I had to replace a DB table with embedded SQL in Crystal.
Now I find myself completely amazed that (apparently) I have to open thirty or more formulas one at a time and replace the table name with "Command"
If I select "All formulas" in the replace widget, all the replace controls are disabled.
This is so stupid that I figure I am missing something.
I am working the Crystal files directly in the Crystal IDE. Not able to fire up a C# or VB program to do it for me. I did try a couple of times in the past to edit things in Crystal files with regexp/perl/editors and similar, but that failed due to the Crystal file format.
(S.O. says my question "appears subjective and is likely to be closed." Huh?)
Transitioning from linked tables (Database 'expert') to a command (or the other direction) has always been painful (I've been using the product since v4)--CR doesn't have a good (or even mediocre) way to do this. You should be able to map your command to a single table, but you'll lose field (from the canvas) during the process (because CR will remove unmapped fields). Best practice is to always use a command or to wrap each table.field element in a formula field.
With earlier version of the product, I might have suggested using the SDK to make the change. However, this level of control has been shifted to BusinessObjects' RAS SDK.
If you are interested, have a look at my RptToXml project or its C# replacement.
*Update July 4*
I ended up doing the following:
Sort on date
Check if last sentence is the same
If Yes: If bigger -> this is the new message to be chosen. If smaller: remove. If no more of the same can be found, choose this one and move to another folder.
If No: move on. Loop this again until all files with certain date have been checked.
Thanks all for the help!!
I'm busy with a big project where I have a huge number of emails that I have to filter, imported from gmail through thunderbird. There is a big problem though.
Because gmail uses conversations, but thunderbird doesn't format them as such, what I have is a text file for each email, though the complete previous conversation as well. And so a whole new text file for each reply.To clarify, an example of a conversation:
Me:Hi, how are you?
You, replying: Good!
Me: Great!
In gmail this looks exactly as above, but for me this are now 3 files:
file 1:
Me, sent at 11:41:
Hi, how are you?
file 2:
You, sent at 11:42:
Good!
Me, sent at 11:41:
Hi how are you?
file 3:
Me, sent at 11:43:
Great!
You, sent at 11:42:
Good!
Me, sent at 11:41:
Hi how are you?
As you can understand, this is no problem with 3 files: I just throw away file 1 and 2 and only use file 3. That's precisely what I want to do. But considering in total there are around 30k files, I would very much like to automate that.
It is unfortunately not possible to do this complete by file name, though partially it can. The files are named after their date. For instance: 20110102 for Jan 2, 2011. However as there are multiple email conversations on a day, I would lose a lot if I would just sort by date and only keep the largest.
I hope the problem is clear and you can help me with this.
I work on Mac OSX 10.7. I've tried using Applescript, but either my script is not good or Applescript can't handle the amount of files.
Maybe you have a recommendation for software or a script in some way? I'm open for all and not unfamiliar with programming.
Thanks in advance!
As your task is basically just text processing, any language you're familiar with, including AppleScript, PHP, bash, C, should be able to do the job. I think perhaps #inTide's breaking the problem down into discreet steps is what you need to do, building one portion at a time in the language of your choice.
Pick a language that you're familiar with and start writing one the code to the first step and make sure it's working as you expect, and then expand, adding a small bit of new functionality at each point and making sure that functionality works before moving on. Without an example of the code you've written or a better description of how AppleScript is failing for you, additional advice is difficult.
I'm looking for a good efficient method for scanning a directory structure for changed files in Windows XP+. Something like how git does it is exactly what I'm looking for, when running a git status it displays all modified files, all new (untracked) files and deleted files very quickly which is exactly what I would like to do.
I have a basic model up and running which performs an initial scan and stores all filenames, size, dates and attributes.
On a subsequent scan it checks if the size, attributes or date have changed and marks as a changed file.
My issue now comes in detecting moved and deleted files. Is there a tried and tested method for this sort of thing? I'm struggling to come up with a good method.
I should mention that it will eventually use ReadDirectoryChangesW to monitor files and alert the user when something changes so a full scan is really a last resort after the initial scan.
Thanks,
J
EDIT: I think I may have described the problem badly. The issue I'm facing is not so much detecting the changes - I have ReadDirectoryChangesW() using IOCP on multiple threads to detected when a change happens, the issue is more what to do with the information. For example, a moved file is reported as a delete followed by a create and a rename comes in 2 parts, old name, followed by new name. So what I'm asking is how to differentiate between the delete as part of a move and an actual delete. I'm guessing buffering the changes and processing batches would be an option but feels messy.
