I want to set up my HelloWorld intellij-erlang project with all files in the same directory so I can easily switch between IDEA and emacs/vim.
<my-project>/hello.erl
<my-project>/hello.beam
Now, if I configure the output directory to be the same as the source, hello.erl gets emptied as part of the build and the compilation fails.
I assumed it's something to do with copying resources to the output directory, so I've configured intellij-erlang to exclude *.erl from the resources with a !?*.erl pattern, but this does not have any effect, hello.erl still gets emptied before the compilation takes place.
As an experiment, I've also tried using separate src and out directories, and intellij-erlang always copies the *.erl to out irrespective of the resource patterns.
Based on all this, I would conclude that intellij-erlang cannot work with all files in the same directory. Have I missed anything?
Erlang programs should be build on standard OTP directory structure. Build tools like rebar (used by intellij) or erlang.mk build on this conventions. And so should all IDE's.
Intellij does it, just like you notice. And so does Emacs's plugin (that I use and can confirm). I would guess so does Vim's one.
So if you would like to be able to switch easily between your IDE's you should try to keep to this convetion of keeping you source files in src and compiled files in bin (and headers in include).
Related
So, something has started to act weird in my intelliJ project. I even tried removing the iml and .idea data, to no avail.
I go to Project Structure. There, I have a content root. Withing, I have three folders - one for my jar (and jni lib), one for Samples and one for Tools (just tools written to use the jar). The jar, Samples and Tools are marked blue (sources).
In the jar folder, I have my source tree (com\company\projectname\XXX), a lib folder, a folder for my JNI lib and a folder I created call 'junit', which is the focus of this question. It is marked in Project Structure in green (Tests).
Within, I have a folder structure eerily similar to my code: com\company\projectname\junit.
When I open a file in junit\com\company\xxx\junit, I have a big red underline under my package com.company.xxx.junit; line which tells me: "Package name 'com.company.xxx.junit' does not correspond to the file path 'junit.com.company.xxx.junit'.
I was under the impression that marking a folder as 'Tests' would instruct the IDE to use that as a "parent" folder, if you will, eliminating the need to prepend another folder name.
How can I separate the code from unit tests and in fact, create two junit test suites (one is for internal use, the other is a 'skeleton' for distribution), park them under one "umbrella" folder and NOT have to prepend the package names with that folder name?
Update: Project structure:
Based on your screen shot, the issue is that the junit directory is a subdirectory of another source directory, namely MyProvider. A source directory (whether a "production" source or a unit test source directory) cannot be a subdirectory of another source directory.
You need to either:
move the junit directory out of MyProvider so it is a sibling directory, or
unmark MyProvider as a source directory, create a main (or some such directory) in MyProvider, mark it as a source directory, and then move the com directory/package into main.
Option 2 would be the preferred way to deal with this as it follows a very common directory structure standard.
UPDATE (Following comment from OP)
Here's a couple of screenshot showing the configuration you desire:
I removed the .IdeaIC15 folder and started over. Working for now. Something must have gotten confused in the config, either as part of the update, or in the course of operation. I have taken a backup copy as it is now, so if this happens again, I will have something to check.
I have a main project App that contains subproject intended to be installed in AppBundleDirectory/Contents/PlugIns.
The default installation directory for plugin.xcodeproj is /Library/Bundles, I'd like to change it to AppBundleDirectory/Contents/PlugIns. I don't think plugin is aware of its parent build directory, so I couldn't find any environment variable to put into the Installation Directory setting.
To sum it up:
Project structure
App.xcodeproj
Plugins/
plugin1.xcodeproj
plugin2.xcodeproj
Wanted generated structure
App.app
Contents/
Plugins/
plugin1.bundle
plugin2.bundle
How should I proceed ?
If your app target depends on your plugin targets, then it's fairly straightforward:
Add a Copy Files phase to your app
Make the Destination "PlugIns" (this is in the drop-down list)
Use the "+" button to choose the plugins.
If the plugins depend on the app, then it's only slightly more complicated. You have to hard-code the name of the app:
Make sure that everyone has the same DSTROOT (using a single Scheme is the easiest way to get this)
Make the plugins INSTALL_PATH be "/App.app/Contents/PlugIns" (note the leading /)
Note that it's "PlugIns" not "Plugins". 99.99% of the time it doesn't matter. But every so often you run into that one guy who chooses a case-sensitive file system at install and your plugins don't load. I chased that bug for four months once. Picking it from the Copy Files list is a nice way to be sure to be right.
I checked quite a few similar questions, but so far I am unsatisfied with the solutions.
