Rough Sea Games

Automatization of repeated work is one of the keys to productive development. Another is abstraction of common problems to allow concentration on project specific work. Localization is one of the problems you have in nearly every project, especially in iPhone projects. The iPhone SDK brings interesting solutions that abstract many parts of the localization process.

The tool ibtool, for example, extracts strings from an interface automatically. The strings are placed in a .strings file, a textfile with key/value pairs. To localize an interface, you have to translate .strings and merge the strings back into the interface again. Because you have individual interfaces for every localization, it’s possible to adjust widgets individually for each one.

genstrings is another tool inside the iPhone SDK. It extracts textIDs from the source code and write them into a .strings file. You may ask how the tool knows which texts need localization and which do not. The solution is the macro NSLocalizedString, which will be replaced by a .strings file lookup method by the preprocessor, but also searched for by the genstrings tool to create the files.

Both tools help you to create a localized application without paying much attention to localization itself. But you cannot expect the localization department to search for .strings files inside your project and create localized versions of them. Of course this would be possible, but not very convenient, because you have to migrate the translated texts back into the interfaces using ibtool. Another reason for us at Rough Sea is that we use a localization interface from our publisher. This interface is well known to the localization department and the content is placed in a centralized database on a server.

So we have the great tools from Apple that help us to separate texts from the project and we have the great tool from our publisher that handles the whole translation and reviewing process. Now we need something to tie those tools together, because we do not want to insert new texts from the .strings file into the publisher’s localization tool manually or vice versa. This glue tool has to execute the Apple tools, extract the texts from the .strings files and insert them into the publisher’s loca tool. On the other hand, it has to check for new localized texts from the publisher’s loca tool, build the required .strings files from the results and merge them back into the interfaces. Sounds quite easy, but of course there are some obstacles to get there. You have to handle other things, like the deletion of a text entry or changes to an already translated interface. So you have to know what has changed since the last update and stuff like that.

It turns out that you only have to integrate this glue tool into the build process of your build server. The tool will update the localization database whenever the code or the interface changes and it will update the localized versions when the database changes. As a coder you only need to remember to use the text macro around your text id. You don’t have to add this text id in a file or anything else. As you commit your changes, the build server will do this for you. As an interface designer it’s the same: just create your interfaces in the primary language and commit it. After the localization department finishes localizing those texts, they will be inserted into the localized versions automatically. Of course you have to make adjustments to the interface if there are loca bugs like labels that are to small to hold the translated text.

As you can see those localization tools are a big black box for coders, interface designers and translators. The coders only have to write code, the interface designers design interfaces and the translators translate texts. At the end there will be a localized product.

Popularity: 61% [?]

Hello, again! We’re back with another episode of “Asserting the Basics”. Last time we talked about our assertive philosophy on error handling. Today, we go into the dirty little details: the coding of asserts.

Asserts are not something that Actionscript3 offers naturally. Consequently, I added an Assert-method to our Debug class (remember from my first post?). Its job is (of course) to check whether a Boolean expression is true, and, if not, to eventually communicate this fact. Rather than showing all failed asserts directly, our method only stores them. I want to have control over when the asserts are shown, since there are times when you actually want asserts to fail: for instance when you want to try out your error handling in Unit Tests. Thus, there is another method to take care of displaying them, which can be called at an appropriate time. So our assert framework looks like this:

private static var m_asserts:Array;
/**
 * Asserts that a condition is met
 * @param    _statement condition to check
 * @param    _msg Message to describe the assert
 * @return true if the assert failed
 */
public static function Assert(_statement:Boolean, _msg:String):Boolean
{
    if (_statement != true)
    {
        var msg:String = "****************************\n "
            + "ASSERT FAILED!!\n "+_msg+"\n"+GetStackTrace()+"\n"
            + "****************************\n ";
        // record assert
        if (m_asserts == null)
            m_asserts = new Array();
        m_asserts.push(msg);
        Debug.Out(msg);
        return true;
    }
    return false;
}
public static function ShowAsserts(_stage:Stage) : void
{
    if (m_asserts == null)
        return;
    var assertBox:TextField = new TextField();
    assertBox.autoSize = TextFieldAutoSize.LEFT;
    assertBox.width = _stage.stageWidth;
    assertBox.textColor = 0xFF0000;
    assertBox.backgroundColor = 0x000000;
    assertBox.background = true;
    assertBox.wordWrap = true;
    assertBox.text = "";
    for (var i:int = 0; i < m_asserts.length; i++) {
        var assertString:String = m_asserts[i];
        assertBox.appendText(assertString + "\n");
    }
    _stage.addChild(assertBox);
}

You may have noticed that our assert method has a Boolean return value, returning true if the assert fails. This way we can use the method to exit early from a function that would crash otherwise. Since we cannot simply take the asserts back out, we might as well use them in a bigger context.

In our code the use of these asserts look like this:

public function Load(_path:String) : void {
    if (Debug.Assert(m_fileName != null, "Filename is null!!"))
        return;
    if (Debug.Assert(m_fileName.length != 0, "Filename is empty!!"))
        return;
    // yada yada … more code
}

To give our asserts even more value, I did some research on how to get stack traces. I found out that if you throw an error and catch it in a debug player, you can retrieve a stack trace from the error object, as seen here:

/**
 * Returns the stack trace (filtered)
 * @return stack trace
 */
public static function GetStackTrace() : String {
    if (Capabilities.isDebugger == true) {
        try { throw new Error(); }
        catch (e:Error) { return FilterStackTrace(e.getStackTrace()); }
        return "";
    }
    else
        return "Stack trace not available in non-debugger version.";
}

Unfortunately, the stack trace you get this way is really extensive and hard to read. Every line in the trace contains the complete path to the corresponding file on the local machine. So, I added a filtering function to remove the unnecessary path info. This method turns e.g. this:

tests::TestDynamicTextManager.TestTextEdit()Trace:
AssertionFailedError
	at tests::TestDynamicTextManager/TestTextEdit()
	[D:\projects\programming\bgame\svn\FlashComponents
	\client\src\tests\TestDynamicTextManager.as:15]

into this:

tests::TestDynamicTextManager.TestTextEdit()Trace:
AssertionFailedError
	at tests::TestDynamicTextManager/TestTextEdit() [line:15]

Here is the filter function:

public static function FilterStackTrace(stack:String):String {
    var lines:Array = stack.split("\n");
    // remove the path
    // it's too long and we can get the info from the method trace
    var regEx:RegExp = /\w:[\\\/]([\w-]+[\\\/])*\w+.as/ig;
    var newStack:String = new String("\n");
    for (var i:int = 0; i < lines.length; i++) {
        var line:String = lines[i];
        line = line.replace(regEx, "");
        line = line.replace("[:", " [line:");
        newStack = newStack + line + "\n";
    }
    return newStack;
}

Alrighty, now you’re set to do your own asserts. Next time, I’ll talk about unit testing and Actionscript3.
So, see you in a bit for a new episode of “Asserting the Basics”.

Happy coding, Manuel

Popularity: 9% [?]

Welcome back! Today, let’s talk about the probably most sensitive part of programming: error handling. This is a really big topic, so I made two articles out of it. This time I am going to tell you about our philosophy on that. Next time, I’ll show you how we turned our vision into reality.

Back to business: A project without proper error handling is doomed to fail after it has passed a certain level of complexity. Actionscript3 offers exceptions as a standard answer on the topic of how to deal with errors. Exceptions are for exceptional problems, but not for your little everyday error check. So, for us at Rough Sea Games exceptions are simply not enough. We like to be able to do what “The Pragmatic Programmer” [1] calls “assertive programming.” We add a lot of checks to our code to make sure we are still safe. If something goes haywire, our asserts make sure we crash early. That really helps to find the bug(ger) quickly. In addition, we like to ensure that “contracts” between methods are kept. That means, for instance, that if a method requires one of the parameters passed to it not to be null, we want to assert this to make sure it won’t happen. And if it does, we want an immediate feedback and not a some ambiguous crash further down the road.

Despite being a great help for the programmer, assertions can be a problem when it comes to performance.

Performance Issues

I did some performance tests while ago: I took out the assert method just leaving an empty stub. Oddly, this did not have a significant impact on the performance. So, the method itself is not very greedy. That’s good, but still, when I took out a couple of asserts the performance went up. How can that be? I found out that calling the method was the problem. Our assert method takes a string as one of its parameters. In some places we employed some heavy string operations to include values in that message.

When you do something like that inside an important loop you may be surprised about the great loss of performance. By refactoring some of those critical asserts, I could speed things up quite a bit without having to take the asserts out. So, if you are careful, asserts do not have to be a performance killer.

Better Production Code

Of course, taking the asserts out will produce slightly faster code, but since there is no simple way to actually take them out in a reversible manner (like using a preprocessor), we may as well leave them in for good. Some people may perceive them as a debug-only facility, but having them in production code might not be such a bad idea. We want to debug and improve our product constantly after release. A consumer that is able to tell us which assert exactly failed, helps us to find bugs a lot easier.

Well, I could go on about assertions forever … but time is scarce, so I’ll close for now. Next time, we’ll get our hands dirty and dive into our assertion code.

So, stay tuned and happy coding, Manuel

[1] The Pragmatic Programmer; Andrew Hunt, David Thomas, Addison-Wesley
ISBN 02161622X (http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com)

Popularity: 8% [?]