Help. I have been relying on the compare editor for code review, and it mostly works quite well.
But for some reason, on some files, it is giving me inconsistent results and telling me that some code is different when it is not. It can't seem to deal with commented out code in this file.
It tells me that later functions are different and tries to match lines in those functions.
I have also found cases where it simply thinks the code is different but it is not.
It then decides that there must be changes in hundreds of lines below this.
I am able to work around by remove the code with #if 0, #endif, but it is not pretty.
Has anyone else seen this and do you know of any way to fix it?
I am trying to get a clean diff do I can see just the actual changes between the files.
It is driving me to drink - and it is still early in the day!
Related
Try running the following code yourself, and you would notice that "/hello" changes to "/HELLO", but I want it to change it to "hi". On the other hand, I want to keep the 1.st line of code, which changes "hello" to "HELLO". How could I achieve this(?)
This code problem is very related to my last problem:
Collision with two lines of code make code does not work the way it is meant by me, what could I do different to get this work(?)
The soltuion for my last problem was good for that problem, but it is not working for the new above mentioned problem.
::hello::HELLO
::/hello::hi
That is interesting. I really expected it to work by removing / from the EndChars. But after looking at it for a while, it becomes obvious why it's behaving this way. When you type "/hello" it actually matches to both hotstrings, so AHK chooses the first one defined. Anyway, there are two solutions that I know of:
Reorder your hotstrings. Place ::/hello::hi above the other one and you'll always get the desired result. Additionally, you don't need to change the EndChars since / is the first character.
Use the asterisk option on the second hotstring. This will make it update immediately, which may or may not be desirable (I prefer it).
When working on different projects, with different people and using different frameworks you often struggle to keep your code compliant to their conventions. Some teams get very strict about naming variables/methods/classes and other things the others make holy wars around the topic. I understand them and I fully support, but as any developer I have my own preference I wish I could code with comfortably. This makes me think whether there is a simple solution.
Are there any tools or editors that can automatically convert code to follow a different standard? I imagine there can be no such smart tool that will support naming conversions, so I'm ok with that, but I really wish to see
foreach($lala as $lalala) {
and not
foreach($lala as $lalala)
{
same goes with statements:
if(I_LIEK_COOKIES) {
eat_cookie();
} else {
toss_cookie();
}
and not
if ( I_LIEK_COOKIES ) {
eat_cookie();
}
else
{
toss_cookie();
}
(note the spaces between and around the parenthesis too)
I won't even mention spaces/tabs, I can convert it in my IDE with a shortcut but it would be awesome.
So the things I would like to get customized are
spaces between parenthesis
tabs/spaces and spaces per tab
mustache brackets on the end of the line or on the new line
always attach mustache brackets to any if/ifelse/else/for/foreach etc.
Some of the extras anyone would appreciate:
Line ending style
Delete extra spaces on the line endings (like sublime text 2 can do on save, but would be great for other IDE/editors)
The perfect workflow would be like this:
I pull from git
The code gets converted to my style
I code stuff
I commit and push
Before everything gets pushed(or even commited) code gets converted to the convention style
Of course, someone may wish not to use git, then it would be simply converted when opening and after saving the file but as I understand it's impossible to do outside of an IDE/editor with a tool of some kind.
Has someone stumbled upon something like that? Could not find anything anywhere but tab/space conversion.
P.S. I wish to mention I'm working with PHP/JS so it's prioritized but I code using other languages on my spare time.
You could store configurations (e.g. vim .vimrcs, Eclipse preferences etc.) in each project's version control repository.
However, I think there's a big problem wrt. converting code when pushing/pulling to/from repositories. If someone reports an issue with your code (e.g. exception at line 100), converting the code when pulling from your repository is going to give you a different line 100. I don't think you can practically operate without working on the exact code that your compatriots are working with.
