I'm trying to figure out how to dynamically generating arguments from input arguments with Clap.
What I'm trying to emulate with Clap is the following python code:
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser()
parser.add_argument("-i", type=str, nargs="*")
(input_args, additional_args) = parser.parse_known_args()
for arg in input_args:
parser.add_argument(f'--{arg}-bar', required=true, type=str)
additional_config = parser.parse_args(additional_args)
So that you can do the following in your command:
./foo.py -i foo bar baz --foo-bar foo --bar-bar bar --baz-bar bar
and have the additional arguments be dynamically generated from the first arguments. Not sure if it's possible to do in Clap but I assumed it was maybe possible due to the Readme stating you could use the builder pattern to dynamically generate arguments[1].
So here is my naive attempt of trying to do this.
use clap::{Arg, App};
fn main() {
let mut app = App::new("foo")
.arg(Arg::new("input")
.short('i')
.value_name("INPUT")
.multiple(true)
.required(true));
let matches = app.get_matches_mut();
let input: Vec<_> = matches.values_of("input").unwrap().collect()
for i in input {
app.arg(Arg::new(&*format!("{}-bar", i)).required(true))
}
}
Which does not obviously having the compiler scream at you for both !format lifetime and app.arg I'm mostly interesting in solving how I could generate new arguments to the app which then could be matched against again. I'm quite new to rust so it's quite possible this is not possible with Clap.
[1] https://github.com/clap-rs/clap
I assumed it was maybe possible due to the Readme stating you could use the builder pattern to dynamically generate arguments[1].
Dynamically generating argument means that, you can .arg with runtime values and it'll work fine (aka the entire CLI doesn't need to be fully defined at compile-time, this distinction doesn't exist in Python as everything is done at runtime).
What you're doing here is significantly more complicated (and specialised, and odd) as you're passing through unknown parameters then re-parsing them.
Now first of all, you literally can't reuse App in clap: most of its methods (very much including get_matches) take self and therefore "consume" the App and return something else, either the original App or a result. Although you can clone the original App before you get_matches it I guess.
But I don't think that's useful here: though I have not tried it should be possible do do what you want using TrailingVarArg: this would collect all trailing arguments into a single positional arg slice (you will probably need AllowLeadingHyphen as well), then you can create a second App with dynamically generated parameters in order to parse that sub-set of arguments (get_matches_from will parse from an iterator rather than the env args, this is useful for testing... or for this exact sort of situations).
Related
I would like to have a command line in Rust using clap 4 which allows this:
app --wait
If --wait is present start a function. If is NOT present do nothing.
I'm trying the below code with no luck: the if command.contains_id("wait") is always true! With or without --wait as argument, why?
let command = Command::new("")
.arg(
Arg::new("wait")
.long("wait")
.required(false)
.num_args(0)
.help("Wait..."),
)
.get_matches();
if command.contains_id("wait") {
do_wait().await;
}
From the clap4 documentation for default_value:
Value for the argument when not present.
NOTE: If the user does not use this argument at runtime ArgMatches::contains_id will still return true. If you wish to determine whether the argument was used at runtime or not, consider ArgMatches::value_source.
So it would seem that default_value is taking affect. Why?
I'm not completely certain but it would seem that Arg::new uses defaults from Arg::default. This defaults default_vals to an empty vec, which wouldn't work on anything other than num_args(0), but does work in your case b/c you have no args.
So it looks like your solution is to use value_source instead of contains_id, however you should not use num_args like this.
Instead use .action(ArgAction::SetTrue) like so:
Arg::new("wait")
.long("wait")
.action(ArgAction::SetTrue)
.help("Wait ...")
See the flags section here for more details.
