cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Soref <jso...@blackberry.com>
Subject RE: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
Date Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:43:01 GMT
We're going to type it often enough that I'd be upset at both check_reqs and check-requirements

"requirements" is good enough.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Treggiari, Leo [mailto:leo.treggiari@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:11 AM
> To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
> 
> Hi Vladimir,
> 
> It's great to see this being worked on and discussed.  My comments below
> are mine and mine alone.
> 
> In addition to the code changes, I would have preferred to see a specification
> of the command, e.g.
> 
> 	cordova check-reqs platform [platform...]
> 
> I took a quick look at the CLI code changes and didn't see any option
> processing.  Are there any options?
> Do the platform(s) specified on the command need to have been already
> added to the project?
> Does the command require a project - i.e. be executed in a project directory?
> Regarding the command name, I don't think being 'cute' is helpful to users -
> i.e. I recommend against 'doctor'.
> I think 'check-requirements' would be OK.  It's long but how many times does
> a user need to type it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Leo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Kotikov (Akvelon) [mailto:v-vlkoti@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:18 AM
> To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
> 
> Hey, guys. Have anyone looked at it?
> I've made some refactoring to make changes more readable, and updated
> data contract between platform's check_reqs code and LIB API.
> 
> Josh, regarding command name. I thought that there is still no agreement
> about verb name.
> Personally I agree that `cordova doctor` or `cordova requirements` sounds
> better, but this is just a command name ant it could be changed at any time.
> 
> ---------------
> Best regards, Vladimir
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parashuram N (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:panarasi@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, 20 April, 2015 22:04
> To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
> 
> This was only an initial implementation - no pull request has been sent. I
> think this is just a way for folks to play with what Vlad has now. I am sure we
> will change the verb name before a PR comes in.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Soref [mailto:jsoref@blackberry.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 11:59 AM
> To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
> 
> -1
> 
> Didn't everyone agree to call it `cordova doctor` or worst, `cordova
> requirements`?
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vladimir Kotikov (Akvelon) [mailto:v-vlkoti@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 11:46 AM
> > To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
> >
> > Hi, list.
> >
> > I would like to share a draft implementation for check_reqs command
> > and check_reqs API:
> > Changes  could be found here:
> >     CLI: https://github.com/apache/cordova-
> > cli/compare/master...MSOpenTech:requirements_check
> >     LIB: https://github.com/apache/cordova-
> > lib/compare/master...MSOpenTech:requirements_check
> >     Cordova-android: https://github.com/apache/cordova-
> > android/compare/master...MSOpenTech:requirements_check
> >
> > The implementation consists of following:
> > 1. 'cordova check-reqs' command for cordova CLI, which calls
> > corresponding cordova-lib API with options, specified from CLI
> >
> > 2. 'check_reqs' module for cordova-lib, which works as a wrapper
> > around platforms' check_reqs scripts. It returns a promise, either
> > resolved if check_reqs platform script is found and ran successfully
> > or rejected in case if check_reqs script is failed due to some internal errors
> or not found at all.
> >
> > 3. check_reqs script for android platform, updated to return array of
> > requirements.
> >
> >     * Each requirements is an object with following fields:
> >         - id - some short id, could be useful for tools, that consume API directly
> >         - name - readable name for this requirement, such as 'Jav JDK'
> > or 'Gradle build tools', etc.
> >         - installed - Boolean paremeter that indicates if requirement
> > is properly installed/satisfied
> >         - reason - error, reported by requirements check routines if
> > requirement is missing.
> >
> > Please note that work is still in progress, and will be changed
> > according to review comments.
> > TBD:
> >     * move presentation logic from LIB to CLI;
> >     * refine data format, returned by cordova-lib API
> >     * add other platforms
> >     * and more... :)
> >
> > ---------------
> > Best regards, Vladimir
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Parashuram N (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:panarasi@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Monday, 20 April, 2015 3:49
> > To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
> >
> > Looks like implementing a global level check_reqs without a project
> > seems harder, I would suggest we make it a part of a second phase of
> > this implementation. For now, we have a basic version that simply
> > abstracts out existing check_reqs into a separate, platform level
> > command. This could be a good first phase, and should also give us an
> > idea about how developers use this command.
> >
> > As a part of Phase 2, anyone from the community should be able to
> > build on a cordova level check reqs, and possibly extend it to
> > checking reqs when no project is present.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Josh Soref [mailto:jsoref@blackberry.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 8:53 AM
> > To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
> >
> > We already support:
> >
> > `cordova build android`
> >
> > There's no need for the extra `platform` verb..
> >
> > But,
> > `cordova build android --nobuild` isn't any more intuitive than w/ the
> > extra "platform".
