Today I had a Git dillema, which I posted about on Twitter:

git help! I’ve got two local branches (X and master) and their remote counterparts in github. What’s the right way to merge X into master?

Here’s the situation in more detail: I had a “feature branch” for the new luarocks doc command, and I published it on Github to get some feedback. So, at that point I had four branches: in my machine I had master and luarocks-doc. But I also had master and luarocks-doc in github as well. I’ve been pushing master into origin/master and luarocks-doc into origin/luarocks-doc… I thought about doing a straightforward local merge but history could get messy and people would complain I didn’t do it right.

Alexander Gladysh came to the rescue, with the following sequence, which he listed to me through IM and worked flawlessly:

git fetch
git checkout master
git merge --ff-only origin/master
git checkout luarocks-doc
git merge --ff-only origin/luarocks-doc
git rebase master
git checkout master
git merge --ff-only luarocks-doc
git push origin master

As he said, “then you want to either update or delete luarocks-doc in the origin”:

To update:

git push -f origin luarocks-doc

To delete:

git push origin :luarocks-doc

The –ff-only flag tells merge not to perform incomplete merges (as it happened to me so often!) so it only runs it if the command would perform its task completely.

Alexander also gave me some links to material on Git workflow models, which I’ll be sure to read:

• A successful Git branching model
• A list of popular workflow models

Hope that helps you as Alexander helped me. Sharing it forward!

Our beloved function module() is really going away. As of Lua 5.2 it’s only available with compatibility flags on, and the writing’s on the wall: it is going away for good in Lua 5.3. So, in a new Lua project I wrote this past semester, I decided to write it without using module(), while making sure my code runs on both Lua 5.1 and 5.2 (as a side result, I started the compat52 project, which allows you to write code in a well-behaved Lua 5.2 style and make it run on both 5.1 and 5.2).

So, why I liked module() in the first place? While vilified by some, I think the pros of module() largely trumped its cons. It had indeed some nice properties:

• It provided much-needed policy for interoperability between modules - for the first time people were mostly writing Lua modules the same way and they worked with each other
• It encouraged documenting the module name in its argument, which is especially useful in a world without clearly defined path policies. One would often find out where to put the module by looking at its name. Nevermind the ill-advised suggestion of writing module(...) “so that you can name the module whatever you want” — users of a module must agree on a name so that all other modules that need it can call require() properly!
• It pushed modules that return a table through require() — while Lua’s mechanisms for modules were too lax and resulted in spilling globals too often, consistent use of module() meant that you could rely on writing local foo = require("foo"), which is “environmentally” clean idiom, albeit a bit repetitive.
• You could nicely tell visibility through syntax: private functions declared with local function, public functions with function.
• Apart from the awkward package.seeall argument, use of module() was pretty-much boilerplate-free (I hate repetition in code, from the ugly local print = print idioms in Lua to the redundancy of .h and .c files in C).

So, how to try to retain some of these properties without module()? The solution I found was to adopt some bits of policy, which I list below.

Yes, bits of policy. I know many in the Lua world hate policies, but of course I’m not putting a gun against anyone’s head to follow them. I’m only sharing what works for me and hopefully you may find some use. And don’t worry it’s nothing too esoteric, and it’s mostly cherry-picking some established practices.

Starting from the outside in

Keeping in mind that the goal of a module is to be required by client code, this is how a module foo.bar will be used:

local bar = require("foo.bar") -- requiring the module

bar.say("hello") -- using the module

An interesting observation here is that although we have a hierarchical structure of modules, the practice of loading them into locals means that in use they have to be accomodated in a flat namespace. So here’s Policy Bit #1:

Policy Bit #1: always require a module into a local named after the last component of the module’s full name.

Don’t do stuff such as local skt = require("socket") — code is much harder to read if we have to keep going back to the top to check how you chose to call a module.

Naming modules

Now that you know that your module will end up in people’s locals, please take that into consideration when naming your module. (I wish we had a capitalization policy to separate that nicely, but naming things LikeThis in Lua tends to be used only for object-oriented code.)

The idea is to choose a name that strikes a balance between convenience and uniqueness, and that is usable. And what better way to achieve this other than using this name. So, here’s Policy Bit #2, let’s use the module name in its declaration!

Policy Bit #2: start a module by declaring its table using the same all-lowercase local name that will be used to require it.

So, in the beginning of module foo.bar (which will live in foo/bar.lua), we begin with:

local bar = {}

It’s not a nice self-documenting header as we used to have with module("foo.bar", package.seall), but it’s something. We can improve that with LDoc comments:

--- @module foo.bar
local bar = {}

Don’t name your module something like “size”.

Declaring functions

When I’m scrolling through source code, I like to be able to tell what’s the sphere of influence of the piece of code I’m looking at. Is this a tiny helper function that’s only used below this line in this file? Is it an important function that’s used by other clients, so that an added or removed argument would mean API breakage? Ideally I like to be able to tell that without running back and forth in the code, so I really like visibility to be explicit in the syntax.

We must not declare global functions (or globals of any type, really!) in our modules, so using “globals vs. locals” to tell the difference won’t cut it. We have some alternatives, though. But first, let’s assert one thing:

Policy Bit #3: Use local function to declare local functions only: that is, functions that won’t be accessible from outside the module.

That is, local function helper_foo() means that helper_foo is really local.

This sounds obvious, but there are advocates of declaring all functions, public and private, as local functions and then writing an “export list” at the bottom of the module. Reading code written like this feels to me like a thriller with a twist ending: “haha, I was a public function all along!”

How to write public functions then? We must not declare global functions, but there are alternatives. Say we’re writing a function that will be used in client code as bar.say("hello"). It’s nice that we can declare it just like that:

function bar.say(greeting)
   print(greeting)
end

Policy Bit #4: public functions are declared in the module table, with dot syntax.

Visibility is made explicit through syntax. This is the same idea advocated by those who tell you to name your module tables “M”, except that you’re eating your own dogfood and using the name you expect your users to use. It’s also more consistent, since calls of say() are written bar.say() everywhere, instead of say(), M.say(), etc. (Also, “M.” looks really really ugly and people can’t decide if they want to use “M” or “_M”.)

In case you have speed concerns about having your calls go through the module table: first, this is what your users will go through; second, this is no different than using colon-syntax and dispatching through self and nobody complains about that; third, if you really need it (and have a benchmarked case for it), sure go ahead and make locals for optimization clearly marked as such; fourth, if you’re really after speed you’re probably using LuaJIT and last I heard the value of caching functions into locals is put into question there.

Classes and objects

When talking about classes and objects, it’s then time to talk about things named LikeThis. (If you don’t do OOP, feel free to skip this section!)

As we did above, let’s start look from the outside in: how to instantiate an object. There are two common practices (oh why I am not surprised :( )… you either make a class table with a “new” method, or make the “class object” callable (as a function or a table with a __call metamethod — wait, that makes it three practices…)

local myset1 = Set.new() -- style 1
local myset2 = Set() -- style 2.1 (set is a function)
local myset3 = Set() -- style 2.2 (set is a table)

If your module represents a class, I tend to like style 1 better because:

• it keeps the invariant that modules are tables
• it’s easy to store “static” methods as the other functions of the table
• it’s less magic — I often run modules through for k,v in pairs(bar) do print(k,v) end in the interactive prompt to get a quick look of what they export.
• it just screams “I’m creating an object”

If all your module does is define a class, I guess it makes sense to name the module file MyClass.lua and have the class table be the module table. But I prefer not to do that, because often what we store as “static” class methods in purely OOP languages are really module functions. I still use the uppercase table when implementing the class, like this:

--- @module myproject.myclass
local myclass = {}

-- class table
local MyClass = {}

function MyClass:some_method()
   -- code
end

function MyClass:another_one()
   self:some_method()
   -- more code
end

function myclass.new()
   local self = {}
   setmetatable(self, { __index = MyClass })
   return self
end

return myclass

It’s easy to see in the code above that the functions with MyClass in their signature are methods. Sometimes it’s nice to declare the functions as fields inside the table declaration, but declaring methods separately as in the example above allows you to keep local helper functions closer to where they’re used.