In anchor the "top" of any program features a declare_id!() statement. The input to that statement is a Pubkey, typically in the form of a hard coded string. 12Factor Methodology typically dictates that hard coded configuration values like this should be avoided. However trying to not hard code the value has me pulling out my hair.
declare_id!(std::env::var("VARIABLE_NAME"));
Does not work because the env::var call executes at runtime while the macro executes at compile time.
declare_id!(env!("VARIABLE_NAME"));
Does not work because env! returns a &str.
declare_id!(Pubkey::from_str(env!("VARIABLE_NAME")));
Does not work because Pubkey::from_str can fail and as such returns a Result
declare_id!(Pubkey::from_str(env!("VARIABLE_NAME")).unwrap());
Does not work because declare_id! requires a constant and constants cannot be made from unwrap (Its probably more nuanced than that, but I'm new to rust) and ? fails for the same reason.
How would I go about defining an environment variable within a macro?
Given the lack of resources on the topic, I'm presuming an environment variable in this case is not a best practice. Why should one not use an environment variable in this case?
How can one accomplish the injection of program id into an anchor application if environment variables are not the way to do so?
Bonus points:
env::var() returns a Result<&str>
env::var_os() returns a Result<&OsStr>
env!() returns a &str
env_os!() does not exist in core
How do you handle an OsStr environment variable at build time? Why would you not need to be able to?
Working with env vars seems troublesome, since most of the ways of creating a Pubkey aren't const fn. To me, this seems like an issue with the anchor-lang crate, usually env vars aren't this troublesome.
That said, you could write the key to a config file somewhere, and read that in using include_bytes, and pass that to Pubkey::new_from_array, which is const:
// this works because concat! expands to a string literal
const BYTES: &[u8; 32] = include_bytes!(concat!(env!("CARGO_MANIFEST_DIR"), "/key"));
anchor_lang::declare_id!(Pubkey::new_from_array(*BYTES));
If you don't want to store the file in the repo, you can point include_bytes!() at any location, even one read from an env var. For example, you could have:
const BYTES: &[u8; 32] = include_bytes!(env!("ANCHOR_KEY_LOCATION"));
anchor_lang::declare_id!(Pubkey::new_from_array(*BYTES));
which will read the key bytes from a file at $ANCHOR_KEY_LOCATION
I have the following const:
const IS_WSL: bool = is_wsl!();
and I'd like to be able to use this with the cfg attibute to perform conditional compilation. Something like:
#[cfg(const = "IS_WSL")] // what goes here?
const DOWNLOLADS: &'static str = "/mnt/c/Users/foo/Downloads";
#[cfg(not(const = "IS_WSL"))]
const DOWNLOADS: &'static str = "/home/foo/Downloads";
Obviously this syntax doesn't work, but is there any way to achieve what I'm describing?
I'm aware of custom rustc flags, but would like to avoid doing that, since there's a fair amount of logic that I'd rather not try to write in bash
The answer is not. You have to use something like build script to achieve that.
It cannot work because cfg-expansion occurs at an earlier pass in the compiler than constant evaluation.
cfg expansion works at the same time as macro expansion. Both can affect name resolution (macros can create new names, which other macros, or even the same macro, can later refer to) which forces us to use a fixed-point algorithm (resolve names, expand macros, resolve names, expand macros... until no more names can be resolved, i.e. a fixed point was reached). const evaluation takes a place after type checking, sometimes (with generic_const_exprs) even during codegen. If it could affect macro expansion, we would have a giant fixed-point loop resolve names - expand macros - resolve names - expand macros... until a fixed point is reached, then lower to HIR - type-check - evaluate constants (or even lower to MIR - monomorphize and evaluate constants) - and back to name resolution. Besides slowing the compiler down a lot, it'll also make it significantly more complex, not really something the rustc team wants.
In your specific case, since both cfg variants declare a static with the same name and type you can just match on IS_WSL:
const IS_WSL: bool = is_wsl!();
const DOWNLOADS: &'static str = match IS_WSL {
true => "/mnt/c/Users/foo/Downloads",
false => "/home/foo/Downloads",
};
Playground
This doesn't have the same power as cfg does, but it is still useful if you just need to select two values of the same type.
When I have an Arguments instance, is it possible to read the parts that make it up?
It seems like the only thing I can do with it is pass it to format! and friends.
So in the example below, is it possible to read "{} hello {}", 1 and 2?
