By default, IntelliJ IDEA puts Kotlin source files for package foo in src/*.kt but Gradle isn't happy with that; it can only see them if they go in src/main/kotlin/foo/*.kt.
I've tried moving them there, but now IDEA gives a warning in my source files, in the package foo line, saying 'package directive doesn't match file location' and wanting to change the package to main.kotlin.foo (which of course would be incorrect, and probably confuse Gradle again).
How do you get the two to agree on where the files should go? (Ideally I would like it to be somewhere that doesn't have any levels of empty subdirectories, but I will settle for anything the two programs can agree on.)
It turns out that if you just delete the IDEA configuration, IDEA will automatically rebuild it from the Gradle project, and thereby become happy with the Gradle default layout.
Related
Is there any way to make CMake "forget" about a file in the dependency tree? My original problem (to avoid the XY situation) is the following: I want to timestamp the build of a set of tools which have complicated dependencies among them and to other tools. Right now, I want to use a pure timestamp, but later I might want add some info from the repository (SVN). Whatever system I end up implementing needs to have the following characteristics (my "X"):
No unnecessary rebuilding: the executables should not be rebuilt on every make if the only change would be the timestamp.
Update on any change: if any tool is going to be rebuilt or relinked, either by changes to its code or to one of its dependencies, the timestamp needs to be updated.
My current solution goes along the lines of creating a custom command+target that invokes CMake at make time (so the command calls CMake itself with -P script.cmake) to generate a timestamp.h file. The main files of my tools would include that file, and the projects would depend on the target so that it gets rebuilt first.
However, this has its drawbacks: if I do update the timestamp file on every call to make, then CMake's dependency scanner would know about that file even if I do not list it as an explicit dependency of my tools. Thus, every make would trigger at least a recompilation of the respective "main" files and the corresponding relink. With tens of tools, this means slowing down the build when I may be working on just two or three of them at once.
So, I was thinking that my solution would be to somehow make CMake forget about that file when building its dependency tree for the "main" file of each tool. I would keep the dependency on the custom target that does depend on the file, so that it would be regenerated first on each call to make. However, the build tool would not consider that file as relevant to determine whether it is necessary to actually rebuild each individual tool. Thus, tools only with other changes would be rebuilt (satisfying my first criterion), and any change that causes a rebuild of a tool would obviously use the version just generated (fulfilling the second criterion).
To my chagrin, I have not found a way to make the dependency scanner forget about this file, so my solution cannot be put to use. How would I go about doing such a thing? Is it even possible, or is it completely the wrong way to go about this? I am using CMake 3.4, and my code is currently C++, but I would like a solution that did not rely on C/C++ specifics, since I have a different project (written in Fortran) in which I would also like to have build timestamping.
I've had almost the same problem than you are. Simply solved by pushing the timestamp header file into standalone target containing only this header generator command. After that you have several choices:
1.. Exclude that project from the build by the IDE you are using. For example, for the Visual Studio you can do it by several ways:
1.1. Project->Project Dependencies...->uncheck project with that header (not always works: Error while removing project dependency in VS2010)
1.2. Build->Configuration Manager...->uncheck project with that header
2.. Create an environment variable and use the condition with that variable around the add_dependencies command in the CMakeLists.txt file.
3.. Generate 2 standalone solutions through the cmake generator with included and with excluded add_dependencies in the CMakeLists.txt file.
I've used particulary [1.2]. When i need build and debug, then i uncheck the dependecy. By default, dependecy always checked, so there is no problem to miss timestamp build for a build server.
Note:
The timestamp header will be included in all projects you want to include that header (for example, through the add_library and add_executable) and you still can observe it in the IDE under a project item menu even if a project depends on the timestamp project indirectly. This is useful if you don't want to search for the timestamp project with the header to open it from there and want to open it from any project which has included that header.
So, in case of removing the timestamp header from the add_library or add_executable you won't have that opportunity.
For some projects the standard directory layout module/src/main/scala/com/company/project/module may be an overkill and can be flattened to module/src. I work with the scala language which doesn't force packages to be equal to file paths. IDEA will be unhappy, complain that a package doesn't correspond to a file path, create new classes with wrong packages and so on. To fix that I can specify package prefix for source folders and then it will work fine. However those prefixes are lost on project reimport (from SBT). Can I make IDEA keep them?
sbt-idea plugin has ideaPackagePrefix property. See also the related feature request.
More details can be found here.
package com.yada.yada
What happens with IntelliJ when I create Java class 'ss' in com.yada.yada without package statement? - RED "Missing Package Statement".
What happens when I create Kotlin file in com.yada.yada without package statement? - "Keep going bro until your DI framework will fail to scan your deps during runtime"
Why IJ package validation is non-mandatory for Kotlin? I just wasted an hour trying to figure out what's wrong with package scan only to realise this was the show stopper. Would Java 9 jigsaw quadruple the chaos for Kotlin sparked by such malformed files/classes with no warning messages? Well, you bet it will!
Please return back the "warning" statement for Kotlin. P.S. registration/login methods are not sufficient for myself to access Intellij bugtracker(and I am genuinely pissed off with one time access password resets, 1000 resources and 980 passwords I don't remember or care to) therefore making this public on stackoverflow.
If anybody going to defend this behaviour please explain why? Maybe I am missing something, otherwise please reply with open bug(preferably somebody from JetBrains) and I will accept it.
The missing inspection warning for files with no package statement is a bug; the corresponding YouTrack issue is here.
I'm not sure this post is appropriate here, but to answer the actual question, the official documentation states that:
If the package is not specified, the contents of such a file belong to
"default" package that has no name.
