I have an app that I pack into "binary" form using PerlApp for distribution. Since my clients want a simple install for their Win32 systems, this works very nicely.
Now a client has decided that they need to run all unit tests, like in a standard install. However, they still will not install a normal Perl.
So, I find myself in need of a way to package my unit tests for operation on my client's systems.
My first thought was that I could pack up prove in one file and pack each of my tests separately. Then ship a zip file with the appropriate structure.
A bit of research showed that Test::Harness::Straps invokes perl from the command line.
Is there an existing tool that helps with this process?
Perhaps I could use PAR::Packer's parl tool to handle invocation of my test scripts.
I'm interested in thoughts on how to apply either PAR or PerlApp, as well as any thoughts on how to approach overriding Test::Harness and friends.
Thanks.
Update: I don't have my heart set on PAR or PerlApp. Those are just the tools I am familiar with. If you have an idea or a solution that requires a different packager (such as Cava Packager), I would love to hear about it.
Update 2: tsee pointed out a great new feature in PAR that gets me close. Are there any TAP experts out there that can supply some ideas or pointers on where to look in the new Test::Harness distribution?
I'm probably not breaking big news if I tell you that PAR (and probably also perlapp) aren't meant to package the whole test suite and plethora of CPAN-module build byproducts. They're intended to package stand-alone applications or binary JAR-like module libraries.
This being said, you can add arbitrary files to a PAR archive (both to .par libraries and stand-alone .exe's) using pp's -a switch. In case of the stand-alone executable, the contents will be extracted to $ENV{PAR_TEMP}."/inc" at run-time.
That leaves you with the problem of reusing the PAR-packaged executable to run the test harness (and letting that run your executable as a "perl"). Now, I have no ready and done solution for that, but I've recently worked on making PAR-packaged executables re-useable as more-or-less general purpose perl interpreters. Two gotchas before I explain how you can use that:
Your application isn't going to magically be called "perl" and add itself to your $PATH.
The "reuse" of the application as a general purpose perl requires special options and does not currently support the normal perl options (those in perlrun). It can simply run an external perl script of your choice.
Unfortunately, the latter problem is what may kill this approach for you. Support for perl command line options is something I've been thinking about, but won't implement any time soon.
Here's the recipe how you get PAR with "reusable exe" support:
Install the newest version of PAR from CPAN.
Install the newest, developer version of PAR::Packer from CPAN (0.992_02 or 03).
Add the "--reusable" option to your pp command line.
Run your executable with the following options to run an external script "foo.pl":
./myapp --par-options --reuse foo.pl FOO-PL-OPTIONS-HERE
Unfortunately, how you're going to teach Test::Harness that "./myapp --par-options --reuse" is a perl interpreter is beyond me.
Cava Packager allows you to package test scripts with your packaged executables. This is primarily to allow you to run tests against the packaged code before distribution. However the option is there to also distribute the tests and test capability to your end users.
Note: As indicated by my name, I am affiliated with Cava Packager.
Related
I have a module I'd like to release to CPAN, and I like using dzil to do the packaging and releasing. However, the module relies on an external application, and while I know where it is installed on my machine, I'd like to ask users to input where it is installed on their machine. Having read Prompt user during unit test in Perl I see ExtUtils::MakeMaker::prompt does just what I want to do.
How would I incorporate that (or something similar) when using dzil?
The standard MakeMaker dzil plugin has no support for anything but a basic Makefile.PL. (Well, it can use File::ShareDir::Install, but that's its limit.) If you need more complex install-time behavior, you'll need to use something else.
I recommend my MakeMaker::Custom plugin. You write your own Makefile.PL, which can do anything that ExtUtils::MakeMaker is capable of, including prompt for information. You can still have dzil add things like your prerequisites at dzil build time, so you can still use AutoPrereqs. (Actually, I recommend ModuleBuild::Custom instead, but if you want to stick with MakeMaker, that's ok.)
Note: You should also allow the information you're prompting for to be supplied on the command line. This will help people who are trying to package your distribution using automated build tools. But that's a MakeMaker issue, not a Dist::Zilla one.
The user should not be installing via Dist::Zilla at all. It is an author-tool only, as its documentation explicitly says. Dist::Zilla is meant to build a distribution that is installed via EUMM or M::B.
Edit: Given your comment, I would instead say, it sounds like your build process isn't a good candidate for using Dist::Zilla, at least consistently. I would suggest using it to build it once more and then move to using the EUMM or M::B that it builds, modify it to your purposes and keep developing that.
If you're using ExtUtil::MakeMaker to install your distribution, then you can use the dzil plugin Dist::Zilla::Plugin::MakeMaker::Runner (that's a mouthful) to bundle a custom Makefile.PL with your dist instead of generating the default one.
