether your target user will fit that 94% majority who can use Inline::CPP, you might be better off removing the Inline::CPP dependency. You might want to do this just to minimize the dependency chain anyway; it's nicer for your users. In that case, compose your code to work with Inline::CPP, and then use InlineX::CPP2XS to convert it to a plain old XS module. Your user will now be able to install without the process pulling Inline::CPP in first.
C++ is a large language, and Inline::CPP handles a large subset of it. Pay attention to the typemap file to determine what sorts of parameters can be passed (and converted) automatically, and what sorts are better dealt with using "guts and API" calls. One feature I wouldn't recommend using is automatic string conversion, as it would produce Unicode-unfriendly conversions. Better to handle strings explicitly through API calls.
The portion of C++ that isn't handled gracefully by Inline::CPP is template metaprogramming. You're free to use templates in your code, and free to use the STL. However, you cannot simply pass STL type parameters and hope that Inline::CPP will know how to convert them. It deals with POD (basic data types), not STL stuff. Furthermore, if you compose a template-based function or object method, the C++ compiler won't know what context Perl plans to call the function in, so it won't know what type to apply to the template at compiletime. Consequently, the functions and object methods exposed directly to Inline::CPP need to be plain functions or methods; not template functions or classes.
These limitations in practice aren't hard to deal with as long as you know what to expect. If you want to expose a template class directly to Inline::CPP, just write a wrapper class that either inherits or composes itself of the template class, but gives it a concrete type for Inline::CPP to work with.
Inline::CPP is also useful in automatically generating function wrappers for existing C++ libraries. The documentation explains how to do that.
One of the advantages to Inline::CPP over Swig is that if you already have some experience with perlguts, perlapi, and perlcall, you will feel right at home already. With Swig, you'll have to learn the Swig way of doing things first, and then figure out how to apply that to Perl, and possibly, how to do it in a way that is CPAN-distributable.
Another advantage of using Inline::CPP is that it is a somewhat familiar tool in the Perl community. You are going to find a lot more people who understand Perl XS, Inline::C, and to some extent Inline::CPP than you will find people who have used Swig with Perl. Although XS can be messy, it's a road more heavily travelled than using Perl with Swig.
Inline::CPP is also a common topic on the inline#perl.org mailing list. In addition to myself, the maintainer of Inline::C and several other Inline-family maintainers frequent the list, and do our best to assist people who need a hand getting going with the Inline family of modules.
You might also find my Perl Mongers talk on Inline::CPP useful in exploring how it might work for you. Additionally, Math::Prime::FastSieve stands as a proof-of-concept for basing a module on Inline::CPP (with an Inline::CPP dependency). Furthermore, Rob (sisyphus), the current Inline maintainer, and author of InlineX::CPP2XS has actually included an example in the InlineX::CPP2XS distribution that takes my Math::Prime::FastSieve and converts it to plain XS code using his InlineX::CPP2XS.
You should probably also give ExtUtils::XSpp a look. I think it requires you to declare a bit more stuff than Inline::CPP or SWIG, but it's rather powerful.
Whenever I see the term source filter I am left wondering as to what it refers to.
Aside from a formal definition, I think an example would also be helpful to drive the message home.
A source filter is a module that modifies some other code before it is evaluated. Therefore the code that is executed is not what the programmer sees when it is written. You can read more about source filters (in the Perl context) at perldoc perlfilter. Some examples are Smart::Comments which allows the programmer to leave debugging commands in comments in the code and employ them only if desired, another is PDL::NiceSlice which is sugar for slicing PDL objects.
Edit:
For more information on usage (should you wish to brave the beast), read the documentation for Filter::Simple which is a typical way to create filters.
Alternatively there is a new and different way to muck about with the source: Devel::Declare lets you interact with Perl's own parser, letting you do many of the same type of thing as a source filter, but without the source filter. This can be "safer" in some respect, yet it has a more limited scope.
A source filter is a form of module which affects the way in which a file use-ing it will be parsed. They are commonly used to simulate syntactical features which Perl does not have natively -- for instance, the Switch source filter was often used to simulate switch statements before Perl's given { } construction was available.
Source filters work by taking the text of the module as input, performing some processing on it, and outputting the filtered source code. For a simple example of how a source filter is implemented, as well as more details, see the perldoc page for perlfilter.
They are pre-processors. They change the source code before it reaches the Perl compiler. You can do scary things with them, in effect implementing your own language, with all the effects this has on readability (for others), robustness (writing parsers is hard) and maintainability (debugging gets tricky when your idea of what the source code is differs from what compiler and runtime think it is).
It seems strange to me that Perl would allow a package to export symbols into another package's namespace. The exporting package doesn't know if the using package already defined a symbol by the same name, and it certainly can't guarantee that it's the only package exporting a symbol by that name.
A very common problem caused by this is using CGI and LWP::Simple at the same time. Both packages export head() and cause an error. I know, it's easy enough to work around, but that's not the point. You shouldn't have to employ work arounds to use two practically-core Perl libraries.