In native code FileSystemWatcher is replaced by ReadDirectoryChangesW. Using this properly is not simple, there is a good baseline to build off here.
I have used this code in a previous job and it worked pretty well. The Win32 API itself (and FileSystemWatcher) are prone to problems that are described in the docs and also discussed in various places online, but impact of those will depending on your use cases.
EDIT: the exact change is indicated in the FILE_NOTIFY_INFORMATION structure that you get back - adds, removals, rename data including old and new name.
I voted Liviu M. up. However, another option if you don't want to use the .NET framework for some reason, would be to use the basic Win32 API call FindFirstChangeNotification.
You can use USN journaling if you are up to it, that is pretty low level (NTFS level) stuff.
Here you can find detailed information and source code included. It is written in C# but most of it is PInvoking C/C++ functions.
I have a source code of about 500 files in about 10 directories. I need to refactor the directory structure - this includes changing the directory hierarchy or renaming some directories.
I am using svn version control. There are two ways to refactor: one preserving svn history (using svn move command) and the other without preserving. I think refactoring preserving svn history is a lot easier using eclipse CDT and SVN plugin (visual studio does not fit at all for directory restructuring).
But right now since the code is not released, we have the option to not preserve history.
Still there remains the task of changing the include directives of header files wherever they are included. I am thinking of writing a small script using python - receives a map from current filename to new filename, and makes the rename wherever needed (using something like sed). Has anyone done this kind of directory refactoring? Do you know of good related tools?
If you're having to rewrite the #includes to do this, you did it wrong. Change all your #includes to use a very simple directory structure, at mot two levels deep and only using a second level to organize around architecture or OS dependencies (like sys/types.h).
Then change your make files to use -I include paths.
Voila. You'll never have to hack the code again for this, and compiles will blow up instantly if something goes wrong.
As far as the history part, I personally find it easier to make a clean start when doing this sort of thing; archive the old one, make a new repository v2, go from there. The counterargument is when there is a whole lot of history of changes, or lots of open issues against the existing code.
Oh, and you do have good tests, and you're not doing this with a release coming right up, right?
I would preserve the history, even if it takes a small amount of extra time. There's a lot of value in being able to read through commit logs and understand why function X is written in a weird way, or that this really is an off-by-one error because it was written by Oliver, who always gets that wrong.
The argument against preserving the history can be made for the following users:
your code might have embarrassing things, like profanity and fighting among developers
you don't care about the commit history of your code, because it's not going to change or be maintained in the future
I did some directory refactoring like this last year on our code base. If your code is reasonable structured at the beginning, you can do about 75-90% of the work using scripts written in your language of choice (I used Perl). In my case, we were moving from set of files all in one big directory, to a series of nested directories depending on namespaces. So, a file that declared the class protocols::serialization::SerializerBase was located in src/protocols/serialization/SerializerBase. The mapping from the old name to the new name was trivial, so that doing a find and replace on #includes in every source file in the tree was trivial, although it was a big change. There were a couple of weird edge cases that we had to fix by hand, but that seemed a lot better than either having to do everything by hand or having to write our own C++ parser.
Hacking up a shell script to do the svn moves is trivial. In tcsh it's foreach F ( $FILES ) ... end to adjust a set of files. Perl & Python offer better utility.
It really is worth saving the history. Especially when trying to track down some exotic bug. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, or some such junk...
As for altering all the files... There was a similar question just the other day over at:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/573430/
c-include-header-path-change-windows-to-linux/573531#573531
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
When creating a new C++ header/source file, what information do you add to the top? For example, do you add the date, your name, a description of the file, etc.? Do you use a structured format for this information?
e.g.
// Foo.cpp - Implementation of the Foo class
// Date: 2008-25-11
// Created by: John Smith
One team I know embeds CVS commit messages to the foot of each file, but I'm not sure I want to go this far...
Information about who created a file and when and who edited it and when is all in source control. If your team has good practices around check-in comments, then you'll know the reasons for each change too. No need for comments for that stuff.
I think it's 100% legit - wise, even - to put a comment block, as long as is necessary, explaining the purpose of the class/module. When the next person goes to change it, they'll have a better idea of the overall vision and whether this file is the appropriate place for their change.
Some shops put copyright notices and other legal folderol in source file comments. This strikes me as just silly - if your (non-OSS) source code has made it onto someone else's servers without your knowledge or permission, a copyright notice is probably not going to deter them from doing anything with it. IANAL, YMMV.
Don't. Most of the stuff can be retrieved from the versioning system when needed so it's redundant to add. That would leave you with the description of the content of the file but that's part of the class documentation most of the time (or at least the documentation of the specific type).
