I'm using this with BundleTransformer from nuget and System.Web.Optimisation in an ASP.Net app. According to various docs this minifier is supposed to "remove unreachable code". I know it's not as aggressive as google closure (which I can't use presently) but I can't get even the simplest cases to work, eg;
function foo() {
}
where foo isn't called from anywhere. I can appreciate the argument that says this might be an exported function but I can't see a way to differentiate that. All my JS code is concatenated so it would be able to say for sure whether that function was needed or not if I can find the right switches.
The only way I've found to omit unnecessary code is to use the debugLookupList property in the web.config for BundleTransformer but that seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It's not very granular.
Does anyone have an example of how to write so-called 'unreachable code' that this minifier will recognise?
Here's a place to test online
I doubt the minifier has any way of knowing if a globally defined function can be removed safely (as it doesn't know the full scope). On the other hand it might not remove any unused functions and might only be interested in unreachable code (i.e. code after a return).
Using the JavaScript Module Pattern, your unused private functions would most likely get hoovered up correctly (although I've not tested this). In the example below, the minifier should only be confident about removing the function called privateFunction. Whether it considers unused functions as unreachable code is another matter.
var AmazingModule = (function() {
var module = {};
function privateFunction() {
// ..
}
module.otherFunction = function() {
// ..
};
return module;
}());
function anotherFunction() {
// ..
}
Related
I've recently joined a codebase that no one seemed to ever run SonarLint against, and now every test class I open in IntelliJ is highlighted like a Christmas tree - all test methods are public, even though JUnit5 is used.
Tired of removing those public modifiers manually, I decided to implement an SSR template to do that for me. However, I can't seem to make it work with method parameter annotations! (which seem to be rather usual thing with JMockit)
The best I can have thus far is this:
Open Edit->Find->Replace structurally
Paste this into Search field:
#$MethodAnnotation$
public void $MethodName$(#mockit.Injectable $ParameterType$ $Parameter$) {
$statement$;
}
Choose file type: Java - Class Member
Add filter for MethodAnnotation variable: Text=org.junit.jupiter.api.Test
Add Min=0 for statement and Parameter variables
Paste this into Replace field:
#$MethodAnnotation$
void $MethodName$(#Injectable $ParameterType$ $Parameter$) {
$statement$;
}
(mind the indentation, otherwise it will be problematic!)
Select Complete match value for Search target
Find
As you can see, the annotation is hard-coded, which of course limits the applicability of this snippet seriously.
Is this a problem with IntelliJ or rather my bad knowledge of SSR? What would be a proposed solution?
Example:
data class T(val flag: Boolean) {
constructor(n: Int) : this(run {
// Some computation here...
<Boolean result>
})
}
In this example, the custom constructor needs to run some computation in order to determine which value to pass to the primary constructor, but the compiler does not accept the run, citing Cannot access 'run' before superclass constructor has been called, which, if I understand correctly, means instead of interpreting it as the non-extension run (the variant with no object reference in https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/scope-functions.html#function-selection), it construes it as a call to this.run (the variant with an object reference in the above table) - which is invalid as the object has not completely instantiated yet.
What can I do in order to let the compiler know I mean the run function which is not an extension method and doesn't take a scope?
Clarification: I am interested in an answer to the question as asked, not in a workaround.
I can think of several workarounds - ways to rewrite this code in a way that works as intended without calling run: extracting the code to a function; rewriting it as a (possibly highly nested) let expression; removing the run and invoking the lambda (with () after it) instead (funnily enough, IntelliJ IDEA tags that as Redundant lambda creation and suggests to Inline the body, which reinstates the non-compiling run). But the question is not how to rewrite this without using run - it's how to make run work in this context.
A good answer should do one of the following things:
Explain how to instruct the compiler to call a function rather than an extension method when a name is overloaded, in general; or
Explain how to do that specifically for run; or
Explain that (and ideally also why) it is not possible to do (ideally with supporting references); or
Explain what I got wrong, in case I got something wrong and the whole question is irrelevant (e.g. if my analysis is incorrect, and the problem is something other than the compiler construing the call to run as this.run).
If someone has a neat workaround not mentioned above they're welcome to post it in a comment - not as an answer.
In case it matters: I'm using multi-platform Kotlin 1.4.20.
Kotlin favors the receiver overload if it is in scope. The solution is to use the fully qualified name of the non-receiver function:
kotlin.run { //...
The specification is explained here.
Another option when the overloads are not in the same package is to use import renaming, but that won't work in this case since both run functions are in the same package.
Given the documentation and the comments on an earlier question, by request I've made a minimal reproducible example that demonstrates a difference between these two statements:
my %*SUB-MAIN-OPTS = :named-anywhere;
PROCESS::<%SUB-MAIN-OPTS><named-anywhere> = True;
Given a script file with only this:
#!/usr/bin/env raku
use MyApp::Tools::CLI;
and a module file in MyApp/Tools called CLI.pm6:
#PROCESS::<%SUB-MAIN-OPTS><named-anywhere> = True;
my %*SUB-MAIN-OPTS = :named-anywhere;
proto MAIN(|) is export {*}
multi MAIN( 'add', :h( :$hostnames ) ) {
for #$hostnames -> $host {
say $host;
}
}
multi MAIN( 'remove', *#hostnames ) {
for #hostnames -> $host {
say $host;
}
}
The following invocation from the command line will not result in a recognized subroutine, but show the usage:
mre.raku add -h=localhost -h=test1
Switching my %*SUB-MAIN-OPTS = :named-anywhere; for PROCESS::<%SUB-MAIN-OPTS><named-anywhere> = True; will print two lines with the two hostnames provided, as expected.
