Command Line Compile - Determine Failure?

[laurin1]

Why doesn't the command line compiler throw an error or something on failure? When I use Scite to compile, an error is show, but when I compile a script that has an error using the command line, it just quits. I'm trying to write a bulk compiler, but there is no way to determine failures, except if the .exe is not update (modification date / time.)

[Melba23]

laurin1,

I am intrigued - how are you producing these error-ridden scripts that do not compile from the command line?

And why not run them through AU3Check before compiling - that should highlight most of the errors.

M23

[water]

Use parameter /ErrorStdOut when running your exe and pipe the output to a file.

[guinness]

What is the error? If SciTE displays an error don't ignore it, fix it.

[laurin1]

I'm not getting email notifications from the forum for these replies.

Strange responses. Of course, I am going to fix the errors. Here is what I am trying to accomplish. I use some common AU3 files amongst all of my scripts - libraries of sorts. When I change the common files, I want to re-compile all of my scripts all at once, instead of having to do each one of them indidivually - takes too long, and sometimes I forget to compile them all. I am probably going to write a bulk compiler in C#, but I need to be able to capture what errors occur OR AT LEAST capture that a script failed, which I can then open in Scite and compile normally and fix the error.

I will try parameter /ErrorStdOut suggestion.

[laurin1]

And why not run them through AU3Check before compiling - that should highlight most of the errors.

I was unaware of this process. I've always just compiled in Scite. Awesome. Perfect solution!

[kylomas]

laurin1,

Interesting topic, I assume that you are writting a source manager, of sorts. I am interested in your results, if you do not mind sharing. I'm trying to organize my spaghetti mess of code fragments and functions.

Anyone care to weigh in on this? (if this is considered hijacking then please disregard!)

kylomas

[laurin1]

Well, for starts, just the ability to buk syntax check and bulk compile, but eventually deployment and possibly more down the road.

[Jos]

A bulk compile can be done relatively easy. You can create an AutoIt3 script or use a batch file like:

@Echo off
REM BatchCompile
call:Compile test.au3
call:Compile test1.au3
Exit

:Compile
ECHO Compiling %~1
"%Programfiles%AutoIt3SciteAutoIT3wrapperAutoIT3wrapper.exe" /in "%~1" /nostatus > "%~1.log"
Echo Done RC: %ERRORLEVEL%
GOTO:EOF

This will create a LOG file for each script compiled that you can check or you could dump it all into a single log file ....

Jos

[water]

Does it really make sense to compile all scripts just because you made a change to a library?

If you add functionality I would only compile those scripts that need this new functionality. But to use it you need to change the script as well. In this case you could compile manually after changing the code.

For me it only makes sense to compile all scripts when you fixed a bug.

[kylomas]

@water -

Does it really make sense to compile all scripts just because you made a change to a library?

No, of course not. This is the idea of a source/version manager, change control and recovery. Perhaps this is beyond the scope of the OP.

kylomas