cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vladimir Kotikov (Akvelon)" <v-vlk...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: Proposal: Expose check_reqs at the CLI level
Date Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:17:48 GMT
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