If however, this is done in a single file as below, both work identical:
#!/usr/bin/env raku
#PROCESS::<%SUB-MAIN-OPTS><named-anywhere> = True;
my %*SUB-MAIN-OPTS = :named-anywhere;
proto MAIN(|) is export {*}
multi MAIN( 'add', :h( :$hostnames )) {
for #$hostnames -> $host {
say $host;
}
}
multi MAIN( 'remove', *#hostnames ) {
for #hostnames -> $host {
say $host;
}
}
I find this hard to understand.
When reproducing this, be alert of how each command must be called.
mre.raku remove localhost test1
mre.raku add -h=localhost -h=test1
So a named array-reference is not recognized when this is used in a separate file with my %*SUB-MAIN-OPTS = :named-anywhere;. While PROCESS::<%SUB-MAIN-OPTS><named-anywhere> = True; always works. And for a slurpy array, both work identical in both cases.
The problem is that it isn't the same variable in both the script and in the module.
Sure they have the same name, but that doesn't mean much.
my \A = anon class Foo {}
my \B = anon class Foo {}
A ~~ B; # False
B ~~ A; # False
A === B; # False
Those two classes have the same name, but are separate entities.
If you look at the code for other built-in dynamic variables, you see something like:
Rakudo::Internals.REGISTER-DYNAMIC: '$*EXECUTABLE-NAME', {
PROCESS::<$EXECUTABLE-NAME> := $*EXECUTABLE.basename;
}
This makes sure that the variable is installed into the right place so that it works for every compilation unit.
If you look for %*SUB-MAIN-OPTS, the only thing you find is this line:
my %sub-main-opts := %*SUB-MAIN-OPTS // {};
That looks for the variable in the main compilation unit. If it isn't found it creates and uses an empty Hash.
So when you try do it in a scope other than the main compilation unit, it isn't in a place where it could be found by that line.
To test if adding that fixes the issue, you can add this to the top of the main compilation unit. (The script that loads the module.)
BEGIN Rakudo::Internals.REGISTER-DYNAMIC: '%*SUB-MAIN-OPTS', {
PROCESS::<%SUB-MAIN-OPTS> := {}
}
Then in the module, write this:
%*SUB-MAIN-OPTS = :named-anywhere;
Or better yet this:
%*SUB-MAIN-OPTS<named-anywhere> = True;
After trying this, it seems to work just fine.
The thing is, that something like that used to be there.
It was removed on the thought that it slows down every Raku program.
Though I think that any slowdown it caused would still be an issue as the line that is still there has to look to see if there is a dynamic variable of that name.
(There are more reasons given, and I frankly disagree with all of them.)
May a cuppa bring enlightenment to future SO readers pondering the meaning of things.[1]
Related answers by Liz
I think Liz's answer to an SO asking a similar question may be a good read for a basic explanation of why a my (which is like a lesser our) in the mainline of a module doesn't work, or at least confirmation that core devs know about it.
Her later answer to another SO explains how one can use my by putting it inside a RUN-MAIN.
Why does a slurpy array work by default but not named anywhere?
One rich resource on why things are the way they are is the section Declaring a MAIN subroutine of S06 (Synopsis on Subroutines)[2].
A key excerpt:
As usual, switches are assumed to be first, and everything after the first non-switch, or any switches after a --, are treated as positionals or go into the slurpy array (even if they look like switches).
So it looks like this is where the default behavior, in which nameds can't go anywhere, comes from; it seems that #Larry[3] was claiming that the "usual" shell convention was as described, and implicitly arguing that this should dictate that the default behavior was as it is.
Since Raku was officially released RFC: Allow subcommands in MAIN put us on the path to todays' :named-anywhere option. The RFC presented a very powerful 1-2 punch -- an unimpeachable two line hackers' prose/data argument that quickly led to rough consensus, with a working code PR with this commit message:
Allow --named-switches anywhere in command line.
Raku was GNU-like in that it has '--double-dashes' and that it stops interpreting named parameters when it encounters '--', but unlike GNU-like parsing, it also stopped interpreting named parameters when encountering any positional argument. This patch makes it a bit more GNU-like by allowing named arguments after a positional, to prepare for allowing subcommands.
> Alter how arguments are processed before they're passed to sub MAIN
In the above linked section of S06 #Larry also wrote:
Ordinarily a top-level Raku "script" just evaluates its anonymous mainline code and exits. During the mainline code, the program's arguments are available in raw form from the #*ARGS array.
The point here being that you can preprocess #*ARGS before they're passed to MAIN.
