I want my hour back. No, seriously; that's what happens when you don't touch a tool for a while, but you spend a lot of time with its "kissin' cousin."
Phing, if you're new-ish to serious PHP development, is your ultimate Swiss Army Ginsu Chainsaw™. It's a "build tool" that lets you automate pretty near anything, especially having to do with PHP. There are several dozen "tasks", like the PhpCodeSnifferTask, the IfTask, and of course the PhingTask. There is also good documentation on extending Phing; adding all sorts of new tasks and other bits, and people have run with the ball.
Put another way, if you're coming from the Java omniverse, Phing is analogous to Apache Ant, with at least as vibrant a community effort throwing stuff over the wall.
Sometimes the things that get thrown over the wall blow up, though. Sometimes that isn't Phing's phault, though that's the fish-eye lens you're looking through as you grapple with the problem. FOr instance, the PEAR coding standards as interpreted by PHP CodeSniffer require tags in the internal documentation you must produce to comply with the standard that are not supported by the documentation generator they're ostensibly intended for. You'll see your Phing script break on that rock — unless you "change the conditions of the test." Figuring out the (multiple) flags, option settings and occult incantations necessary to make things run smoothly will take you some time to figure out, unless you just did it last week and wrote copious notes in your wiki.
But the absolute break-down-and-laugh-until-you-cry moment came from the way Phing handles "custom properties," the symbols you can define to make your Phing life easier in various ways, like having common, shared policies and processes across projects, with specific values set on a per-project basis. You whip up a new "property file" as part of a new project, and reuse your existing XML "build file." Ah, but there is one sizable bump to trip the unwary or rushed: Properties are specified in a sensible XML format when included in the build file, but separate, included "property files" look like old-style Windows .ini files. And $DEITY help you if you forget, because Phing sure won't.
Let's say you have a "drop-dead simple" build.xml file, like this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <project name="demo1" default="demo"> <if> <equals arg1="${usepropfile}" arg2="false" /> <then> <property name="foo" value="baz" /> </then> <else> <property file="build.properties" /> </else> </if> <target name="demo"> <echo message="Demo target; foo= ${foo}." /> </target> </project>
If you screw up the build.properties file — say, by specifying your values in the same sort of XML format:
<property name="foo" value="quuz" />
you'll see a most sublimely confarkled message:
.... [echo] Demo target; foo= ${foo}. ....
At this point, you'll either have a D'oh! moment, or you'll start chasing your tail. Choose Door #2, and you could be at it a while.
The answer, as often, is RTFM. Appendix F (!) of the Phing manual defines the "Property File Format," which is our venerable foil the .ini file with a few twists (like being able to define properties that incorporate the values of other properties – just like in build.xml).
Would it really have been too complicated to use the same format (i.e., the XML tags) in the property file as in the build file? You could even deal with making it valid XML with minimal effort. But no...
I actually did learn this properly a couple of years ago, when Phing was new and kind of shiny. It's only become more powerful since then. Just don't hold three lighted M-80s in your hand.
Why rant about this? I've long firmly believed that one of the main duties of a master craftsman, in any craft – including software development – is to occasionally fall into the weeds, pick himself up, and remind the young journeymen and apprentices "don't do what I just did; you'll make yourself look silly, or worse." Better for one person to do it who can be reasonably expected to pick himself up, than for a dozen others to fall in with no idea how deep they're getting.
No comments:
Post a Comment