The reason I ask is that I want to implement a custom fern log format, and I want to determine if any of the strings are valid JSON so that they can go into a separate meta JSON key for JSON-lines logging. This way the JSON data does not need to parsed by the end user from the message.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/fmt/struct.Arguments.html
let x: Arguments = format_args!("{} hello {}", 1, 2);
// Can I read back the parts from `x`?
No, Arguments does not expose its internals in a way that can be inspected.
And even if you could access the internals (as seen in the source), the elements are stored in a type-erased form, making it difficult to use beyond running it through its associated formatting function.
I'm writing a class named "MyObject".
one of the class methods is:
addTo: aCodeString assertType: aTypeCollection
when the method is called with aCodeString, I want to add (in runtime) a new method to "MyObject" class which aCodeString is it's source code and inject type checking code into the source code.
for example, if I call addTo: assertType: like that:
a := MyObject new.
a addTo: 'foo: a boo:b baz: c
^(a*b+c)'
assertType: #(SmallInteger SmallInteger SmallInteger).
I expect that I could write later:
answer := (a foo: 2 boo: 5 baz: 10).
and get 20 in answer.
and if I write:
a foo: 'someString' boo: 5 baz: 10.
I get the proper message because 'someString' is not a SmallInteger.
I know how to write the type checking code, and I know that to add the method to the class in runtime I can use 'compile' method from Behavior class.
the problem is that I want to add the type checking code inside the source code.
I'm not really familiar with all of squeak classes so I'm not sure if I rather edit the aCodeString as a string inside addTo: assertType: and then use compile: (and I don't know how to do so), or that there is a way to inject code to an existing method in Behavior class or other squeak class.
so basically, what I'm asking is how can I inject string into an existing string or to inject code into an existing method.
There are many ways you could achieve such type checking...
The one you propose is to modify the source code (a String) so as to insert additional pre-condition type checks.
The key point with this approach is that you will have to insert the type checking at the right place. That means somehow parsing the original source (or at least the selector and arguments) so as to find its exact span (and the argument names).
See method initPattern:return: in Parser and its senders. You will find quite low level (not most beautiful) code that feed the block (passed thru return: keyword) with sap an Array of 3 objects: the method selector, the method arguments and the method precedence (a code telling if the method is connected to unary, binary or keyword message). From there, you'll get enough material for achieving source code manipulation (insert a string into another with copyReplace:from:to:with:).
Do not hesitate to write small snippets of code and execute in the Debugger (select code to debug, then use debug it menu or ALT+Shift+D). Also use the inspectors extensively to gain more insight on how things work!
Another solution is to parse the whole Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) of the source code, and manipulate that AST to insert the type checks. Normally, the Parser builds the AST, so observe how it works. From the modified AST, you can then generate new CompiledMethod (the bytecode instructions) and install it in methodDictionary - see the source code of compile: and follow the message sent until you discover generateMethodFromNode:trailer:. This is a bit more involved, and has a bad side effect that the source code is now not in phase with generated code, which might become a problem once you want to debug the method (fortunately, Squeak can used decompiled code in place of source code!).
Last, you can also arrange to have an alternate compiler and parser for some of your classes (see compilerClass and/or parserClass). The alternate TypeHintParser would accept modified syntax with the type hints in source code (once upon a time, it was implemented with type hints following the args inside angle brackets foo: x <Integer> bar: y <Number>). And the alternate TypeHintCompiler would arrange to compile preconditions automatically given those type hints. Since you will then be very advanced in Squeak, you will also create special mapping between source code index and bytecodes so as to have sane debugger and even special Decompiler class that could recognize the precondition type checks and transform them back to type hints just in case.
My advice would be to start with the first approach that you are proposing.
EDIT
I forgot to say, there is yet another way, but it is currently available in Pharo rather than Squeak: Pharo compiler (named OpalCompiler) does reify the bytecode instructions as objects (class names beginning with IR) in the generation phase. So it is also possible to directly manipulate the bytecode instructions by proper hacking at this stage... I'm pretty sure that we can find examples of usage. Probably the most advanced technic.