Continuing:
At the end of the mainline code, however, a MAIN subroutine will be called with whatever command-line arguments remain in #*ARGS.
Note that, as explained by Liz, Raku now has a RUN-MAIN routine that's called prior to calling MAIN.
Then comes the standard argument processing (alterable by using standard options, of which there's currently only the :named-anywhere one, or userland modules such as SuperMAIN which add in various other features).
And finally #Larry notes that:
Other [command line parsing] policies may easily be introduced by calling MAIN explicitly. For instance, you can parse your arguments with a grammar and pass the resulting Match object as a Capture to MAIN.
A doc fix?
Yesterday you wrote a comment suggesting a doc fix.
I now see that we (collectively) know about the coding issue. So why is the doc as it is? I think the combination of your SO and the prior ones provide enough anecdata to support at least considering filing a doc issue to the contrary. Then again Liz hints in one of the SO's that a fix might be coming, at least for ours. And SO is itself arguably doc. So maybe it's better to wait? I'll punt and let you decide. At least you now have several SOs to quote if you decide to file a doc issue.
Footnotes
[1] I want to be clear that if anyone perceives any fault associated with posting this SO then they're right, and the fault is entirely mine. I mentioned to #acw that I'd already done a search so they could quite reasonably have concluded there was no point in them doing one as well. So, mea culpa, bad coffee inspired puns included. (Bad puns, not bad coffee.)
[2] Imo these old historical speculative design docs are worth reading and rereading as you get to know Raku, despite them being obsolete in parts.
[3] #Larry emerged in Raku culture as a fun and convenient shorthand for Larry Wall et al, the Raku language team led by Larry.
I'm asking myself what the language designers intention behind the also scope function was and if almost everyone is misusing it.
If you search here on stack overflow for examples of Kotlins scope functions, you'll end up with this accepted answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/45977254/5122729
The given answer for also { } is
also - use it when you want to use apply, but don't want to shadow
this
class FruitBasket {
private var weight = 0
fun addFrom(appleTree: AppleTree) {
val apple = appleTree.pick().also { apple ->
this.weight += apple.weight
add(apple)
}
...
}
...
fun add(fruit: Fruit) = ... }
Using apply here would shadow this, so that this.weight would refer to
the apple, and not to the fruit basket.
That's also the usage I see quite often. But if I have a look into the documentation at kotlinlang.org, they are clearly saying:
also is good for performing some actions that take the context object
as an argument. Use also for additional actions that don't alter the
object, such as logging or printing debug information. Usually, you
can remove the calls of also from the call chain without breaking the
program logic.
From that point of view, the given example would be wrong as it would break the program logic if it is removed. For me, also is kind of Javas peek (doc), which is there, but should not be used for productive program logic.
Can someone enlighten me?
After having a longer discussion on Reddit about this topic, the documentation was adjusted in a way were the sentence
Usually, you can remove the calls of also from the call chain without
breaking the program logic.
was removed. See the corresponding PR: https://github.com/JetBrains/kotlin-web-site/pull/1676
In the process of learning Rust, I am getting acquainted with error propagation and the choice between unwrap and the ? operator. After writing some prototype code that only uses unwrap(), I would like to remove unwrap from reusable parts, where panicking on every error is inappropriate.
How would one avoid the use of unwrap in a closure, like in this example?
// todo is VecDeque<PathBuf>
let dir = fs::read_dir(&filename).unwrap();
todo.extend(dir.map(|dirent| dirent.unwrap().path()));
The first unwrap can be easily changed to ?, as long as the containing function returns Result<(), io::Error> or similar. However, the second unwrap, the one in dirent.unwrap().path(), cannot be changed to dirent?.path() because the closure must return a PathBuf, not a Result<PathBuf, io::Error>.
One option is to change extend to an explicit loop:
let dir = fs::read_dir(&filename)?;
for dirent in dir {
todo.push_back(dirent?.path());
}
But that feels wrong - the original extend was elegant and clearly reflected the intention of the code. (It might also have been more efficient than a sequence of push_backs.) How would an experienced Rust developer express error checking in such code?
How would one avoid the use of unwrap in a closure, like in this example?
Well, it really depends on what you wish to do upon failure.
should failure be reported to the user or be silent
if reported, should one failure be reported or all?
if a failure occur, should it interrupt processing?
For example, you could perfectly decide to silently ignore all failures and just skip the entries that fail. In this case, the Iterator::filter_map combined with Result::ok is exactly what you are asking for.
let dir = fs::read_dir(&filename)?;
let todos.extend(dir.filter_map(Result::ok));
The Iterator interface is full of goodies, it's definitely worth perusing when looking for tidier code.
Here is a solution based on filter_map suggested by Matthieu. It calls Result::map_err to ensure the error is "caught" and logged, sending it further to Result::ok and filter_map to remove it from iteration:
fn log_error(e: io::Error) {
eprintln!("{}", e);
}
(|| {
let dir = fs::read_dir(&filename)?;
todo.extend(dir
.filter_map(|res| res.map_err(log_error).ok()))
.map(|dirent| dirent.path()));
})().unwrap_or_else(log_error)