My goal is to read in graphml files and retreive information about the fields that are contained within the nodes.
I have found a node module that seems to do just that so I decided I'd give it a try before writing my own code.
Unfortunately I the documentation is pretty poor and I have only been using node.js for about three months so I cannot figure out what the few clues given mean.
Global Install
npm install -g graphml-schema-generator
To have the wizard assist you with questions, type: gschema And answer the questions until finished.
Alternatively, you can use the following syntax: gschema path/to/graphml/file path/to/out/directory The paths can be either relative or absolute. The tool should pick on it either way.
Local Install
npm install --save graphm-schema-generator
You can either type the whole path to the file each time, such as: ./node_modules/gml-to-typescript/build/index Or you can create an npm script that references the path
However you choose to go about it, the usage is exactly the same as stated in the Global Install section. Please refer to that.
If you don't want to pollute your development environment this might be a better way to install this. Then you can use npm scripts to alias it to a more manageable command.
There's no GitHub repository or what-so-ever. I have read through the code and basically there are three files of which two seem to be sourcefiles (exporting some modules that are used in the last one) and one that's called "app.ts".
I somehow expected that I could use this module like
import {<ModuleName>} from 'graphml-schema-generator';
or
require('./node_modules/graphml-schema-generator";
but this isn't the case. I do not understand what
gschema path/to/graphml/file path/to/out/directory
would mean or how it would be used. I guess there's some basic misunderstanding about packages on my side.
here's an Image of the modules hierarchy
So I want to understand how to use this module and if so, what I did wrong
Thanks in advance
Related
This is my first npm module, so be kind to me. The repository is available here. The package content is available on folder src. My question is about functionality export.
During research, this fellow provides a great step-by-step tutorial to create such package. At step 2, it exports its functionalities from multiple files into index.js and modify them in such a way that he may export only with ONE default name (neat!).
As you can see in my case, there are several functions to export.
How can I make it in a proper and clean way? The current way outputs the following error:
SyntaxError: ./arqeo/src/index.js: Identifier 'isArtifact' has already been declared. (15:11)
I have been working with TypeScript off and on for two years now. I am not an expert by any means, but I've spent some time in the eco-system: with VS2015 and node tools, with VSCode, and at the command line with tsc and typings (also used by VSCode).
And I have struggled with the correct way to get static typing and auto-complete etc in the code I've been writing.
I have a repo I maintain (EasyNodeQ) which was the start of my TypeScript experience and I sort of got that to a manageable place with ///reference and DefinitelyTyped. But any time I tried to use that within another project I had issues.
Things got a little better when I started using typings (rather than downloading the *.d.ts files myself) and especially with the ambient flag.
But I still have lots of issues trying to use that package within other projects. Depending on the approach I take, I get lots of Duplicate Identifier's, or module not found's or...
And this can range from Node definitions, to packages I use in both places (like node-uuid).
All I want to understand is this: how to I structure EasyNodeQ so that as I'm working on it, I get the static typings benefits of TypeScript but also have it be seamlessly included in other projects which can then also get these benefits?
Does that make sense?
The basic use cases are: npm install a package and get its typings, use my EasyNodeQ package and get its typings, work in a new project that uses EasyNodeQ and other packages and easily manage those typings.
Preferably in a VSCode or command line way...
This is with ES6 and the latest version of TypeScript (though an answer that works with ES5 would be nice - just not required).
I hope this makes sense. I've looked all over and I can't cobble together an answer that works.
UPDATE
I'm not convinced I've done this the "right" way, but it's working now so I thought I'd post the various things I've done (generally in the order I think they mattered and not inclusive because I may have forgotten some).
I hadn't npm'd the dependency package (easynodeq) and was just using a git url in the package.json - so I created a proper npm package and now install that package from npm
Instead of trying to use Bus.ts as both code and definition, I made Bus.js the "meat" of the npm, and built a Bus.d.ts file (also in the npm)
Embraced typings, using non-ambient definitions where possible and a mix of ambient definitions downloaded (via git) from DefinitelyTyped and "--ambient" definitions for the rest (because I'm still confused about the difference). The ambient definitions ended-up being the majority: node, express, serve-static, express-serve-static-core, mime, amqplib, when vs just bluebird and node-uuid, even though most of them were found by "typings search ..." Am I doing something wrong?
Modified package.json to also do "typings install"
Cleaned-up the git repo
There are several ways to make this work today. As you mentioned, using Typings works for definitions that aren't natively included in their NPM packages. For ones that do, you can using the typings field in package.json and it'll work with node module resolution. When you combine this together, you can publish packages that use both typings.json and relies on packaged typings - though this now forces your consumers to be using Typings to install the definitions. None of this, however, works with "ambient" definitions as they can not be namespaced properly.