As far as I can see, the only reason to do this is laziness. You save some key strokes by not typing Foo:: or using an object interface, but is it really worth it?
The practice of exporting all the functions from a module by default is not the recommended one for Perl. You should only export functions if you have a good reason. The recommended practice is to use EXPORT_OK so that the user has to type the name of the required function, like:
use My::Module 'my_function';
Modules from way back when, like LWP::Simple and CGI, were written before this recommendation came in, and it's hard now to alter them to not export things since it would break existing software. I guess the recommendation came about through people noticing problems like that.
Anyway Perl's object-oriented objects or whatever it's called doesn't require you to export anything, and you don't not have to say $foo->, so that part of your question is wrong.
Exporting is a feature. Like every other feature in any language, it can cause problems if you (ab)use it too frequently, or where you shouldn't. It's good when used wisely and bad otherwise, just like any other feature.
Back in the day when there weren't many modules around, it didn't seem like such a bad thing to export things by default. With 15,000 packages on CPAN, however, there are bound to be conflicts and that's unfortunate. However, fixing the modules now might break existing code. Whenever you make a poor interface choice and release it to the public, you're committed to it even if you don't like it.
So, it sucks, but that's the way it is, and there are ways around it.
The exporting package doesn't know if the using package already defined a symbol by the same name, and it certainly can't guarantee that it's the only package exporting a symbol by that name.
If you wanted to, I imagine your import() routine could check, but the default Exporter.pm routine doesn't check (and probably shouldn't, because it's going to get used a lot, and always checking if a name is defined will cause a major slowdown (and if you found a conflict, what is Exporter expected to do?)).
As far as I can see, the only reason to do this is laziness. You save some key strokes by not typing Foo:: or using an object interface, but is it really worth it?
Foo:: isn't so bad, but consider My::Company::Private::Special::Namespace:: - your code will look much cleaner if we just export a few things. Not everything can (or should) be in a top-level namespace.
The exporting mechanism should be used when it makes code cleaner. When namespaces collide, it shouldn't be used, because it obviously isn't making code cleaner, but otherwise I'm a fan of exporting things when requested.
It's not just laziness, and it's not just old modules. Take Moose, "the post-modern object system", and Rose::DB::Object, the object interface to a popular ORM. Both import the meta method into the useing package's symbol table in order to provide features in that module.
It's not really any different than the problem of multiply inheriting from modules that each provide a method of the same name, except that the order of your parentage would decide which version of that method would get called (or you could define your own overridden version that somehow manually folded the features of both parents together).
Personally I'd love to be able to combine Rose::DB::Object with Moose, but it's not that big a deal to work around: one can make a Moose-derived class that “has a” Rose::DB::Object-derived object within it, rather than one that “is a” (i.e., inherits from) Rose::DB::Object.
One of the beautiful things about Perl's "open" packages is that if you aren't crazy about the way a module author designed something, you can change it.
package LWPS;
require LWP::Simple;
for my $sub (#LWP::Simple::EXPORT, #LWP::Simple::EXPORT_OK) {
no strict 'refs';
*$sub = sub {shift; goto &{'LWP::Simple::' . $sub}};
}
package main;
my $page = LWPS->get('http://...');
of course in this case, LWP::Simple::get() would probably be better.
Another question got me thinking about different methods of code reuse: use vs. require vs. do
I see a lot of posts here where the question centers around the use of require to load and execute code. This seems to me to be an obvious bad practice, but I haven't found any good resources on the issue that I can point people to.
perlfaq8 covers the difference between use and require, but it doesn't offer any advice in regard to preference (as of 5.10--in 5.8.8 there is a quick bit of advice in favor of use).
This topic seems to suffer from a lack of discussion. I have a few questions I'd like to see discussed:
What is the preferred method of code reuse in Perl?
use ModuleName;
require ModuleName;
require 'file.pl';
do 'file.pl';
What is the difference between require ModuleName and require "file.pl"?
Is it ever a good idea to use require "file.pl"? Why or why not?
Standard practice is to use use most of the time, require occasionally, and do rarely.
do 'file' will execute file as a Perl script. It's almost like calling eval on the contents of the file; if you do the same file multiple times (e.g. in a loop) it will be parsed and evaluated each time which is unlikely to be what you want. The difference between do and eval is that do can't see lexical variables in the enclosing scope, which makes it safer. do is occasionally useful for simple tasks like processing a configuration file that's written in the form of Perl code.
require 'file' is like do 'file' except that it will only parse any particular file one time and will raise an exception if something goes wrong. (e.g. the file can't be found, it contains a syntax error, etc.) The automatic error checking makes it a good replacement for do 'file' but it's still only suited for the same simple uses.
