Hi Harbs,
no, I think that warnings was already appearing before that changes.
So seems GCC is still complaining and throwing warnings
El mar., 16 jul. 2019 a las 17:58, Harbs (<harbs.li...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> 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 <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev>
> 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>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