Since with Kotlin your files don't have to be in folders that match their packages, not having a package declaration has to be an option so that you can have files that are organized in folders, but you don't wish to put them in packages - this way they can have the same package as if they weren't nested in any folders, and were just in the root of the project.
I do concede that it's a bit odd there is a warning for your package declaration not matching the folder your file is in, but you don't get this if you just omit the package declaration altogether. I suppose this is assumed to be intentional.
This shouldn't generally be a problem because IDEs will generate the appropriate package declaration for the folder you've created your file in by default. I'm not sure how you created a file without a package declaration if you're using IntelliJ, unless you did it in the root src folder instead of inside a package folder.
In a simple IntelliJ module, I just want to generate a .jar file with my .class files, via IntelliJ IDE commands.
Please be careful before marking this as a "duplicate":
Although I've seen Google and Stack hits with promising titles, I'm not finding a really good answer, or the title is misleading, or its an unanswered question. I cover one possible answer that I've seen before (below), and why I don't think it's a match.
I've used Eclipse in the past, but I'm rather new to IntelliJ.
I've worked with the "Project Structure / Artifacts" stuff. I can generate the giant jar, similar to using "shade", but it's huge because it includes all the nested dependencies. We want the small jar with just this module's class files because the system we're deploying to already has all the other jars in place.
I've seen some references to changing a target directory in the Artifacts dialog box, but it then talks about references being made in the Manifest file, which I don't want. The destination environment already has its java paths setup, so I'm worried that having jar references in this jar will mess that up. If this really is the answer then I'm confused about how it works.
Constraint 1: Can't use command line tools, since I'm actually walking somebody else through these steps, who likely doesn't have command line tools installed in the path, or wouldn't know how to use them, etc. They're not a coder. (Yes, I know this sounds like an odd scenario; I inherited this situation.)
Constraint 2: We want to keep this as a simple IntelliJ project, vs. converting to Maven or Ant or Gradle, etc.
Coworker had the fix.
Short Answer:
Remove all of the other jars/libraries from Output Layout tab of the Artifacts config dialog.
Longer Answer:
You still do File / Project Structure...
Then in the Project Settings, click Artifacts.
And then you still click the plus button (second column) ti create a new artifact setting.
The trick is the "Output Layout" tab in the third column of the window. Highlight all entries EXCEPT the compiled output of your project and delete all those other entries (click the minus button under that tab, directly above your_project.jar)
On my laptop this causes it to pause for a few seconds; I thought it didn't do anything, then finally it reflected that everything was gone except "'my_module' compile output"
Also check the "Build on make" (for when you later do Build / Rebuild Project)
If you need both a full jar and a slim jar, you can have more than one Artifact configuration with different names, and they will default to different output directories.
There are often conflicts in the Xcode project file (Project.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj) when merging branches (I'm using git). Sometimes it's easy, but at times I end up with a corrupt project file and have to revert. In the worst case I have to fix up the project file manually in a second commit (which can be squashed with the previous) by dragging in files etc.
Does anyone have tips for how to handle merge conflicts in big and complex files like the Xcode project file?
EDIT-- Some related questions:
Git and pbxproj
Should I merge .pbxproj files with git using merge=union?
RESOURCES:
http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/xmldiffmerge
http://www2.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~obecker/XSLT/#merge
http://tdm.berlios.de/3dm/doc/thesis.pdf
http://www.cs.hut.fi/~ctl/3dm/
http://el4j.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/el4j/trunk/el4j/framework/modules/xml_merge/
Break your projects up into smaller, more logical libraries/packages. Massive projects are regularly the sign of a bad design, like the object that does way too much or is way too large.
Design for easy rebuilding -- this also helps if you're writing programs which must be built by multiple tools or IDEs. Many of my 'projects' can be reconstructed by adding one directory.
Remove extraneous build phases. Example: I've removed the "Copy Headers" build phase from all projects. Explicitly include the specific files via the include directive.
Use xcconfig files wherever possible. This also reduces the number of changes you must make when updating your builds. xcconfig files define a collection of build settings, and support #include. Of course, you then delete the (majority of) user defined settings from each project and target when you define the xcconfig to use.
For target dependencies: create targets which perform logical operations, rather than physical operations. This is usually a shell script target or aggregate target. For example: "build dependencies", "run all unit tests", "build all", "clean all". then you do not have to maintain every dependency change every step of a way - it's like using references.
Define a common "Source Tree" for your code, and a second for 3rd party sources.
There are external build tools available. This may be an option for you (at least, for some of your targets).
At this point, a xcodeproj will be much simpler. It will require fewer changes, and be very easy to reconstruct. You can go much further with these concepts to further reduce the complexity of your projects and builds.
You might want to try https://github.com/simonwagner/mergepbx/
It is a script that will help you to merge Xcode project files correctly. Note that it is still alpha.
Disclaimer: I am the author of mergepbx.
The best way I have found is to instruct Git to treat the .pbxproj file as a binary. This prevents messy merges.
Add this to your .gitatributes file:
*.pbxproj -crlf -diff -merge
To compare two Xcode projects open open FileMerge (open xcode and select Xcode (from the manu pane) --> Open developer tools --> FileMerge).
now click "left" button and open xcode project main directory.
click "right" button and open xcode project main directory to compare.
Now click "merge" button!
Thats it!
Another option to consider which may help to reduce the number of times you experience the problem. To explain, I'll call the branch that team members' branches come from the "develop" branch.
Have a convention in your team that when the project file is modified, the changes (along with any other changes required to ensure the build integrity) are committed in a separate commit. That commit is then cherry picked onto the develop branch. Other team members who plan to modify the project file in their branch can then either cherry pick into their branch or rebase their branch on the latest develop. This approach requires communication across the team and some discipline. As I said, it won't always be possible; on some projects it might help a lot and on some projects it might not.