This may be useful: https://github.com/typings/typings/blob/master/docs/faq.md#should-i-use-the-typings-field-in-packagejson. There's also dozens of examples I have using both workflows: https://github.com/blakeembrey/change-case/blob/master/package.json#L6 which uses node module resolution all the way down and https://github.com/blakeembrey/popsicle/blob/master/typings.json which uses Typings instead. Using Typings is only possible because it works to create namespaced ambient modules for you, but they won't conflict.
I'm writing a Perl script that takes data and writes it to an Excel file. I'm using Excel::Writer::XLSX to do this.
I'm hoping to write the script and then give it to the rest of my team so we can all use it to compile the data when we need to.
I have a few questions about this:
Do my colleagues need to have the module installed to for the script to work?
If not, how do I wrap up the module with the script to give it to them?
Is there a better way of doing this that using the module I've chosen?
There are a few ways of doing this. One options is to put together a Makefile.PL that specifies the dependencies. This allows you to bundle your script as a distribution. E.g.
use ExtUtils::MakeMaker;
WriteMakefile(
ABSTRACT => 'myscript creates Excel files',
AUTHOR => 'A.U. Thor',
EXE_FILES => [ 'myscript' ],
NAME => 'myscript',
VERSION => '1.2.3',
PREREQ_PM => {
'Excel::Writer::XLSX' => '0.88',
},
);
Then, people can do perl Makefile.PL which will inform them of the dependencies. If you do make dist, and distribute the resulting archive file, they can also use cpanm to install your script along with its dependencies.
Another option is to put together a cpanfile. Then, recipients can install all the dependencies using a tool such as cpanm.
Now, if you are distributing the script to people who do not use Perl normally, and you want them to be able to just click and run etc, you might want to look into pp.
A long time ago, I wrote a program I called scriptdist to turn a single-file program into a CPAN-like distribution, complete with a build file. That way you could pass it around as an archive and people could treat it like any other CPAN distribution. It basically automates what Sinan posted. I wrote about it for Dr. Dobbs.
There's a trick that you can use if you want to pass around the archive. The cpan tool can install from the current directory. That will get the dependencies (which, by the nature of being dependencies, are required):
$ cpan .
That way, you can install your program and its dependencies without putting anything in a CPAN-like repository.
It's far from clear what you need to know
Do my colleagues need to have the module installed to for the script to work?
I think it's obvious that your colleagues need access to your code to be able to make use of it
It's not clear what you have written, but if you have created a module then any program with access to your module files can simply use it to access its capabilities
If not, how do I wrap up the module with the script to give it to them?
Your "if not" isn't clear. What you have written means "If they don't need to have the module installed to for the script to work", and I doubt if that is your intention
"how do I wrap up the module with the script" Are you asking how to create a module, or do you already have one? Typically, modules are accessed by programmers who write a script with the use statement
If you have a module and you want other people to be able to load it with use then it must appear in one of the directories listed in their #INC array. If you are working on separate systems then it is best to create a package that you can alter as necessary and have others update
Is there a better way of doing this (than) using the module I've chosen?
Are you referring to Excel::Writer::XLSX or your own module?
If Excel::Writer::XLSX is doing what you need then you probably shgouldn't change. But if you are having problems with it in some way then you need to ask a new question and describe those issues
I think it would be great to directly import modules from node_modules directory without need to manually provide a declaration file for it (let us assume that declaration is provided with module itself). I guess that problem are dependencies that come with declarations (file paths could be resolved relative to the module, but that would cause duplicates and compiler can't handle that).
Currently working with node modules is very inconvenient because simple install from npm repository just isn't enough and we have to manually search for declarations and provide them in our project. Let's say that our project is dependent on 10 node modules (all of them have declarations) and after a year we would like to update them. We would have to manually search for new declarations and let's say that we have around 20 projects like this (it would become a nightmare). Maybe there should be an option to directly import .ts file from node module?
Do you have any suggestions?
This is a re-post from CodePlex to hear your opinions ...
If you use grunt-typescript then I've got a pull request which solves this at least for me. See https://github.com/k-maru/grunt-typescript/pull/36
From the pull request README
Working with modules in node_modules (i.e. npm)
The standard way to use npm packages is to provide a definition file
that specifies the package to the typescript and import the module from there.
