+1 to Josh, I think it should be possible to check even before you create a project
El miércoles, 15 de abril de 2015, Josh Soref <jso...@blackberry.com> escribió: > 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: agri...@google.com <javascript:;> [mailto:agri...@google.com > <javascript:;>] 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.treggi...@intel.com > <javascript:;>> > > 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:panar...@microsoft.com > <javascript:;>] > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:04 PM > > > To: dev@cordova.apache.org <javascript:;> > > > 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:jso...@blackberry.com <javascript:;>] > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:55 AM > > > To: dev@cordova.apache.org <javascript:;> > > > 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:panar...@microsoft.com > <javascript:;>] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 10:19 AM > > > > To: dev@cordova.apache.org <javascript:;> > > > > 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" <csantan...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> 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 <jso...@blackberry.com > <javascript:;>> > > > > 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:panar...@microsoft.com <javascript:;>] > > > > >> > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 2:53 PM > > > > >> > To: dev@cordova.apache.org <javascript:;> > > > > >> > 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 > > > > ><csantan...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > > > > >
