if(include_once()) {} or similar scrambled by File Compiler

[tomfrit]

I am trying to include getid3 in my project but every
if(require_once()) or if(include_once()) is turned upside down by File Compiler:
if(!include_once(GETID3_INCLUDEPATH.'getid3.lib.php')) {
is turned into
if(! include_once(\ProcessWire\wire('files')->compile(GETID3_INCLUDEPATH.'getid3.lib.php')) {,array('includes'=>true,'namespace'=>true,'modules'=>true,'skipIfNamespace'=>true))

[Toutouwai]

You can prevent the File Compiler from compiling an included file by using a /*NoCompile*/ comment:
https://processwire.com/blog/posts/processwire-3.0.43-core-updates/#new-filecompiler-options

include(/*NoCompile*/ __DIR__ . '/library/file.php'); // do this…
include(__DIR__ . '/library/file.php' /*NoCompile*/ ); // …or this

[tomfrit]

Thanks @Toutouwai I didn't know that. I selected "only templates" in the admin compile section so now it works. Still thought this is worth reporting.
Cheers

[ryancramerdesign]

@tomfrit The FileCompiler is there to help you translation PW 2.x templates to PW 3.x namespace templates. But most people don't need it at all now, so if you can, disable template compiling completely by setting $config->templateCompile = false; in your /site/config.php file. Or if you want to do it on a per-template basis, then add a <?php namespace ProcessWire; at the top of the template file and PW will not try to compile it (and leave your include calls alone, etc.). Actually, you'll probably want the ProcessWire namespace at the top of your site template files regardless of whether templateCompile is false or true, just so you can refer to any PW classes, constants, etc. directly.

[Toutouwai]

The FileCompiler is there to help you translation PW 2.x templates to PW 3.x namespace templates.
Or if you want to do it on a per-template basis, then add a <?php namespace ProcessWire; at the top of the template file and PW will not try to compile it

@ryancramerdesign, a side note regarding this...

When the FileCompiler was introduced you said that compiled templates were about more than just the ProcessWire namespace and that part of the reason was to allow for a new class of FileCompiler modules.

https://processwire.com/blog/posts/processwire-3.0-alpha-2-and-2.6.22-rc1/#file-compiler-modules

But the way that the default compilation settings and a declared ProcessWire namespace affect FileCompiler modules makes them unpractical IMHO. Please see this issue: #882

[ryancramerdesign]

When the FileCompiler was introduced you said that compiled templates were about more than just the ProcessWire namespace and that part of the reason was to allow for a new class of FileCompiler modules.

That's definitely what I was thinking at the time. But that was also a long time ago, and I don't think it's played out. I built a FileCompiler module that seemed pretty useful at the time but ultimately wasn't. My experience has been that there are greater benefits and less ambiguity working directly with PHP, and without additional layers or compilation on top of it. Though that's just my experience thus far and maybe others are finding value in it where I didn't.

[Toutouwai]

Though that's just my experience thus far and maybe others are finding value in it where I didn't.

I think there could be value in FileCompiler modules, but only if some changes are made as per the other issue I linked to, so that they can work when the PW namespace is present.

I have a module in development that allows for field alias names to be compiled to their actual field names: so that for example a field named "integer_1" can be referred to as "width" in template files and PW status files (ready.php, etc).

And other users have raised situations where a FileCompiler module could be useful, e.g. https://processwire.com/talk/topic/21843-rendering-field-value-using-markup-attributes/

[adrianbj]

field alias names to be compiled to their actual field names: so that for example a field named "integer_1" can be referred to as "width" in template files

Definitely excited to see this - thank you!

[ryancramerdesign]

I think there could be value in FileCompiler modules, but only if some changes are made as per the other issue I linked to, so that they can work when the PW namespace is present.

@Toutouwai I think I understand. If FileCompiler doesn't actually have to make any significant modifications to the code in the file (because it already has a namespace), and just runs to let FileCompilerModule modules have the ability to make modifications, then the imperfect art of converting no-namespace code to namespace code is not going to be a factor or an issue. So I think we can accommodate what you are asking for here. It's going to involve a few more changes than I'd like to do before the end-of-July/early-August master version, but I'll plan to get into this after that.

[Toutouwai]

@ryancramerdesign, sounds good, thanks