In some code coverage tools you can "hide" certain lines of code from the coverage tool, so that those lines do not count towards the coverage totals. For example, some code might be run only in circumstances that are hard or impossible to test (such as certain hardware failures). Thus, you might get 100% coverage reported even though some code was not exercised.
Setting aside for the moment whether this is wise, is this sort of thing possible with Perl's Devel::Cover?
(Devel::Cover can ignore entire files, but I am interested in ignoring just a few lines in a single file.)
A lot of uncoverable code features have been implemented but they are not documented because I wasn't sure of the interface. However, it's been a few years since anything changed in that area.
Probably the easiest way to see how to use the features is to look at tests/uncoverable in the distribution (see https://github.com/pjcj/Devel--Cover/blob/master/test/uncoverable). If you can't or don't want to change your code you can use the .uncoverable file (see https://github.com/pjcj/Devel--Cover/blob/master/tests/.uncoverable) and the cover options as mentioned by toolic.
If you do this, be sure to use the basic_html report which will mark a construct as in error if you tag it as uncoverable but it gets executed anyway.
I really should get around to tidying everything up and documenting it.
According to the TODO file on CPAN, this capability is not currently supported, but the developers see it as a valuable addition:
Enhancements:
Marking of unreachable code - commandline tool and gui.
The cover script mentions promising options: -add_uncoverable_point and -delete_uncoverable_point.
I'm working on a new weave-based data structure for storing version control history. This will undoubtedly cause some religious wars about whether it's The Right Way Of Doing Things when it comes out, but that isn't my question right now.
My question has to do with what output blame should give. When a line of code has been added, removed, and merged into itself a number of times, it isn't always clear what revision should get blame for it. Notably this means that when a section of code is deleted, all records of it having been there is gone, and there is no blame for the removal. Everyone I've gone over this issue with has said that trying to do better simply isn't worth it. Sometimes people put in the hack that the line after the section which got deleted has its blame changed from whatever it actually was to the revision when the section got deleted. Presumably if the section is at the end then the last line get its blame changed, and if the file winds up empty then the blame really does disappear into the aether, because there's literally nowhere left to put blame information. For various technical reasons I won't be using this hack, but assume that continuing but with this completely undocumented but de facto standard practice will be uncontroversial (but feel free to flame me and get it out of your system).
Moving on to my actual question. Usually in blame for each line you look at the complete history of where it was added and removed in the history and using three-way merge (or, in the case of criss-cross merges, random bullshit) and based on the relationships between those you determine whether the line should have been there based on its history, and if it shouldn't but is then you mark it as new with the current revision. In the case where a line occurs in multiple ancestors with different blames then it picks which one to inherit arbitrarily. Again, I assume that continuing with this completely undocumented but de facto standard practice will be uncontroversial.
Where my new system diverges is that rather than doing a complicated calculation of whether a given line should be in the current revision based on a complex calculation of the whole history, it simply looks at the immediate ancestors, and if the line is in any of them it picks an arbitrary one to inherit the blame from. I'm making this change for largely technical reasons (and it's entirely possible that other blame implementations do the same thing, for similar technical reasons and a lack of caring) but after thinking about it a bit part of me actually prefers the new behavior as being more intuitive and predictable than the old one. What does everybody think?
I actually wrote a one of the blame implementations out there (Subversion's current one I believe, unless someone replaced it in the past year or two). I helped with some others as well.
At least most implementations of blame don't do what you describe:
Usually in blame for each line you look at the complete history of where it was added and removed in the history and using three way merge (or, in the case of criss-cross merges, random bullshit) and based on the relationships between those you determine whether the line should have been there based on its history, and if it shouldn't but is then you mark it as new with the current revision. In the case where a line occurs in multiple ancestors with different blames then it picks which one to inherit arbitrarily. Again, I assume that continuing with this completely undocumented but de facto standard practice will be uncontroversial.
Actually, most blames are significantly less complex than this and don't bother trying to use the relationships at all, but they just walk parents in some arbitrary order, using simple delta structures (usually the same internal structure whatever diff algorithm they have uses before it turns it into textual output) to see if the chunk changed, and if so, blame it, and mark that line as done.
