In unreal engine, what is the difference between the two?
I could not find it in the API, just this: https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.0/en-US/gameplay-classes-in-unreal-engine/
I suspect that it adds .generated if you create the class from the Unreal editor, but I do not understand if it is any different with or without it.
Ah, so the .generated header is required inside the actual header file of the class (specifically as the last header).
https://forums.unrealengine.com/t/creating-classes-in-visual-studio/282386/4
Unreal has a code generation tool called "Unreal Header Tool" or UHT for short. During the build process of the project, it runs right before the actual compiler to generate code for the reflection, based on the UPROPERTY(), UFUNCTION(), etc. calls that you have in your code.
All that information is stored in two files: <Class>.generated.h and <Class>.generated.cpp
The header needs to be included last in the header to ensure that all references in a file are potentially valid in the generated code. Everything within the generated header file can be accessed via the UClass reflection system.
You can find the generated files in the "Intermediate/Build" directory of your project.
You can find the implementation of the UHT in the project on GitHub and a little more info about it in the docs.
Related
This question already has answers here:
AFNetworking.h file not found
(5 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
#import <AFNetworking/AFNetworking.h>
I imported AFNetworking.h file to .m file but an error occurred like this:
'AFNetworking/AFNetworking.h' file not found
I deleted pods folder and Podfile.lock, and reinstalled Podfile but didn't solved. What should I do? (I opened the workspace file.)
Linking !== Copying.
there is C style #include ... and Objective-C style #import ...
both work almost the same..
where #import reads the header but does not include again if done once. As this can and does fail sometime (usually because mixing C,C++,Objc,Objc++ in different dialects) we often use #define rules to make sure the enclosed code is read once for sure and not again, which in turn works also when code is included and declared with #include. It would be included but not compiled twice.
#ifndef SOME_HumanReadableFlag_h
#define SOME_HumanReadableFlag_h
// ... your header code here..
#interface XyzObject : FromInheritedClass
#end
#endif
Now why does it matter?
It might happen that a #define rule enclosing the header files content hides the header from the viewpoint of other classes.. This can & does happen often when classes are not properly written with the end developers structure in mind. It might work on the workbench of the developer but not for everyone else implementing it.
Your error clearly tells "File not found .."
So first see what both import/include rules differentiate in general
#import <LibFrameworkName/LibFrameworkName.h>
means you have to link the framework or library, even if you developed one on your own in that project. The rule is relative to your project, LibFrameworkName is a Framework/Lib. Where if found somewhere #include <LibFrameworkName/LibFrameworkName.h> is not correct unless you want to c-style include this framework header into your binarys header, 2) tells you a bit about why..
#import "LibFrameworkName/LibFrameworkName.h"
means you have to copy/offer this header into your project with a subfolder with name LibFrameworkName. Once somewhere declared properly Xcode might find and apply the headers even if declared with the wrong rule later on in that specific class, you should also get a warning in the IDE then. In case of AFNetworking you dont want to copy System SDK Frameworks into your project, also not into third party frameworks unless you know what you do. This rule is relative to the files place in project structure, meaning here it would try to look out for some folder with name LibFrameworkName below the file that carries this rule.
what it says: because the Framework is not linked, the compiler tries to find it with the given name ignoring < & > so as if it where like 2) a file with that folder name, then will not find it and throws the error or warning.
To force the precompiler to parse thru some specific folders we use sometime the header search path to explicit tell where to find it. Widely used and mostly troublesome because it also hides wrongly defined rules to the developer as Xcode skips the still existing wrong import rules in code assuming it knows this headers already. Or it throws warnings while everything is actually fine. Other developers experience trouble then, the file structure and header list don't match at all. So keep in mind, when you can avoid making use of header search path lists, go for it. It also will and should not fix your issue.
'<AFNetworking/AFNetworking.h>' File not found means a Framework module is not known to your project. This header is part of a Framework.
Solution: You have to go to your Projects Settings and scroll down to Frameworks and Libraries, hit [+] below this list. It should open the dialog presenting all SDK from your choosen Project Target and all known Pods or known frameworks of your own project when you developed some. Search for the Framework or Lib by name, click it, hit "Add".. done..
From there - there are some options to get used to it..
Because Linking does not mean Copying into your Resources at compile time by default. Usually Xcode knows it does not have to copy System SDK into a projects Framework Folder, all macUsers have those Frameworks preinstalled on their system of course in the right version.. Linking against some specific folder like ${SOMEFLAGWHEREEVERTHISPOINTSTO}/AFNetworking/AFNetworking.framework/Headers is actually wrong unless someone wanted to overrule the systems framework header and maybe also binary.
So AFNetworking should not appear under Build Phases > Copy Bundle Ressources list but after the process above is done it will appear under Link Binary with Libraries, it might also be placed in Dependencies when Xcode needs to know for some Library/Framework it must have this to compile. Last mentioned option is because you could have a framework that adapts at runtime when some framework is missing or not available. So this Entry helps Xcode to figure out in which sorting it has to compile your stuff.
finding ${PODS_CONFIGURATION_BUILD_DIR}/AFNetworking/AFNetworking.framework/Headers in Header Search Paths there must be something wrong i guess.. because the framework is very likely not copied into the Pods folder. It should be relative to your SDKs folder that come with Xcode. The Linking process told above should fix that and you can erase that entry from your header search path then.
I am building a project on Github written in Objective-C. It resolves MAC addresses down to manufacturer details. The lookup table is currently stored as text file manuf.txt (from the Wireshark project), which is parsed at run-time, which is costly. I would prefer to compile this down to archived objects at build-time, and load that instead.
