[Scons-users] Chaining generated sources.

[William Blevins]

Did the patch make sense?

I haven't heard anything back.

V/R,
William


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 3:49 PM, William Blevins <wblevins001 at gmail.com>wrote:


> Bill,

>

> I made a patch which shows test case proof of concept.

>

> The generalized test case fails as I expected, but I would like to make a

> stronger test assumption than "test.up_to_date()".  I am a little uncertain

> on how to explicitly test against the "nodes" created by env.Java through

> the TestSCons instance.

>

> I may be able to write the node information to a file inside the

> SConstruct and check the expected with "test.must_contain_exactly_lines",

> but this seems round about.  Any thoughts?

>

> V/R,

> William

>

>

> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com>wrote:

>

>> William,

>>

>> *bump* is a sign of impatience. Nobody working on scons is getting paid

>> to do so.

>> You may also notice that often during the week, there's less response

>> from some members of the project, and more on the weekend. Many people do

>> this on their free time.

>>

>> Yes I thought it was clear that Dirk was asking for whatever code you

>> could provide.

>>

>> So please do.

>>

>> -Bill

>>

>>

>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, William Blevins <wblevins001 at gmail.com>wrote:

>>

>>> Bill,

>>>

>>> Sorry, I assumed that the internet meme was established by now.  My test

>>> case response had an implicit question that got missed.

>>>

>>> "If you need help creating this test case then, I could try to create a

>>> patch sometime this week with a link to documentation for contributing to

>>> SCons."

>>>

>>> Since there wasn't a response, I didn't know whether I had volunteered

>>> myself to create the patch or not.  Redoing work is a waste.

>>>

>>> V/R,

>>> William

>>>

>>>

>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com>wrote:

>>>

>>>> William,

>>>>

>>>> *bump* is not encouraged.

>>>> -1

>>>>

>>>> -Bill

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 5:07 PM, William Blevins <wblevins001 at gmail.com

>>>> > wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> * bump *

>>>>>

>>>>> V/R,

>>>>> William

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:33 PM, William Blevins <

>>>>> wblevins001 at gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> The builder implementation is irrelevant to the test case, so I

>>>>>> recommend generalizing.  The easiest way to do this would be:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> 1) Make a <name>.java file that has one or more of the properties

>>>>>> that causes this problem:

>>>>>>     1) The java file creates more than one class file when compiled.

>>>>>>     2) The java class package is not equal to the root package.

>>>>>> 2) Write an SConscript that essentially does

>>>>>>     # Psuedo code as follows

>>>>>>     Line 1: env = Environment()

>>>>>>     Line 2: env.Command( "<test_case_input_file>",

>>>>>> "<source_directory>/<package_info>/<test_case_file_name>", Copy("$TARGET",

>>>>>> "$SOURCE") )

>>>>>>     Line 3: env.Java( targets = <build_directory>, sources =

>>>>>> <source_directory> )

>>>>>>

>>>>>> This test case provides the following benefits:

>>>>>> 1) It is simple and easy to understand.

>>>>>>     Line 1: environment is setup for the example

>>>>>>     Line 2: source "<test_case_input_file>" creates target

>>>>>> "<source_directory>/<package_info>/<test_case_file_name>" named DERIVED.

>>>>>>     Line 3: DERIVED becomes a derived source for the Java builder.

>>>>>> 2) This keeps the context local to SCons and removes any external

>>>>>> dependencies: so all code generators are equal~!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Now you just need to validate the produced dependency tree.  Please

>>>>>> see the original email for dependency tree examples.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> V/R,

>>>>>> William

>>>>>>

>>>>>> If you need help creating this test case then, I could try to create

>>>>>> a patch sometime this week with a link to documentation for contributing to

>>>>>> SCons.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On 22.02.2014 22:26, William Blevins wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, I cannot post the code without going through a lot

>>>>>>>> of hoops.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Okay, I understand...but could you post your version of the Protoc

>>>>>>> Builder? The original snippet from the Wiki, as well as the latest revision

>>>>>>> from the Bitbucket repository, both don't support Java.

>>>>>>> So having your current Builder available would really help for

>>>>>>> setting up simple test examples and such.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Thanks a lot in advance.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Dirk

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>>>> Scons-users mailing list

>>>>>>> Scons-users at scons.org

>>>>>>> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>> Scons-users mailing list

>>>>> Scons-users at scons.org

>>>>> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> Scons-users mailing list

>>>> Scons-users at scons.org

>>>> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> Scons-users mailing list

>>> Scons-users at scons.org

>>> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users

>>>

>>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Scons-users mailing list

>> Scons-users at scons.org

>> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users

>>

>>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20140402/f8802497/attachment.htm