For example, Mercurial just does an iterative depth first search until all lines are blamed. It doesn't try to take into account whether the relationships make it unlikely it blamed the right one.
Git does do something a bit more complicated, but still, not quite like you describe.
Subversion does what Mercurial does, but the history graph is very simple, so it's even easier.
In turn, what you are suggesting is, in fact, what all of them really do:
Pick an arbitrary ancestor and follow that path down the rabbit hole until it's done, and if it doesn't cause you to have blamed all the lines, arbitrarily pick the next ancestor, continue until all blame is assigned.
On a personal level, I prefer your simplified option.
Reason: Blame isn't used very much anyway.
So I don't see a point in wasting a lot of time doing a comprehensive implementation of it.
It's true. Blame has largely turned out to be one of those "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" features. It looked really cool from those of us standing on the ground, dreaming about a day when we could just click on a file and see who wrote which lines of code. But now that it's widely implemented, most of us have come to realize that it actually isn't very helpful. Check the activity on the blame tag here on Stack Overflow. It is underwhemingly desolate.
I have run across dozens of "blame-worthy" scenarios in recent months alone, and in most cases I have attempted to use blame first, and found it either cumbersome or utterly unhelpful. Instead, I found the information I needed by doing a simple filtered changelog on the file in question. In some cases, I could have found the information using Blame as well, had I been persistent, but it would have taken much longer.
The main problem is code formatting changes. The first-tier blame for almost everything was listed as... me! Why? Because I'm the one responsible for fixing newlines and tabs, re-sorting function order, splitting functions into separate utility modules, fixing comment typos, and improving or simplifying code flow. And if it wasn't me, someone else had done a whitespace or block-move somewhere along-the-way as well. In order to get a meaningful blame on anything dating back to a time before I can already remember without the help of blame, I had to roll back revisions and re-blame. And re-blame again. And again.
So in order for a blame to actually be a useful time saver for more than the most lucky of situations, the blame has to be able to heuristicly make its way past newline, whitespace, and ideally block copy/move changes. That sounds like a very tall order, especially when scouring the changelog for a single file, most of the time, it won't yield many diffs anyway and you can just sift through by hand fairly quickly. (The notable exception being, perhaps, badly engineered source trees where 90% of the code is stuffed in one or two ginormous files... but who these days in a collaborative coding environment does much of that anymore?).
Conclusion: Give it a bare-bones implementation of blame, because some people like to see "it can blame!" on the features list. And then move on to things that matter. Enjoy!
The line-merge algorithm is stupider than the developer. If they disagree, that just indicates that the merger is wrong rather than indicating a decision point. So, the simplified logic should actually be more correct.
I frequently use the Scala console to evaluate and test code before I actually write it down in my project. If I want to know the contents of a variable, I can just enter it and scala evaluates it. But is there also a way to show the code of methods I entered?
I know there's the UP-key to show single lines, but what I was searching for is to show the whole code at once.
There's a file in your home directory named .scala_history that contains all of your recent REPL history. I regularly copy and paste code from this file into project source files. It's not exactly the same as showing the code for individual methods in the REPL, but it might help you accomplish the same goals.
See the comments by Paul Phillips in this issue for a discussion of some related functionality in the REPL (grouping statements in the history):
At some point I implemented the logic for this, but the real obstacle
is jline. It has enough trouble figuring out where the cursor is under
the simplest conditions. Start throwing big multiline blocks into the
history and it breaks down in tears. Would love to see this and
SI-2547 addressed by the community.
...
I expect to fix this soon too, but it depends on how well the recent
jline work goes. I implemented it long ago, and display issues are the
impediment.
Both of these comments are over two years old, so I wouldn't hold your breath.
I dont know a command to load all the code from command line.
What you can do is to :load path/to/my/file.scala to load some complex code and re- :load it when you changed the code in the file.