Devel

[mislavn]

add swig javascript bindings to libyang.

[codecov-io]

Current coverage is 36.05%

Merging #29 into devel will increase coverage by +0.02% as of ab56192

@@            devel     #29   diff @@
=====================================
  Files          27      27       
  Stmts       16475   16467     -8
  Branches        0       0       
  Methods         0       0       
=====================================
  Hit          5937    5937       
  Partial         0       0       
+ Missed      10538   10530     -8

Review entire Coverage Diff as of ab56192

Powered by Codecov. Updated on successful CI builds.

[rkrejci]

Hi, I have 2 notes:

1. please add some short note about building SWIG bindings into the README.md (probably as a new section after Tests) and maybe some more detailed README into the swig/ directory.

2. building the binding generates a lot of warnings:

libyang/src/libyang.h:731: Warning 312: Nested union not currently supported (ignored).
libyang/src/tree_schema.h:443: Warning 312: Nested union not currently supported (ignored).
libyang/src/tree_schema.h:1074: Warning 312: Nested union not currently supported (ignored).
libyang/src/tree_schema.h:235: Warning 451: Setting a const char * variable may leak memory.
libyang/src/tree_schema.h:236: Warning 451: Setting a const char * variable may leak memory.
...

I'm not sure how the generated binding works, but

• in case of Nested union it seems that the caller doesn't have access to some members that should be accessible. I'm actually fine with this warning since it seems to be a limitation of SWIG. Maybe this limitation should be better described in swig/README.
• in case of const char* issue it seems that it generates something to set those values, but they are actually supposed to be (for the caller) read-only. Is it possible to avoid generation of such setters? Or what is the problem in this case?

[mislavn]

1. I send you a new pull request with the two new README files. We will
   expand this with added javascript examples.

2. For now we have used the default settings for generating javascript
   bindings. The mapping is described in swig/javascript/libyang_javascript.i.

%module libyang_javascript
%{

#include "libyang.h"
#include "tree_schema.h"
#include "tree_data.h"
#include "xml.h"
#include "dict.h"

%}

%include "libyang.h"
%include "tree_schema.h"
%include "tree_data.h"
%include "xml.h"
%include "dict.h"

Later we will modify this so the errors are fixed and the generated code is
more javascript like. For an example we will add javascripts error handling.

We will also add tests in javascript and demonstrate how to use the
javascript api. For now i will add new cmocka unit tests and when I am
finished
with that it will be easier for me to modify the javascript bindings and
add unit tests for javascript.

Best regards,
Mislav Novakovic

On 1 March 2016 at 09:55, Radek Krejčí notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi, I have 2 notes:

1. please add some short note about building SWIG bindings into the
   README.md (probably as a new section after Tests) and maybe some more
   detailed README into the swig/ directory.

2. building the binding generates a lot of warnings:

libyang/src/libyang.h:731: Warning 312: Nested union not currently supported (ignored).
libyang/src/tree_schema.h:443: Warning 312: Nested union not currently supported (ignored).
libyang/src/tree_schema.h:1074: Warning 312: Nested union not currently supported (ignored).
libyang/src/tree_schema.h:235: Warning 451: Setting a const char * variable may leak memory.
libyang/src/tree_schema.h:236: Warning 451: Setting a const char * variable may leak memory.
...

I'm not sure how the generated binding works, but

• in case of Nested union it seems that the caller doesn't have access
  to some members that should be accessible. I'm actually fine with this
  warning since it seems to be a limitation of SWIG. Maybe this limitation
  should be better described in swig/README.
• in case of const char* issue it seems that it generates something to
  set those values, but they are actually supposed to be (for the caller)
  read-only. Is it possible to avoid generation of such setters? Or what is
  the problem in this case?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#29 (comment).