Hi,
if someone from PSC reads this: Here is a feature request for OpenEdge Architect.
The OpenEdge -> Compile tool in the context menu of the resources view is very nice and handy. It would be even nicer, if somewhere in the folder or project properties you could exclude directories from compilation. Maybe on an individual file would also be nice.
I'd like to use this to prevent templates or migration programs from being compiled. I regularly do a complete compile of a project before I check in major changes to the SCM tool.
I feel disturbed by all that red Xs on folders that only contain procedures that do not compile by purpose.
The application compiler offered this possibility the other way round by adding only those directories to the compile job that were supposed to be compiled.
What do you think?
Mike
If one is going to do it properly, it should probably be a property of both files and directories.
However, one might note that one can avoid the problem to a large extent by the use of extensions and the reference to them in the setup. We have often used .pn, for example, to indicate a file that is logically a .p, but which will not compile on its own, but which needs to be compiled as part of a design or run time process.
I tested your suggestion, but renaming .p files to .pn seems to break syntax recognition which is even worse than the red X.
Or can I forse OEA to treat any extension as a progress procedure within the editor?
Did you try putting the .pn extension in with the list of include extensions? That should keep syntax checking, but exclude it from compiles.
Mike,
The best way to get this in is to add an enhancement request at
http://www.progress.com/cgi-bin/ers.cgi/login.htm
Hi Mike,
In the preferences dialog there is a way to associate any extension to any editor. Choose Window->Preferences->General->File Extensions.
Would it work to put your templates into a separate project that is not an OpenEdge project, just a basic Eclipse project? This way no files in that project would be compiled?
Many of the places I have used non-compilable programs in the past, I would want them in the directory where the other associated programs. I don't know what he is using as "templates", but it would certainly be better to get intelligent compile and syntax behavior within a project.
I didn't have time to check the File Extensions "Trick" yet.
Anyway, that won't be 100% satisfying. When I work with Dynamics, I usually import the Dynamics Source code to my project. Then look at the src/dynamics/ry/tem/... files (not supposed to compile). No way, that I can move them without changing the file structure of a Dynamics release.
Mike
Mike,
The best way to get this in is to add an enhancement
request at
http://www.progress.com/cgi-bin/ers.cgi/login.htm
Is the ERS active? I know I have pending requests dating from 1999 (or so) that never have been answered (they have state "EVAL" for instance)
It does get looked at by lots of people. I review it out of curiosity every so often, and there are new requests going in by various parties.
I believe that there is already a request in there to have exclude directories added in. Add your vote/comments to it.
Indeed it is: Look at EnhReq Id: 0000003481
Mike
Thomas,
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "intelligent compile and syntax behavior"? Is this one thing or two? How does this relate to compiling templates which are effectively intentionally uncompilable files that have the same file extension as files that are supposed to be compilable?
One thing. It is "intelligent" if it can recognize that a file contains ABL code, and thus should display syntax coloring and the like, but that it also distinguishes what should and shouldn't be a compile unit.
Having had a history which involved a certain amount of old Varnet code with no file extensions, I went to maintaining a .cl list of files to compile by directory as a way to achieve this functionality, but lots of people don't like having to maintain the lists. OEA doesn't handle the extensionless files well either.