If all the module does is declare the class, the class and module table may be one and the same. If you want to use style 2, we get something like this:

--- @module myproject.MyClass
local MyClass = {}

function MyClass:some_method()
   -- code
end

function MyClass:another_one()
   self:some_method()
   -- more code
end

local metatable = {
   __call = function()
      local self = {}
      setmetatable(self, { __index = MyClass })
      return self
   end
}
setmetatable(MyClass, metatable)

return MyClass

Both methods are acceptable, as long as it’s easy and obvious to tell you’re doing OOP:

Policy Bit #5: construct a table for your class and name it LikeThis so we know your table is a class.

Policy Bit #6: functions that are supposed to be used as object methods should be clearly marked as such, and the colon syntax is a great way to do it.

Don’t make people reading your function have to guess (or look up) if it is a method, a public module function or a local function.

Wrapping up

Return the module table. It’s a bit of boilerplate, but it’s what we have to deal with in a module()less world:

return bar

Policy Bit #7: do not set any globals in your module and always return a table in the end.

To sum it all up, a complete module foo.bar would look like this:

--- @module foo.bar
local bar = {}

local function happy_greet(greeting)
   print(greeting.."!!!! :-D")
end

function bar.say(greeting)
   happy_greet(greeting)
end

return bar

The result is that we type a bit more than we did with module(), and we risk polluting the global namespace if we’re not careful, but with this set of policies, we have:

• fairly self-documented code
• visibility rules readable through syntax
• modules that predictably return tables
• as much consistency and as little boilerplate as possible

…which mostly matches what I liked about module(), to the extent that can be done without _ENV tricks.

I’ve been using these policies successfully in a university project, and my plan is to follow them when I update the LuaRocks codebase to drop the use of module(). Consider your self encouraged to adopt some or hopefully all of them, but most importantly, whatever you do, be consistent! Good luck in this brave post-module() world!

Quick-and-dirty notes so I remember how to do it later. This is may all be mostly automatic in some distros (Ubuntu?) but here’s how to do it “by hand”. I may streamline the process myself for my machine in the future, but this is a minimal process that works.

My setup:

• Samsung Galaxy S3 SGH-T999, not rooted
• my own hacked up version of GoboLinux, so this should work on any distro

The steps:

1. Install Droid NAS on your phone. Their description say it “most probably […] won’t work” on Linux, but it is based on Bonjour (aka mDNS protocol) and SMB, and there are Linux clients for that.
2. Create a directory for your local mount point (mine is /Mount/Phone) and then mount it like this:
   

   mount -t cifs -o port=7777 //192.168.0.106/"SD Card" /Mount/Phone

   (You can find your phone’s IP with avahi-browse -altr, if avahi-daemon is running).

TODO: convince mount.cifs to use a logical name instead of IP there. Might need to use avahi and nss-dns for that; by the way, if you get an error such as “Connection “:1.10” is not allowed to own the service “org.freedesktop.Avahi” due to security policies in the configuration file” when using avahi-daemon, follow the instructions found here).

Java (as of version 6, aka 1.6) does not allow you to declare a static HashMap as conveniently as an array. Still, you have the alternative of using a static block in your class to add fields. Take this example:

import java.util.HashMap;

public class StaticHashMapTest {
	private final static HashMap constants = new HashMap();
	static
	{
		constants.put("A", "The Letter A");
		constants.put("B", "The Letter B");
		constants.put("C", "The Letter C");
	}
	/* Rest of your class that needs to know the consts */
}

This works fine. But then you want to map something a little more complex than a string to another string. And I don't mean something very complex... just, say, a string to a string and an integer (yes, you'd like to use some kind of "pair object", but it looks like Java does not have it).