Ever use the Minecraft Server? At initial launch, it creates all the files and folders it needs, and allows you to make changes to files like Server.properties and ops.txt by making them external of the executable jar file.
I'm working on a similar project, and I want to duplicate that behavior. Everything works great when I run it in eclipse. When I export to a jar file though, things get funky. The external files and folders are created without a hitch, but afterword, it would appear as though they cannot be read from or written to. Any ideas how Notch made his server?
--edit--
Scratch that, it doesn't even appear to reliably create the files and folders. Maybe it only creates them the very first run after creation?
--edit again--
It creates them in the root directory. When I tested it in eclipse, the root directory was limited to the folder containing the project, and therefore looked fine. The solution was to make the class aware of it's location, and include it in all file operations.
Have the main class in your executable jar file look up where it is, then have it store that information in a global String or something. Prefix your filenames with that string in your file operations, and voila! It's writing to the correct directory.
I started using sass scss stylesheets. These generate *.css files from *.scss files. My question is, which files do you check into version control? Right now I check in both main.scss and the generated main.css. I wonder though if there is a way to just check in the *.scss file and to ensure that the *.css files get generated on deployment.
I prefer to check them in. We deploy to our staging and production environments from git and I prefer not to rely on yet another tool/compilation when deploying to production. This way, its absolutely clear what is being pushed out.
In general, you usually don't need to check generated files into source control. As long as your code generation works consistently, and you use it consistently to update your target .css files, I don't think you would need to put them in source control.
That said, the suggestion to not put generated files into source control is usually intended more for binary files (i.e. libs or executables generated from a build). The main reason for this is that binary files cannot be easily diffed/merged, so if multiple people try to checkin changes to the same binary, you may end up with merging issues that cannot be easily resolved. Since you're dealing with plain text css files, I don't think it's that big of a deal to just put them in source control too, just so you have a backup of the actual target file.
I like to borrow from the conventions used by server side developers when handling compiled front-end code like sass. I keep all of my source separate from compiled code. Here's how I set it up:
Put your source in a src directory, under main/language-name, in this case:
/path-to-my-app/src/main/sass/my-syntactically-awesome-file.scss
Then put tests in an identical test directory (you shouldn't need any tests for sass, though:
/path-to-my-app/src/test/sass/my-syntactically-awesome-test.whatever
Then put your compiled code in a publish-ready directory, like so:
/path-to-my-app/publish/css/my-syntactically-awesome-file.css
Then commit the whole shebang (!)
You can make sure you are always putting your css in the right place like so:
$ cd /path-to-my-app
$ sass --watch src/main/sass/*.scss:publish/css/
Now you're a mother effing programmer, baby!
I have a project where I create a JAR which contains a bunch of classes with main() plus a set of scripts which set the environment to invoke them. Most of those are long running processes which log a lot (~10-20GB).
This means I have a pretty complex log4j.xml file which, being in src/main/resources/, goes into the JAR. When something breaks in the production system, I'd like to modify the logging on the fly for a single run.
So I came up with the idea to have a conf/ directory on the production and put that into the classpath, first. Then, I thought that it would be great if M2 would put the config files in there (instead of the JAR). But that would overwrite any manual changes during an automated deployment which I strongly dislike. I'm also not fond of timestamps and things like that.
So my next ideas was this: M2 should leave the config files in the JAR but create copies of the files with the name *.tpl in the conf/ directory. The admin could then copy a template to the basename to override the files in the JARs. .tpl-Files would be overwritten but that wouldn't hurt. Admins would have full control over which version of the log was active and they could run a diff to see whether any important changes were made.
Now the question: Has someone seen a plugin which automates this process? That is which creates a conf/ directory with all or a selected subset of everything in src/main/resources/ and which renames the files?
Best practice in Maven handling config files is to place them in a separate conf directory, and pack them in a binary assembly using the assembly plugin. Placing configuration files, like log4j.xml in the src/main/resources doesn't make sense, since it is not a true application resource, but more of a configuration file.
We cope with the overwriting, by packing the configuration files with the posfix .def. For example: myapp.properties is packed into the assembly as myapp.properties.def. When the person who uses the assembly unpacks it, it will not overwrite his original files. After unpacking he simply merges them by an external tool (we use meld in Fedora Core).
I may be missing something and this doesn't answer directly the question but did you consider producing a zip assembly of the exploded content of required artifacts (to be unzipped on the target environment)?
Sounds like you're attacking the problem the wrong way. Why not just run the application with -Dlog4j.configuration=/some/where/my-log4j.properties? If you want, you can add a command line flag to main() which invokes the PropertyConfigurator directly.