Closure compiler is giving a minor warning about the externs JS files that externc is generating. Nothing has changed recently about the way we generate code with externc, as far as I know. I think it has actually always complained about our externs JS. It's just that the build is discovering a couple of new files because I fixed a bug.
Since these are just Closure compiler externs, they should not affect the compiled output of your app, even if they're from a library that you don't use. It's just a little extra console output that can be ignored. However, I can look into ignoring unused JS externs when I have time in the coming months. -- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 9:06 AM Harbs <[email protected]> wrote: > I quick look seems to indicate that these are coming from Jewel (which I'm > not using). > > > On Jul 16, 2019, at 6:58 PM, Harbs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > These warnings look new: > > > > Jul 16, 2019 6:55:16 PM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager > println > > WARNING: externs/dialogPolyfill.js:15: WARNING - accessing name > dialogPolyfill in externs has no effect. Perhaps you forgot to add a var > keyword? > > dialogPolyfill = function() { > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Jul 16, 2019 6:55:16 PM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager > println > > WARNING: externs/dialogPolyfill.js:15: WARNING - variable dialogPolyfill > is undeclared > > dialogPolyfill = function() { > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Jul 16, 2019 6:55:16 PM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager > println > > WARNING: externs/dialogPolyfill.js:23: WARNING - name dialogPolyfill is > not defined in the externs. > > dialogPolyfill.registerDialog = function(dialog) { > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Jul 16, 2019 6:55:16 PM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager > println > > WARNING: externs/hljs.js:19: WARNING - accessing name hljs in externs > has no effect. Perhaps you forgot to add a var keyword? > > hljs = function() { > > ^^^^ > > > > Jul 16, 2019 6:55:16 PM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager > println > > WARNING: externs/hljs.js:19: WARNING - variable hljs is undeclared > > hljs = function() { > > ^^^^ > > > > Jul 16, 2019 6:55:16 PM com.google.javascript.jscomp.LoggerErrorManager > println > > WARNING: externs/hljs.js:27: WARNING - name hljs is not defined in the > externs. > > hljs.highlightBlock = function(block) { > > ^^^^ > > > > Any thoughts on this? > > > >> On Jul 15, 2019, at 10:32 PM, Josh Tynjala <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hey folks, > >> > >> I just pushed some commits to royale-compiler and royale-asjs, and I > wanted > >> to add a little explanation, and some possible troubleshooting advice if > >> anything seems to have broken in your apps. > >> > >> My work over the last week has been to fix an issue related to > specifying > >> dependencies when compiling libraries for JS. As you probably know, the > >> compiler supports two options for adding libraries as dependencies, > >> library-path and external-library-path. The library-path compiler option > >> basically says "include all classes that I use from this SWC in the > final > >> output". It's typically what you use when compiling an app that uses a > >> library. The external-library-path compiler option basically says "if I > use > >> anything from this SWC, check that I'm using the types correctly, but > don't > >> include any of classes from this SWC in the final output". > >> > >> If you're compiling an app, you typically use library-path for > everything. > >> You use external-library-path only for dependencies like > >> playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc in Flash or typedef SWCs in JS. > Basically, > >> for an app project, external-library-path is for classes that are > provided > >> natively by the Flash runtime or a web browser, like Chrome or Firefox. > >> > >> When compiling libraries, external-library-path is also used to prevent > the > >> compiler from creating a "fat" library that stuffs in all of the > >> dependencies. Let's say that you have a library, A.swc. It provides some > >> core functionality that is needed by both B.swc and C.swc. When we > compile > >> B.swc and C.swc, we don't want the classes from A.swc duplicated in > both of > >> them. So we add A.swc to the external-library-path when compiling B.swc > or > >> C.swc. Then, if you use those SWCs when compiling an app, you need to > add > >> A.swc, B.swc, and C.swc to the library-path. > >> > >> To put that in Royale terms, A.swc is something like LanguageJS.swc or > >> CoreJS.swc. They're some of our lowest-level SWCs in the framework. > B.swc > >> and C.swc are more like BasicJS.swc or JewelJS.swc, and they tend to > share > >> multiple classes from the lower-level stuff. > >> > >> Up until now, library-path and external-library-path were a little > quirky > >> when compiling to JS. It was related to the goog.provide() and > >> goog.require() calls that you might have seen in the generated JS. These > >> are from the module system that we use in Royale. The compiler didn't > know > >> how to differentiate between classes that had goog.provide() and classes > >> that were typedefs for JS libraries. It treated everything on the > >> external-library-path as a typedef, and this led to missing > goog.require() > >> calls in the generated JS. To work around this, when we specified > >> dependencies in our framework SWCs, we used library-path to ensure that > >> goog.require() would be used. > >> > >> This workaround of using library-path led to "fat" SWCs that contained > all > >> of their dependencies. Low-level classes in SWCs like CoreJS were > >> duplicated in higher-level SWCs. This led to the compiler getting > confused > >> about exactly where a class was defined. > >> > >> This has resulted in some minor issues here and there, but nothing too > >> major until recently. However, Harbs noticed the other day that it > caused > >> the compiler to copy extra default CSS into apps from SWCs that you may > not > >> have been using. So, you might build an app with the Basic components, > but > >> you'd get extra CSS from Jewel or MaterialDesignLite. This could mess up > >> your app's styling pretty dramatically. > >> > >> I updated the compiler to better detect when a class needs > goog.require() > >> and when it's a typedef. If that class comes from a SWC, the compiler > knows > >> to check for an included file like, js/out/com/example/MyClass.js. If > the > >> generated JS is there, goog.require() is necessary. If it's missing, > it's > >> treated as a typedef class instead. If the class is an .as source file > >> instead, the compiler looks for the @externs asdoc tag to determine if > it's > >> a typedef class (and everything else needs goog.require() instead). > >> > >> By the way, if we ever support other module systems, it shouldn't be too > >> difficult to extend this code to detect different SWC layouts for each > >> module system. > >> > >> If your project is an app, this change should not cause any problems. > >> You're probably using library-path and external-library-path correctly. > >> > >> If you have a project that is a library, you should check your compiler > >> options to see if you are using library-path and external-library-path > >> correctly. If your library depends on another library, you probably > should > >> be using external-library-path because you don't want a "fat" SWC. In > other > >> words, if you're using library-path in a library project, you probably > need > >> to change that to external-library-path. > >> > >> If you have any custom typedef SWCs, you may want to recompile them. At > one > >> point, the compiler had a bug where classes in typedef SWCs were being > >> incorrectly added to the "js/out" folder in the SWC, but that was > >> incorrect. They should have been placed in an "externs" folder instead. > The > >> compiler handles this correctly now, but old typedef SWCs may look like > >> goog.require() SWCs instead. To be sure, you can open a SWC file in any > >> program that can read ZIP files, and you'll see the internal folder > >> structure. If a typedef SWC has a "js/out" folder, it's not going to > work > >> properly. > >> > >> If you're working directly out of the royale-compiler and royale-asjs > Git > >> repos, be sure to update and rebuild them both. The nightly builds > should > >> be updated shortly. > >> > >> When you build any apps, be sure to clean first, just to be sure that > you > >> have the latest JS files from the SWCs. > >> > >> If you run into any other problems with these changes, please let me > know. > >> I'll get them fixed right away! > >> > >> -- > >> Josh Tynjala > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > >
