Move the pcap example into Source/Examples/ #1119
Conversation
Motivation: The PCAP example depends on swift-nio-extras. Since grpc-swift now depends on swift-nio-extras (and we have target based dependency resolution) the example can live in-source with other examples. Modifications: - Move Examples/PCAPExample to Source/Examples/PacketCapture. - Make it a target in the GRPC package, rather than its own package. Result: Easier to avoid bit-rot.
|
|
||
| // Client for the PacketCapture example | ||
| .target( | ||
| name: "PacketCapture", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
shouldn't all targets be GRPC prefixed? Targets need to be unique across the whole binary (so all dependencies' targets must be globally unique)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't that only necessary for targets which are also products?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@glbrntt no, there can only be one module of a given name in the whole binary. Some people call it the Utilities module problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, but we have target specific dependencies right? So this module won't be in the product, because it's an executable target.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And I think in your particular case it will appear to work (because it's just an example). But I think there's some weird issue when you do swift package edit where then even modules that aren't officially exported at all start to clash (I think we had this with NIOHTTP1Server or something where multiple NIO packages used to define that).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Lukasa I don't think I filed one but this is a long time ago.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@weissi I can't repro that. Plus, I thought the reasoning for the package description API in 5.2 where packages are explicitly named was to avoid this problem?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@glbrntt that is possible. Maybe it's just a problem in < 5.2? Tbh I don't fully understand what's going on but it used to break the release tools. But we do test with 5.0 there...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I can totally believe that it didn't work before 5.2. Any objections to leaving the naming as is @weissi?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@glbrntt go for it. We can fix that at any time if it causes trouble.
Motivation:
The PCAP example depends on swift-nio-extras. Since grpc-swift now
depends on swift-nio-extras (and we have target based dependency
resolution) the example can live in-source with other examples.
Modifications:
Result:
Easier to avoid bit-rot.