I don't do any of those, but then again, I don't like the cruft.
We're required to put copyright information at the top of each file. I think dates, authors, and the name of the file is a waste of time.
We also have our source control system append check-in comments at the bottom of each file. I initially hated the change log, but over time I learned to like it. It really helps when merging changes.
I include the file name, a brief description of the file's purpose, and a $Id$ tag for CVS or Subversion purposes. File creator and date of creation can be found by checking the repository, so it's not needed.
File name is included because depending on what you're using to edit the file, that might not be entirely apparent when you're editing it. The description can be used to determine if a bit of code belongs in the file, or if it should be moved to another. And of course, $Id$ gives you last change time, and last editor.
Embedding check-in messages is only useful when the message is useful, and only if the file is updated once and a while. Including every message will simply bloat the file to the point where there's more comments describing changes than there is actual code. Best to leave that to the repository as well; often it's only a short command line to get the file's check-in log.
If you're stuck with a revision control system that can't keep history for moves and copies, in that case just reference the original file and its version number. Of course, if you're using a system that was created sometime in this century and not the last, that shouldn't be an issue.
I used to like putting version control keywords in the header of file. But recovered from that affliction. :) For two reasons:
Nobody put comments in that are of any use. You always wind up looking at the diffs reported by the version control system.
It creates a nightmare in trying to diff large filesets because the keywords create differences that are the only difference in the file.
Originally answered here, but since deleted: 134249
I would only put two things:
licensing/copyright information
comments required by documentation-generating tools (i.e., the comments have to be in the header to work - otherwise, they should go in the definition files)
Anything else is unnecessary fluff that won't be maintained, and will eventually become worse than nothing at all.
At the time I worked for a large defense company, and we had draconian coding standards. If you followed them to the letter (and most people don't), most of your headers would be composed mostly of that meaningless fluff. Doubly worse is that the exact same fluff is required to be placed in source files as well, which means two copies of the fluff gets out of date and becomes misleading.
I don't embed the date because it's redundant. If someone wants to know the date a file was created don't trust the author, trust your source control system. It should be the defintive answer for the date of creation.
I'm definately not against embedding check in messages though. Those are pretty useful.
We use our RCS to automatically stamp the following on the file:
Copyright,
RCS file name,
Date modified,
Author of last change,
RCS revision number
I think this is very convenient. I really like having the file name automatically populated in each file, because it makes searching the solution for files very quick.
This is what i normaly put at the top of files:
///////////// Copyright © 2008 DesuraNET. All rights reserved. /////////////
//
// Project : [project name]
// File : [file name]
// Description :
// [TODO: Write the purpose of ... ]
//
// Created On: 11/12/2008 2:24:07 PM
// Created By: [name] <mailto:[email]>
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
and i set up a macro in vis to do add it in and fill in default info when i make a new file
If you're using CVS, check out it's keyword substitutions. They will help automate embedding that information.
Personally I stick this at the top of all of my source files:
// $Id$
Other informative comments I embed to be parsed with doxygen, if they relate to something specific (the file, the class, a type, etc).
i generally only add any "comment info" when...
i don't think i'll remember or its not obvious what something is doing
or
when i release the source code and i actually want others to be able to use/learn from it.
I usually include a description of the purpose of the code found in that file. Everything else seems to be handled elsewhere: dates and comments in source control, etc.
Everyone is saying that your source control will have the date and programmer info, but that isn't always true. I worked in a shop that used Source Safe, and it was fine until someone decided to move a file to a different location. At that point, it essentially became a new file according to SS, and no previous history existed.
Perhaps because of that, the programmer name and date were automatically added to the comment section at the top of the file. When there got to be more than about 10 entries, we'd strip out all of the middle ones, leaving only the original date and author, and the current information.
A copyright statement for my client ;-)
We use MSVC & VSS and have a plugin that adds any comment you specifiy at check-in to the file that's being checked in as a comment. It's very convinient to look at the top of the CPP file to find out the bug-tracking ticket number that a change was made for.
I use Subversion.
Here's what I like to put near to the top.
$Id$
$HeadURL$
That substitutes the revision, last editor, and then the location of the file in the repository. Although I always work from working copies, this lets me print/email a file and look at it later to know exactly where it came from. $HeadURL$ especially is nice because it tells what project and branch the file is in and how to get to it (nice with larger nested subpackages and the like).
Agreed on the uselessness of big manual comment blocks — although docstrings/Javadocs are recommended — and on automatically appending the commit log.
It sounds like some of you are using terrible VCSes, if you are getting diffs or merge conflicts generated by the keywords themselves. Subversion handles it well.