That will allow you to use prompt to gather custom information from within the Makefile.PL if you need it.
I am a very new to porting.
I was trying to port perl to a netbsd system. Since its a custom made build, we wont be able to run configure or make on the target netbsd system. So we are trying to cross-compile it in a host pc and copy the binary over target machine. And in order to do so, we have to make a makefile from scratch, since the format for the makefile in our build is different.
I have some basic doubts regarding this,
Firstly, In order to create a perl makefile for my custom build, what are the basic things will come. Such as ccflags, library paths etc.,?
There are some files like DynaLoader, uudmap.h, myConfig, Config.pm which gets generated while "make". How can i generate them using custum makefile.
How to set various library paths and what are they ?
The #INC, shows the perl search paths, how can i create it ?
Where exactly Perl modules get installed and when it happens?
A perl build normally involves building a stripped down version of perl named miniperl, which is then used extensively in the remainder of the process of building perl and the bundled modules.
There are two basic approaches to cross-compiling: to build miniperl for the target machine and build the modules, etc., there, or to build miniperl for the host and use it to build perl and modules for the target.
The WinCE port uses the latter approach; the rudimentary (last I knew, anyway) support for a -Dusecrosscompile switch to Configure uses the former.
I recommend you ask for advice and help on the perl5-porters mailing list: http://lists.perl.org/list/perl5-porters.html
And be prepared for hard work.
NetBSD's pkgsrc system has perl in it already and has the ability to generate binary packages that you can then install on a target machine.
I've written any number of perl modules in the past, and more than a few stand-alone perl programs, but I've never released a multi-file perl program into the wild before.
I have a perl program that is almost at the beta stage and is going to be released open source. It requires a number of data files, as well as some external perl modules -- some I've written myself, and some from CPAN -- that I'll have to bundle with it so as to ensure that someone can just download my program and install it without worrying about hunting for obscure modules.
So, it sounds to me like I need to write an installer to copy all the files to standard locations so that a user can easily install everything. The trouble is, I have no idea what the standard practice would be for this. I have found lots of tutorials on perl module standards, but none on perl program standards.
Does anyone have any pointers to standard paths, installation proceedures, etc, for perl programs? This is going to be complicated by the fact that the program is multi-platform. I've been testing it in Linux, but its designed to work equally well in Windows.
Take a look at PAR and PAR::Packer. You can bundle all of your requirements (even non-Perl requirements) into one file. With PAR::Packer, the user doesn't even need to have Perl installed for it to work.
You might also look at how the various App::* distributions are setup.
The standard installers for modules (ExtUtils::MakeMaker, Module::Build, Module::Install) also work the same way for scripts.
Using such a standard Perl tool will help you to:
distribute your application on the
CPAN (and you'll benefit from
automated tests on various platforms
by CPAN Testers), and so your app
will be installable (with all its dependencies) from the CPAN
shell
help packagers of Linux/BSD distributions to make packages for your product
This is a follow-up to my previous question about developing Perl applications. Let’s say I develop an application as a CPAN module using Module::Install. Now I upload the code to the production server, say using a git push, and I would like to install the application dependencies listed in Makefile.PL. If I simply run cpan ., the thing tries to install the application like a regular Perl module, ie. starts to copy the modules and documentation to standard Perl directories all over the system.
Is this the way it’s supposed to be? Do you install the application into the standard Perl directories? I am used to having my Perl applications in one directory with separate lib. Otherwise it seems I’d have to manage a lot of other things, like installing the resources somewhere on path etc. If I just want to install the deps declared in Makefile.PL and run the application tests to make sure everything works, what should I do?
(Is this documented somewhere? I mean, is there something like best practice for deploying and updating non-trivial Perl applications? Or is everybody doing this his own way?)
I might be misunderstanding, but I think what you're looking for is
perl Makefile.PL
make installdeps
If you are using Module::Install, you're really using ExtUtils::MakeMaker behind the scenes. You can use all of the MakeMaker features and the targets it provides. Although the documentation doesn't show every feature, there are some valuable things to be found in the generated Makefile.
However, MakeMaker is old news and most everyone has asked Santa Claus for it to disappear. If you want better control, including creating your own targets and process, Module::Build is orders of magnitude easier to work with as well as cross-platform (even if that just means not using a different make, gmake, or whatever on the same OS on different boxes). If you deviate from the normal, consumer-grade installation process, you're life will be easier without MakeMaker.
Some people appreciate the brevity of the Module::Install build file, but once constructed, you don't spend a lot of time messing with your build file so it's not that much of a real benefit. When the little benefit you get locks you into MakeMaker, it's not a win at all.
