-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 754
Add compile-time version macros #2118
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
seladb
wants to merge
3
commits into
dev
Choose a base branch
from
compile-time-version
base: dev
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+89
−1
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's possible to create this string using macros, but it'll be very complex, so maybe it's easier to keep it as is...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suppose we can manually set it.
A potential alternative is to have the cmake build system generate the version file, like it does with the package config files. I think that is generally more flexible and we would only need to change the version in the CMakeLists.
Also, do you think we should include the patch number in all versions? (eg. 25.05.0), so people always expect it if they decide to do magic with the version string?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@seladb Additional discussion may be needed separately, but I managed to get CMake to compile a version from the git tags. The versioning is based on the signature
major.minor.patch.tweak.It fetches the MAJOR, MINOR, PATCH from the most recent tag. (eg. last release)
It then calculates the Tweak version as the number of commits past the most recent tag the build is.
If we are precisely on the release commit, the tweak version will be 0 and the full version
maj.min.patch.0, if we are 1 commit past it it will bemaj.min.patch.1. This can then be used to determine official releases (tweak 0) vs nightly / dev builds (tweak != 0).The solution will allow us to have rolling versions unique for each development build commit, so we don't have just a nebulous "DEV" version flag. For example the current master would be
25.05.0.201.A extended version string can also be added with a commit hash, if we need to differentiate between commits on different branches, but I think most will be used from the
master/devline.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure we need a build version because we never publish those versions. We don't even publish patch versions... I think
year.month.patchis enough for the version.I'm curious how does it work?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sure. I guess that works.
It is based on
git describe --tags --long --always, which is called during the CMake configure step. The command results in a string likev25.05-211-g1a2ad56bwhich can then be reformatted. From what I have seen, it fetches the latest tag that the current commit is derived from. The command can be configured to select only annotated tags (default), or any tags (--tags).Also, on second thoughts it does have some inconvenient drawbacks. Main one is that it establishes a dependency on the git repo being available at configure time to compute the correct version. This leads to some problems when remote compilation is used, like building on WSL since the default behaviour of
rsyncdoes not copy the.gitfolder since it is not needed. The requirement should only be relevant when the lib is build from source tho, since installs don't really run the configure the same way.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes I agree. Version should probably be static and not rely on CMake configuration or on git.
Should we stick with what we have in this PR?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, it might be fine to rely on CMake configuration to generate the Version.h header as long as the version in the configuration is static? We could have the cmake project version to be the "source of truth" for version.
As a sidenote, setting project version would also allow consuming packages to designate required versions for the package directly in the build system like this
find_package(PcapPlusPlus 25.04 ...).Anyway, that can be handled in a separate PR, if we decide to do it as it does not strictly relate to the current PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. Do you suggest adding another file
version.hin addition toPcapPlusPlusVersion.hthat is based on CMake?As you said, we can probably merge this PR as is and address this separately later.