So you go and try to do things The Java Way (tm) and create a tiny class just to hold your two values:

import java.util.HashMap;

public class StaticHashMapTest {

	private class Pair {
		final String name;
		final int number;
		public Pair(String name, int number) {
			this.name = name;
			this.number = number;
		}
	}

	private final static HashMap constants = new HashMap();
	static
	{
		constants.put("A", new Pair("The Letter A", 123));
		constants.put("B", new Pair("The Letter B", 456));
		constants.put("C", new Pair("The Letter C", 789));
	}
	/* Rest of your class that needs to know the consts */
}

This should suffice, right? I even made the Pair class private to my class, to ensure good information hiding (that's what Java is all about, right?). Turns out this fails to compile:

StaticHashMapTest.java:18: non-static variable this cannot be referenced from a static context
      constants.put("A", new Pair("The Letter A", 123));
                         ^
StaticHashMapTest.java:19: non-static variable this cannot be referenced from a static context
      constants.put("B", new Pair("The Letter B", 456));
                         ^
StaticHashMapTest.java:20: non-static variable this cannot be referenced from a static context
      constants.put("C", new Pair("The Letter C", 789));
                         ^
3 errors

The error messages say that my "new" operators are failing due to the use of the "this" variable, which is not there at all! But hey, we can call "new" from a static context, can't we? We just did that when declaring the HashMap itself.

It turns out that the problem is that we're using an inner class. Objects from inner classes hold a "this" reference to their parent object (yes, as in myInnerObject.this.myParentAttribute... go figure), hence the trouble with the implicit "this" reference.

You have to make it a static inner class, which means it doesn't know anything about the enclosing class. Yes, that's yet another meaning for the word "static" in programming. Due to this peculiar meaning, inner classes are the only context where you can use the "static" qualifier to a class declaration in Java.

This, therefore, works:

import java.util.HashMap;

public class StaticHashMapTest {

	private static class Pair {
		final String name;
		final int number;
		public Pair(String name, int number) {
			this.name = name;
			this.number = number;
		}
	}
	private final static HashMap constants = new HashMap();
	static
	{
		constants.put("A", new Pair("The Letter A", 123));
		constants.put("B", new Pair("The Letter B", 456));
		constants.put("C", new Pair("The Letter C", 789));
	}
	/* Rest of your class that needs to know the consts */
}

And that's Java for you.

I have a hard time memorizing certain unfrequent tasks on Git. I’ll write them down here as I learn them so I can look it up later.

Undo a commit

If you just made a commit (perhaps typing git commit -a too eagerly) and realize you made a mistake, use this to uncommit the modified code, so it shows as “modified:” in git status again and appears again in git diff:

git reset HEAD~

I even added an alias git undo-commit, like this:

git config --global alias.undo-commit 'reset HEAD~'

Getting the last commit from another branch

When working in an alternative branch, you can retrieve the latest commit from another branch with this:

git cherry-pick other-branch

Example:

$ git checkout anotherBranch
$ git branch
* anotherBranch
  master
$ edit some files...
$ git commit -a
$ git checkout master
$ git branch
  anotherBranch
* master
$ git cherry-pick anotherBranch

Interactively select which edits should be committed

After making several edits across files, sometimes you want to add them as separate commits. Committing files separately is easy, but sometimes various edits in the same file should be different commits (or some changes to a file are ready to be committed but others are not). To commit part of the changes to a file, use:

git add -p

From the manual:

“Interactively choose hunks of patch between the index and the work tree and add them to the index. This gives the user a chance to review the difference before adding modified contents to the index. This effectively runs add –interactive, but bypasses the initial command menu and directly jumps to the patch subcommand.”