A 2014 update: Module::Build has now fallen out of favor and needs a maintainer. It never quite got to the point where people could use it to build and distribute XS modules. It was deprecated in Perl v5.19 although you can still get it from CPAN.
You could look at Module::ScanDeps to generate a list of dependent modules for installing. Or Par::Packer for packaging up the whole thing as an "app".
I want another developer to run a Perl script I have written. The script uses many CPAN modules that have to be installed before the script can be run. Is it possible to make the script (or the perl binary) to dump a list of all the missing modules? Perl prints out the missing modules’ names when I attempt to run the script, but this is verbose and does not list all the missing modules at once. I’d like to do something like:
$ cpan -i `said-script --list-deps`
Or even:
$ list-deps said-script > required-modules # on my machine
$ cpan -i `cat required-modules` # on his machine
Is there a simple way to do it? This is not a show stopper, but I would like to make the other developer’s life easier. (The required modules are sprinkled across several files, so that it’s not easy for me to make the list by hand without missing anything. I know about PAR, but it seems a bit too complicated for what I want.)
Update: Thanks, Manni, that will do. I did not know about %INC, I only knew about #INC. I settled with something like this:
print join("\n", map { s|/|::|g; s|\.pm$||; $_ } keys %INC);
Which prints out:
Moose::Meta::TypeConstraint::Registry
Moose::Meta::Role::Application::ToClass
Class::C3
List::Util
Imager::Color
…
Looks like this will work.
Check out Module::ScanDeps and the "scandeps.pl" utility that comes with it. It can do a static (and recursive) analysis of your code for dependencies as well as the %INC dump either after compiling or running the program.
Please note that the static source scanning always errs on the side of including too many dependencies. (It is the dependency scanner used by PAR and aims at being easiest on the end-user.)
Finally, you could choose to distribute your script as a CPAN distribution. That sounds much more complicated than it really is. You can use something like Module::Starter to set up a basic skeleton of a tentative App::YourScript distribution. Put your script in the bin/ subdirectory and edit the Makefile.PL to reference all of your direct dependencies. Then, for distribution you do:
perl Makefile.PL
make
make dist
The last step generates a nice App-YourScript-VERSION.tar.gz
Now, when the client wants to install all dependencies, he does the following:
Set up the CPAN client correctly. Simply run it and answer the questions. But you're requiring that already anyway.
"tar -xz App-YourScript-VERSION.tar.gz && cd App-YourScript-VERSION"
Run "cpan ."
The CPAN client will now install all direct dependencies and the dependencies of those distributions automatically. Depending on how you set it up, it will either follow the prerequisites recursively automatically or prompt with a y/n each time.
As an example of this, you might check out a few of the App::* distributions on CPAN. I would think App::Ack is a good example. Maybe one of the App::* distributions from my CPAN directory (SMUELLER).
You could dump %INC at the end of your script. It will contain all used and required modules. But of course, this will only be helpful if you don't require modules conditionally (require Foo if $bar).
For quick-and-dirty, infrequent use, the %INC is the best way to go. If you have to do this with continuous integration testing or something more robust, there are some other tools to help.
Steffen already mentioned the Module::ScanDeps.
The code in Test::Prereq does this, but it has an additional layer that ensures that your Makefile.PL or Build.PL lists them as a dependency. If you make your scripts look like a normal Perl distribution, that makes it fairly easy to check for new dependencies; just run the test suite again.
Aside from that, you might use a tool such as Module::Extract::Use, which parses the static code looking for use and require statements (although it won't find them in string evals). That gets you just the modules you told your script to load.
Also, once you know which modules you loaded, you can combine that with David Cantrell's CPANdeps tool that has already created the dependency tree for most CPAN modules.
Note that you also have to think about optional features too. Your code in this case my not have them, but sometimes you don't load a module until you need it:
sub foo
{
require Bar; # don't load until we need to use it
....
}
If you don't exercise that feature in your trial run or test, you won't see that you need Bar for that feature. A similar problem comes up when a module loads a different set of dependency modules in a different environment (say, mod_perl or Windows, and so on).
There's not a good, automated way of testing optional features like that so you can get their dependencies. However, I think that should be on my To Do list since it sounds like an interesting problem.
Another tool in this area, which is used by Dist::Zilla and its AutoPrereqs plugin, is Perl::PrereqScanner. It installs a scan-perl-prereqs program that will use PPI and a few plugins to search for most kinds of prereq declaration, using the minimum versions you define. In general, I suggest this over scanning %INC, which can bring in bogus requirements and ignores versions.
Today I develop my Perl apps as CPAN-like distributions using Dist::Zilla that can take care of the dependencies through the AutoPrereq plugin. Another interesting piece of code in this area is carton.