The do 'file' and require 'file' forms are carryovers from days long past when the *.pl file extension meant "Perl Library." The modern way of reusing code in Perl is to organize it into modules. Calling something a "module" instead of a "library" is just semantics, but the words mean distinctly different things in Perl culture. A library is just a collection of subroutines; a module provides a namespace, making it far more suitable for reuse.
use Module is the normal way of using code from a module. Note that Module is the package name as a bareword and not a quoted string containing a file name. Perl handles the translation from a package name to a file name for you. use statements happen at compile time and throw an exception if they fail. This means that if a module your code depends on isn't available or fails to load the error will be apparent immediately. Additionally, use automatically calls the import() method of the module if it has one which can save you a little typing.
require Module is like use Module except that it happens at runtime and does not automatically call the module's import() method. Normally you want to use use to fail early and predictably, but sometimes require is better. For example, require can be used to delay the loading of large modules which are only occasionally required or to make a module optional. (i.e. use the module if it's available but fall back on something else or reduce functionality if it isn't.)
Strictly speaking, the only difference between require Module and require 'file' is that the first form triggers the automatic translation from a package name like Foo::Bar to a file name like Foo/Bar.pm while the latter form expects a filename to start with. By convention, though, the first form is used for loading modules while the second form is used for loading libraries.
There is a major preference for using use, because it happens at an earlier state BEGIN {} during compilation, and the errors tend to be propagated to the user at a more appropriate time. It also calls the sub import {} function which gives the caller control over the import process. This is something that is heavily used. You can get the same effect, by calling the specific namespace's import, but that requires you to know the name of the namespace, and the file, and to code the call to the subroutine... which is a lot more work. Conversely, use, just requires you to know the namespace, and then it requires the file with the matching namespace -- thus making the link between namespaces and files less of an conscious to the user.
Read perldoc -f use, and perldoc -f require, for more information. Per perldoc -f use:
use is the same as BEGIN { require Module; Module->import( LIST ); } Which is just a lot more ugly.
The main difference is around import/export. use is preferred when you're making use of a module because it allows you to specify which routines you wish to import into your namespace :
use MyModule qw(foo bar baz); # allows foo(), bar() and baz() to be used
use MyModule qw(); # Requires explicit naming (e.g. MyModule::foo).
use also gives runs the module's import() procedure which is often used to set the module up.
See the perldoc for use for more detail.
Using use to module will include module during compile time which increases speed but uses more memory, whereas using require module will include during run time. Requiring a module without using import when needed uses less memory but reduces speed.
Is there a Perl module that allows me to view diffs between actual and reference output of programs (or functions)? The test fails if there are differences.
Also, in case there are differences but the output is OK (because the functionality has changed) I want to be able to commit the actual output as future reference output.
Perl has excellent utilities for doing testing. The most commonly used module is probably Test::More, which provides all the infrastructure you're likely to need for writing regression tests. The prove utility provides an easy interface for running test suites and summarizing the results. The Test::Differences module (which can be used with Test::More) might be useful to you as well. It formats differences as side-by-side comparisons. As for committing the actual output as the new reference material, that will depend on how your code under test provides output and how you capture it. It should be easy if you write to files and then compare them. If that's the case you might want to use the Text::Diff module within your test suite.
As mentioned, Test::Differences is one of the standard ways of accomplishing this, but I needed to mention PerlUnit: please do not use this. It's "abandonware" and does not integrate with standard Perl testing tools. Thus, for all new test modules coming out, you would have to port their functionality if you wanted to use them. (If someone has picked up the maintenance of this abandoned module, drop me a line. I need to talk to them as I maintain core testing tools I'd like to help integrate with PerlUnit).
Disclaimer: while Id didn't write it, I currently maintain Test::Differences, so I might be biased.
I tend to use more of the Test::Simple and Test::More functionality. I looked at PerlUnit and it seems to provide much of the functionality which is already built into the standard libraries with the Test::Simple and Test::More libraries.
I question those of you who recommend the use of PerlUnit. It hasn't had a release in 3 years. If you really want xUnit-style testing, have a look at Test::Class, it does the same job, but in a more Perlish way. The fact that it's still maintained and has regular releases doesn't hurt either.
Just make sure that it makes sense for your project. Maybe good old Test::More is all you need (it usually is for me). I recommend reading the "Why you should [not] use Test::Class" sections in the docs.
The community standard workhorses are Test::Simple (for getting started with testing) and Test::More (for once you want more than Test::Simple can do for you). Both are built around the concept of expected versus actual output, and both will show you differences when they occur. The perldoc for these modules will get you on your way.
You might also want to check out the Perl QA wiki, and if you're really interested in perl testing, the perl-qa mailing list might be worth looking into -- though it's generally more about creation of testing systems for Perl than using those systems within the language.
Finally, using the module-starter tool (from Module::Starter) will give you a really nice "CPAN standard" layout for new work -- or for dropping existing code into -- including a readymade test harness setup.
For testing the output of a program, there is Test::Command. It allows to easily verify the stdout and stderr (and the exit value) of programs. E.g.:
use Test::Command tests => 3;
my $echo_test = Test::Command->new( cmd => 'echo out' );
$echo_test->exit_is_num(0, 'exit normally');
$echo_test->stdout_is_eq("out\n", 'echoes out');
$echo_test->stderr_unlike( qr/something went (wrong|bad)/, 'nothing went bad' )
The module also has a functional interface too, if it's more to your liking.