OK. FWIW, it seems like it’s being generated by an @externs comment in the AS3 class.
> On Jul 16, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Josh Tynjala <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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> >>> >> >>
