Is there a way/parameter that turns off case sensitivity in requirejs, for that matter is there a r.js switch to disable case sensitivity.
If i define a module in x.js
if i ask for it via define('x',function(x){}) or define('X',function(x){}) this will cause two objects in requirejs.s.contexts._.defined[x and X]
Is there a way to-lower all of this and not worry that someone will uppercase a character.
For that matter r.js minifies by walking the dependency tree is there a switch to make it not case sensitive so that i don't get two define('x'...define('X'.. modules in the minified output.
No, there's no flag or setting you can turn on to do this. And having read RequireJS' code, I think this would be a significant enterprise to make it case-insensitive. It would require more than just overriding a few functions here and there. This applies to require.js and r.js.
In an old thread, James Burke mentioned using map but that's not the same thing as case insensitivity.
Related
Is there a way to disable react-jsx transformation in some files of a ReasonReact project?
I think the other way around is possible by not adding "reason": { "react-jsx": 3 } to bsconfig.json and by adding ##bs.config({jsx: 3}) to the top of the files where you want react-jsx transformation, but that would force me to add this annotation in too many files.
I'd like to build a small DSL based on JSX in a few files while benefiting from React in the rest of my project.
Note: the solution suggested is not very straight forward, and I think it's much simpler to add ##bs.config annotations explicitly in all required files, but if you really don't want to do that, the following might work.
If I'm reading the compiler code correctly, user-defined ppxs are applied before ReasonReact ppx. In the linked compiler module, Cmd_ppx_apply.apply_rewriters will apply with all arguments passed with -ppx flag, and Ppx_entry.rewrite_implementation is ReasonReact ppx.
Assuming that's true, one could have a ppx that checks a top-level statement like ##custom.jsx at the top of the file, that the ppx would check. The ReasonReact ppx used to have a similar check, in case it serves as reference.
Then if this statement is found, the custom ppx would process the nodes that have the #JSX attributes and make sure it removes the attributes from them, so when the compiler passes the AST to ReasonReact ppx, it won't see them.
Note this would break if the ReScript ppx pipeline is updated one day to a driver-based one (unlikely I'd say because that would mean ReScript should support native libraries as 1st class citizens somehow), or if the ordering that was mentioned above changes (ReasonReact ppx applies before user-defined ones).
In CMake, we can use find_dependency() in an package -config.cmake file to "forwards the correct parameters for QUIET and REQUIRED which were passed to the original find_package() call." So, naturally we'll want to do that instead of calling find_package() in such files.
Also, for dependency on a threads library, CMake offers us the FindThreads module, so that we write include(FindThreads), prepended by some preference commands, and get a bunch of interesting variables set. So, that's preferable to find_package(Threads).
And thus we have a dilemma: What to put in -config.cmake files, for a threads library dependency? The former, or the latter?
Following a discussion in comments with #Tsyarev, it seems that:
find_package(Threads) includes the FindThreads module internally.
... which means it "respects" the preference variables affecting FindThreads behavioe.
so it makes sense, functionally and aesthetically, to just use find_package() in your main CMakeLists.txt and find_dependency() in -config.cmake.
I've been tasked with creating conformance tests of user input, the task if fairly tricky and we need very high levels of reliability. The server runs on PHP, the client runs on JS, and I thought Haxe might reduce duplicative work.
However, I'm having trouble with deadcode removal. Since I am just creating helper functions (utilObject.isMeaningOfLife(42)) I don't have a main program that calls each one. I tried adding #:keep: to a utility class, but it was cut out anyway.
I tried to specify that utility class through the -main switch, but I had to add a dummy main() method and this doesn't scale beyond that single class.
You can force the inclusion of all the files defined in a given package and its sub packages to be included in the build using a compiler argument.
haxe --macro include('my.package') ..etc
This is a shortcut to the macro.Compiler.include function.
As you can see the signature of this function allows you to do it recursive and also exclude packages.
static include (pack:String, rec:Bool = true, ?ignore:Array<String>, ?classPaths:Array<String>):Void
I think you don't have to use #:keep in that case for each library class.
I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, I hope it helps.
Otherwise this could be helpful checks:
Is it bad that the code is cut away if you don't use it?
It could also be the case some code is inlined in the final output?
Compile your code using the compiler flag -dce std as mentioned in comments.
If you use the static analyzer, don't use it.
Add #:keep and reference the class+function somewhere.
Otherwise provide minimal setup if you can reproduce.
When I use --nolazy, I can finally debug asynchronously with IntelliJ, as breakpoints stop at the correct place. But I can't find any docs on --nolazy...
What does --nolazy mean?
To let anyone know, if you debug node js (especially remote debug) and use async type coding which you kind of have to as this is the nature of node, you will to run node with the flag of -nolazy
node --nolazy --debug-brk sample1.js
this will force V8 engine to do full compile of code and thus work properly with IntelliJ and WebStorm so you can properly place breakpoints in the code and not have to use the ;debugger; string which v8 looks for...
hope this helps someone, sure helped me :)
Sean.
As others have said, you can see command line options for v8 with
node --v8-options
There, you can see a listing for --lazy:
--lazy (use lazy compilation)
type: bool default: true
v8 uses a fairly common way to describe booleans - prefix the flag with no to set to false, and use just the flag to set to true. So --nolazy sets the lazy flag to false.
Note: node uses a slightly different convention - there, you use the no- prefix (note the dash) to set bools to false. For example, --no-deprecation is a node flag.
refer to:
https://vscode-docs.readthedocs.io/en/stable/editor/debugging/
For performance reasons Node.js parses the functions inside JavaScript files lazily on first access. As a consequence, breakpoints don't work in source code areas that haven't been seen (parsed) by Node.js.
Since this behavior is not ideal for debugging, VS Code passes the --nolazy option to Node.js automatically. This prevents the delayed parsing and ensures that breakpoints can be validated before running the code (so they no longer "jump").
Since the --nolazy option might increase the start-up time of the debug target significantly, you can easily opt out by passing a --lazy as a runtimeArgs attribute.
Problem: when you want to set breakpoints in ides to debug js codes in nodejs, some breakpoints doesn't work.
Reason: On start, node parses the code lazily, it means it doesn't see the full code. so it doesn't see all of the breakpoint.
Solution: Use --no-lazy option to turn of the node's lazy behavior.
( Ps: i tried to explain it easily and it may not be so accurate. )
Run
node --v8-options
it will show you all available flags.
btw: closest flag I have found for you is
--lazy
means lazy compilation, which I believe is obvious by name
I'm working on a large Node project. Naturally, I want to break this into multiple source files. There are many modules from the standard lib that I use in a majority of my source files, and there are also quite a few of my own files that I want to use almost everywhere.
I've been making this work by including a huge require block at the beginning of each source file, but this feels awfully redundant. Is there a better way to do this? Or is this an intended consequence of Node's admirable module system?
You can use a container module to load a series of modules. For example, given the following project structure:
lib/
index.js
module1.js
module2.js
main.js
You can have index.js import the other modules in the library.
# index.js
module.exports.module1 = require('./module1');
module.exports.module2 = require('./module2');
Then main.js need only import a single module:
# main.js
var lib = require('./lib');
lib.module1.doSomething();
lib.module2.doSomethingElse();
This technique can be expanded, reducing redundant imports.
I'd say generally that a require block is better practice than using global in Node.
You need to remember that requires are cached so when you put them in all of your code modules, you will always get the same instance not a new one each time.
Doing it this way ensures that you get the appropriate code with the expected name spaces exactly where you want it whereas using global will include things you don't need. Doing it the Node way with require will also tend to make your code slightly more portable.
Well, a couple of things, here.
First, if so many of your files are requiring the same libraries over and over again, you might want to step back and determine if you're really breaking your code up in the proper way. Perhaps there's a better organization where certain libraries are only needed by subsets of your source files?
Second, remember that the global object is shared between all of your required files in your Node.js app. Your "root" source file, say index.js, can do things like global.fs = require('fs'); and then it's accessible from all of your various files. This would eliminate the need to require a file full of requires. (In Node.js, you have to explicitly state that you're accessing a global variable by prepending global., unlike in the browser.)
This can be a good idea for CRUD-type Express apps where you have lots of code for controllers that are all almost the same but have to be slightly different for each view and you just want to split them apart not for any particular organization structure, but just to make it easier to debug (error in this file, not that file). If the structure of the app is more complex than that, take the usual warnings against global variables to heart before using that trick.
Require more than one file without absolute path through require-file-directory.
1- Can require more than one file in single statement.
2- Can require files with only their name.
Visit for solution: https://www.npmjs.com/package/require-file-directory