> >
> >
> > And yes, as I noted, and others have noted, we used to run check_reqs
> > in add, we're not going back to doing that.
> >
> > A `cordova doctor` or `cordova requirements` verb seems fine.
> >
> > I'm also fine `cordova doctor PLATFORM` instead of `cordova platform
> > doctor PLATFORM`,
> >
> > As for when someone is likely to want to ask "what requirements do I
> > need for a platform", it's fairly arbitrary.
> >
> > Someone who is given a project might know that they don't have the
> > environment for a platform, they aren't likely to want to go down a
> > "build" rabbit hole, so, I'm -1 on hiding it anywhere near build.
> >
> > It's perfectly reasonable from my perspective for someone to want to
> > run `cordova requirements PLATFORM` without a project at all.
> > Imagine someone is getting started, they "install cordova", and know
> > they want to develop for PLATFORM, they could reasonably want to set
> > up their requirements for that platform before trying to create a
> > project...
> >
> > I don't know if anyone's check_reqs scripts actually requires a
> > project, I actually think they don't, so it's probably sufficient to
> > run them straight from the platform origin instead of from a created
> project.
> >
> > One notable thing: check_reqs isn't a .js file yet, as an API, it's
> > "check_reqs" (*nix) and "check_reqs" + something from %PATHEXT%
> > (Windows)
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: agrieve@google.com [mailto:agrieve@google.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Andrew Grieve
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:00 AM
> > > To: dev
> > > Subject: Re: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
> > >
> > > We've worked to make iOS add'able from Windows, so I do think it's a
> > > good idea to *not* run check_reqs from add (we used to but removed
> it).
> > >
> > > We already run it on build, so potentially we already have this command:
> > > "cordova platform build android --nobuild"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Treggiari, Leo
> > > <leo.treggiari@intel.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > My opinions.
> > > >
> > > > Q1.  Just say that platform is not added, so cannot check requirements.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it is important to support the platform-not-added case.
> > > >
> > > > Q2.  Should the requirements be checked when a platform is added,
> > > > or
> > > when
> > > > it is built ?
> > > >
> > > > 'platform add' should work even when the requirements are not met.
> > > > If requirements used to be checked on 'platform add', then I
> > > > suspect they were removed
> > to
> > > > support
> > > > the scenario of using the same Cordova project on multiple host
> > platforms.
> > > > E.g. a team with some developers on Windows and some on Mac.  As a
> > user
> > > of
> > > > Cordova CLI on Windows, I want it to be OK to have the project I'm
> > working
> > > > on have the
> > > > iOS platform added and I only get errors if I try to do something
> > > > (build,
> > > > emulate)
> > > > which requires the native SDK.
> > > >
> > > > Leo
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Parashuram N (MS OPEN TECH) [mailto:panarasi@microsoft.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:04 PM
> > > > To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
> > > >
> > > > I think you raise an interesting point on the behavior of
> > > > check_reqs for platform that are not yet added.
> > > >
> > > > The options, as you mention are
> > > >
> > > > Question 1
> > > > 1 -  Add the platform, run check_reqs script, remove the platform
> > > > and report results.
> > > > 1.5 - Just download the check_reqs script (or use it from the
> > > > cached platform directory) without adding the platform, and run that.
> > > > 2 -  Just say that platform is not added, so cannot check requirements.
> > > >
> > > > Question 2: It also comes to the case of - when would a user want
> > > > to run the requirement check
> > > > - before starting a cordova project ?
> > > > - before adding a platform ?
> > > > - should the requirements be checked when a platform is added, or
> > when it
> > > > is built ?
> > > >
> > > > The answer to the above questions will help us understand if a top
> > > > level req_check is required or not. We should also look at what
> > > > check_reqs do today - the do not tell you ALL the missing pieces for
> building an SDK.
> > > >
> > > > It would be good to hear what the others in the community think
> > > > about these answers.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Josh Soref [mailto:jsoref@blackberry.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:55 AM
> > > > To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
> > > >
> > > > Fwiw, for the case of a platform that isn't in a project yet, I'd
> > > > envision:
> > > >
> > > > `cordova platform doctor not-yet-installed`
> > > >
> > > > to do effectively:
> > > > ```sh
> > > > (
> > > > PLATFORM=not-yet-installed
> > > > (cordova platform add $PLATFORM 2>&1) > /dev/null &&
cordova
> > > > platform doctor $PLATFORM; (cordova platform remove $PLATFORM
> > > > 2>&1)
> > > > )
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > i.e. add the platform (or create a temporary project, and add the
> > platform
> > > > to the temporary project), and then run platform doctor, and then
> > remove
> > > > the
> > > > platform (and if it was in a temporary project, delete the
> > > > temporary project...).
> > > >
> > > > I don't really want to expos a 'check_reqs' verb via CLI.