///<reference path="path/to/mod.d.ts" />
import mod = module('mod')
The typescript compiler will convert the import to a nodejs require.
var mod = require('mod')
This is pretty unwieldy as you need to know the precise path to the
npm installed package and npm can put the package at pretty much any
level when you are working with multiple levels of dependencies.
With the node_modules option in the grunt config you can just
import a npm package without need to know the exact level where the
package has been installed by npm as long as it is installed locally
and not globally.
To import an npm module in your typescript source do
import npmModule = module('node_modules/npmModule/foo')
Mostly due to a lucky chance this works. Typescript compiler will read
the typescript definition file node_modules/npmModule/foo.d.ts if it
is present at some point on the way towards the root and the resulting
javascript file will contain a require for npmModule/foo if needed.
I don't think that node modules will ever contain built-in typescript support. The language still is a 0.x release and officially described as an alpha version.
Nevertheless there are means to ease the configuration process for typescript. Github already contains huge collections of .d.ts files such as:
https://github.com/borisyankov/DefinitelyTyped
or
https://github.com/soywiz/typescript-node-definitions
You might want to take a look at this tool: https://github.com/Diullei/tsd .
I've never used it but it seems like it's almost what you're looking for.
Moreover I've heard that an official database of .d.ts files is planned. Unfortunately I couldn't find the link but it will probably be some time before this is implemented anyways.
Is there a way to specify OS specific dependencies in a npm package.json file?
For example, I would only want to install 'dbus' (https://npmjs.org/package/dbus) as a dependency for my module if the user is running Linux. I would have a different dependency for Mac and Windows.
There's a possible good way of doing this, depending on your setup.
npm package.json supports an os key,
and also optionalDependencies
os can be used to specify which OS a module can be installed on.
optionalDependencies are module dependencies that if they cannot be installed, npm skips them and continues installing.
In this way you can have your module have an optional dependency for each OS, and only the one which works will be loaded/installed ^.^
EDIT: As #Sebastien mentions below, this approach is dangerous.
For any given OS, at least one of your dependencies is "required" and the rest "optional". Making all versions of the dependency optional means that if your installation fails for a legitimate reason, it will silently skip installation and you will be missing a dependency you really need.
I think the short answer is no. I can think of a couple of workarounds though - the simplest is to just add everything to package.json regardless of OS, and then require() the correct one at runtime.
If that doesn't work for you, you might be able to use an install script to get the result you're going for - https://docs.npmjs.com/misc/scripts
I haven't tested this but I think it would work:
Add something like this to your package.json:
,"scripts": {
"install": "node install_dependencies.js"
}
And then add a install_dependencies.js file that checks the OS and runs the appropriate npm install ... commands.
There's also the bindings-shyp module:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/bindings-shyp
Helper module for loading your native module's .node file
This is a helper module for authors of Node.js native addon modules. It is basically the "swiss army knife" of require()ing your native module's .node file.
Throughout the course of Node's native addon history, addons have ended up being compiled in a variety of different places, depending on which build tool and which version of node was used. To make matters worse, now the gyp build tool can produce either a Release or Debug build, each being built into different locations.
This module checks all the possible locations that a native addon would be built at, and returns the first one that loads successfully.
Quoting #npm_support at:
https://twitter.com/npm_support/status/968195526989512705
2/2 If you'd like to avoid installation problems related to dependencies, one route is for you to write a wrapper that's required as a regular dependency, and to make sure that it has optionalDeps (and also ensure that the wrapper verifies you have everything needed to work).
But IMHO it looks more like a workaround than solving the problem for real.
I can understand that npm wants to preserve portability and avoid to deal with platform specifics, but it has to be done anyway and IMHO doing this at runtime is not optimal (specialty if one wants do optimize code size).
So today I have no optimal solution to share but an open discussion for proposal.
Can't "conditional dependencies" be supported in npm ?
The 1st thing that came to my mind was to to add a "override" section that will change (+add, -remove, =replace) current parsed sections.
For example:
dependencies: { "common-stuff": "*" }
overrides: {
"os: { linux: { dependencies: { "+best-linux-module" } } }
}
And other option suggested by a developer I know, would be to introduce a provides keyword, then several modules could provide a same semantic than would be satisfied by resolver (a la debian), but it's generating similar overhead.
I am looking for a generic approach not only focused on OS support but also on other flavors of package (depending on engines for instance).
Do you know any related issue in NPM tracker ? if not I am considering to file a bug to be tracked at:
https://github.com/npm/npm/issues?q=dependencies+conditional
Feedback welcome on this idea.