I would like to amend the build phases such that I:
Build a simple compiler
Run the compiler, parsing manuf.txt and outputting archived objects
Build the framework
Copy the archived objects into the framwork
I am looking for wisdom on how to achieve steps 1 and 2 using Xcode v7.3 as Xcode provides only a Copy Files phase or a Run Script phase. An example of other projects achieving similar goals would be inspiring.
I suspect that what you are asking is possible, but tricky. The reason is that you will need to write a bunch of class files and then dynamically add them to the project.
Firstly you will need to employ a run script phase to run various tools from the command line to parse your file and generate a number of class files from it. I would suggest looking into various templating engines. For example appledoc uses moustache templates to generate API documentation files. You could use the same technique to generate header and implementation files.
Next, rather than generating archived objects an trying to import into a framework. I think you may be better off generating raw source code, adding it to a project and compiling into a framework. Probably simpler in the long run.
To automatically include the generated code I would look into (which means I haven't actually tried this :-) adding a folder reference to the project rather than an Xcode group. Folder references are an option in the 'Add files to ...' dialog.
Folder references refer to a directory and automatically add the entire contents of that directory to a project. So you can use one to point to the directory where you have generated the source code. This is a much better option than trying to manipulate the project or injecting things into an established framework.
I would prefer to parse the file at runtime. After launch you can look for an already existing output, otherwise parse it one time.
However, I have to do something similar at Objective-Cloud. I simply added a run script build phase and put the compiler call into it.
IntelliJ allows you to configure the "File and Code Templates" in Settings.
This is a global setting, however I want different templates depending on which project I am working on (for example there will be different #author tags if its commercial / open source work, and version information varies by project).
Eclipse manages this on a per-workspace basis; how can I achieve the same thing in IntelliJ IDEA?
Unfortunately per project templates are not supported in IntelliJ IDEA. I recommend you comment-on/vote-for/track the feature request Make file templates per-project. (See UPDATE about this feature request below)
A few workarounds you can try...
Create a File Template for each project. Then when you create a new class, use the project's template rather than the standard "Java class" template. It will clutter up your template list a bit, and you have to remember to change from the default template when creating a new class (remember than inline search is available in the new class dialog when setting the type). But it is workable.
The copyright settings are done on a per project basis. Sometimes a need for a specific header can be met using the copyright utility (even if it is not an actual copyright statement). The options are pretty good for determining where it gets placed. The one shortcoming will be that while you can configure it to be a comment just before the class declaration, you can only configure to be a block comment or inline comment, not a javadoc comment.
Finally, a last option would be to write a live template for each project with the header information. Then after you create a class use the proper one to place the header information.
Hopefully those things will help while we wait for the feature to get implemented.
UPDATE
The above mentioned feature request to allow for file templates to be saved on a per project basis has been implemented in IDEA v14.1. It is currently (Feb 2015) available as an EAP (i.e. beta). It is scheduled for release at the end of Q1 2015.
I am trying to implement a custom IPCore for the Zedboard. In my User_Logic I am including a component (My_Module) from the VHDL module (My_Module.vhd) which I wrote as part of the ISE project. But when I come to generate the bitstream for my design in PlanAhead it asks for the My_Module.ngc as if it is treating it as a blackbox. I though the NGC was only required when using CoreGen IPCores, but it seems it also wants it for any VHDL module included as I guess this is a 'black box'.
The issue is how do I create a NGC file from the VHDL for this module, which is part of an ISE project. As I can't find any function in ISE that allows you to just generate the netlist for one VHDL module. Or can I export this module out into a separate ISE project and then synthesise it to get the .ngc?
Many thanks
Sam
Are you sure you've typed the module name in exactly the same way both in your module .vhd file, and in the file using the module as a component?
Under normal circumstances, if your project includes the module as a .vhd file, it'll just be synthesized along with the rest of your sources - I did a quick test and renamed a component in one of my own projects, and got a complaint about a possibly missing .ngc file (this was in ISE, and not in PlanAhead though).
So the answer is to generate the NGC files by making the modules you want "the top module" you can then run the synthesis to generate the individual NGC. Then proceed as normal when adding IP to a PCore. So adding these NGC files to the netlist folder and modifying the BBD file and all that!
As a note for completion to get the module working you need to set the synthesis setting "Xilinx Specefic" -> and disable "add io buffers"
Are you including My_Module.vhd as a source file in your ISE Project? If you are, check to see that the ISE project doesn't have a yellow question mark next to the My_Module component. If it does, then it needs more information about that component. You should see a little icon with the letters VHD in it in your ISE Implementation Hierarchy View.
I'm new to Doxygen and I'm trying to document an API I am planning to open source. I'd really like to build two sets of documentation, one for end users of the API and one for those who intend to modify it. Is there a way to tag Doxygen comment blocks in a way such that I can generate "user" and "dev" documentation trees? Is there a better solution to my problem? Thanks!
Depending on how your code is structured, you might be able to get away with using two Doxygen config files each including separate source files. The "user" config file would only list the source files containing the public interface to the API, while the "dev" config file would list all source files for the whole project.
This does mean that all your interfaces (e.g. abstract base classes) will need to be documented with the user in mind, but that is usually not a problem as by definition there is unlikely to be any implementation details in an abstract base class.
All your "dev" documentation then sits in the actual classes implementing the interfaces, which are never seen by the API and can be safely omitted by the "user" Doxygen config file.
Of course if your code isn't structured this way it's not going to work, so the only solution I can think of is to fill your comments with a bunch of conditional statements.
In addition to what Malvineous already said, there is the \internal doxygen command.
\internal lets you hide or show part of the documentation by changing INTERNAL_DOCS in the Doxyfile
More information here: http://www.doxygen.nl/manual/commands.html#cmdinternal