> > > >
> > > > If we really really want to, we could have `cordova platform
> > > > requirements [PLATFORM...]` as a verb, that's ok.
> > > >
> > > > If someone wants to call `check_reqs` directly, they're welcome to
> > > > do so, but it's an incredibly ugly thing and doesn't belong in a
> > > > public facing interface.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Parashuram N (MS OPEN TECH)
> > > > > [mailto:panarasi@microsoft.com]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 10:19 AM
> > > > > To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
> > > > >
> > > > > Carlos, you are right, check_reqs should be in the platform
> > > > > repo, CLI
> > > > will
> > > > > just proxy the call to the platforms.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/13/15, 10:29 PM, "Carlos Santana" <csantana23@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >+1 if check_reqs are kept in the platform repos, currently
> > > > > >+check_reqs
> > > > > >is
> > > > a
> > > > > >platform concerned
> > > > > >if it's available from CLI it will be just a proxy to the
> > > > > >platform check_reqs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >if don't keep it in the platform repo, and add this logic to
> > > > > >cli repo,
> > > > we
> > > > > >will need to maintained a list of reqs for each platform, for
> > > > > >each
> > > > version
> > > > > >of each platform.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >This is the reason why it was removed from cli and just is
> > > > > >present in
> > > > the
> > > > > >platform repo/code
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Josh Soref
> > <jsoref@blackberry.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I'm +1 for `cordova doctor` and `cordova platform doctor
> > > > > >>{platformname}`.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The former should apply to all current platforms, the latter
> > > > > >>should support  doctoring for available but not added
> > > > > >>platforms -- if said platform
> > > > were
> > > > > >> specified.
> > > > > >> And we should note in the documentation or `cordova doctor`
> > > > > >> that it
> > > > may
> > > > > >>do
> > > > > >> other checks -- e.g. linting the config.xml, warning about
> > > > > >>CSP,
> > > > possibly
> > > > > >> mentioning when a plugin is out of date -- just to indicate
> > > > > >>to people that  the behavior may evolve.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Not that this is more or less fixing a regression that we
> > > > > >>introduced when  we  made `cordova platform add` not call
> > > > > >>check_reqs.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >> > From: Parashuram N (MS OPEN TECH)
> > > [mailto:panarasi@microsoft.com]
> > > > > >> > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 2:53 PM
> > > > > >> > To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> > > > > >> > Subject: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Hi,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > One of the main problems a lot of developers seem to
have
> > > > > >> > is the
> > > > > >>issue to
> > > > > >> > setting up their machines for building various platforms.
> > > > > >> > This came
> > > > > >>out
> > > > > >> from
> > > > > >> > the Stack overflow survey, and the number of questions
on
> > > > > >> > stack
> > > > > >>overflow,
> > > > > >> > twitter. Etc.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I thought it would be helpful to have a check_reqs
command
> > > exposed
> > > > at
> > > > > >>the
> > > > > >> > CLI level. This is similar to `brew doctor` or `appium
> > > > > >> > doctor`. The
> > > > > >>idea
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > 1.       Have a way for the user to see if they have
all
> > > > dependencies
> > > > > >> (like
> > > > > >> > JAVA_HOME or ANDROID_HOME) set up? This happens at
build
> > time,
> > > but
> > > > > >> > moving it out to a CLI level command where you can
run
> > > > > >> > cordova
> > > > > >>check_reqs
> > > > > >> > (or something similar) would be useful to the users.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > 2.       Today, the build command shows one error at
a time. The
> > > > > >> check_reqs
> > > > > >> > could run all the checks, and show a summary of the
issues
> > > > > >> > so that
> > > > the
> > > > > >> user
> > > > > >> > can fix them all, instead of fixing one, running build,
> > > > > >> > fixing
> > > > again,
> > > > > >> etc.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > What does the community think of this idea ? Can we
> > > > > >> > implement a
> > > > > >>prototype
> > > > > >> > and see if this is useful to our developers ?
> > > > > >> > Note that this does not change or break existing
> > > > > >> > functionality - it
> > > > > >>just
> > > > > >> exposes
> > > > > >> > the already existing check_reqs in the CLI. Build will
> > > > > >> > continue to
> > > > > >>call
> > > > > >> > check_reqs.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Please vote on this proposal, or raise any concerns
you may
> have.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >--
> > > > > >Carlos Santana
> > > > > ><csantana23@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > B
> >
> KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
> > KKKKKKKKKKCB  [  X  ܚX KK[XZ[
> >  ] ][  X  ܚX P ܙݘK \X K ܙ B  ܈Y][ۘ[  [X[  K[XZ[  ]
> > Z[ ܙݘK \X K ܙ B
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org

Mime
View raw message