Can arara detect a rule inside a input file ?












5














I started to use the nice arara package to automate my compilation process for my thesis.



I know it is better to place the rules using e.g. % arara : pdflatex placed at the beginning of the .tex file to be compiled but I was wondering if it was possible to place this call inside an file called with input{...}.



The reason is the following :



I would like to use arara on multiple files but these do not posess any rules.
However, they share some header.tex file containing macro and style definitions, which is called with input{} just after the documentclass{} definition.



So I'd rather modify the common header.tex file instead of all my other files.










share|improve this question


















  • 1




    I have no idea about arara, but I guess it doesn't parse the file at all, only the first n lines for % arara.
    – Skillmon
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:06






  • 1




    @Skillmon Well, not only the first n lines in version 4, but at least no input files.
    – TeXnician
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:08






  • 1




    Since the file name that you input can be built from TeX macros, arara would have to contain a complete TeX engine to do this completely. And then somebody is going to want to correctly handle includes in if...fi constructions, rules in include files taking account of includeonly, etc - it's probably easiest for the developers to "just say no"!
    – alephzero
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:24








  • 4




    @alephzero Clearly you don't know the developer. :)
    – Alan Munn
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:31










  • @alephzero I think @filelist keeps the heavy lifting within TeX.
    – StrongBad
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:31
















5














I started to use the nice arara package to automate my compilation process for my thesis.



I know it is better to place the rules using e.g. % arara : pdflatex placed at the beginning of the .tex file to be compiled but I was wondering if it was possible to place this call inside an file called with input{...}.



The reason is the following :



I would like to use arara on multiple files but these do not posess any rules.
However, they share some header.tex file containing macro and style definitions, which is called with input{} just after the documentclass{} definition.



So I'd rather modify the common header.tex file instead of all my other files.










share|improve this question


















  • 1




    I have no idea about arara, but I guess it doesn't parse the file at all, only the first n lines for % arara.
    – Skillmon
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:06






  • 1




    @Skillmon Well, not only the first n lines in version 4, but at least no input files.
    – TeXnician
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:08






  • 1




    Since the file name that you input can be built from TeX macros, arara would have to contain a complete TeX engine to do this completely. And then somebody is going to want to correctly handle includes in if...fi constructions, rules in include files taking account of includeonly, etc - it's probably easiest for the developers to "just say no"!
    – alephzero
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:24








  • 4




    @alephzero Clearly you don't know the developer. :)
    – Alan Munn
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:31










  • @alephzero I think @filelist keeps the heavy lifting within TeX.
    – StrongBad
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:31














5












5








5







I started to use the nice arara package to automate my compilation process for my thesis.



I know it is better to place the rules using e.g. % arara : pdflatex placed at the beginning of the .tex file to be compiled but I was wondering if it was possible to place this call inside an file called with input{...}.



The reason is the following :



I would like to use arara on multiple files but these do not posess any rules.
However, they share some header.tex file containing macro and style definitions, which is called with input{} just after the documentclass{} definition.



So I'd rather modify the common header.tex file instead of all my other files.










share|improve this question













I started to use the nice arara package to automate my compilation process for my thesis.



I know it is better to place the rules using e.g. % arara : pdflatex placed at the beginning of the .tex file to be compiled but I was wondering if it was possible to place this call inside an file called with input{...}.



The reason is the following :



I would like to use arara on multiple files but these do not posess any rules.
However, they share some header.tex file containing macro and style definitions, which is called with input{} just after the documentclass{} definition.



So I'd rather modify the common header.tex file instead of all my other files.







input arara






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Dec 12 '18 at 14:03









BambOo

3,0381527




3,0381527








  • 1




    I have no idea about arara, but I guess it doesn't parse the file at all, only the first n lines for % arara.
    – Skillmon
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:06






  • 1




    @Skillmon Well, not only the first n lines in version 4, but at least no input files.
    – TeXnician
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:08






  • 1




    Since the file name that you input can be built from TeX macros, arara would have to contain a complete TeX engine to do this completely. And then somebody is going to want to correctly handle includes in if...fi constructions, rules in include files taking account of includeonly, etc - it's probably easiest for the developers to "just say no"!
    – alephzero
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:24








  • 4




    @alephzero Clearly you don't know the developer. :)
    – Alan Munn
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:31










  • @alephzero I think @filelist keeps the heavy lifting within TeX.
    – StrongBad
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:31














  • 1




    I have no idea about arara, but I guess it doesn't parse the file at all, only the first n lines for % arara.
    – Skillmon
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:06






  • 1




    @Skillmon Well, not only the first n lines in version 4, but at least no input files.
    – TeXnician
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:08






  • 1




    Since the file name that you input can be built from TeX macros, arara would have to contain a complete TeX engine to do this completely. And then somebody is going to want to correctly handle includes in if...fi constructions, rules in include files taking account of includeonly, etc - it's probably easiest for the developers to "just say no"!
    – alephzero
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:24








  • 4




    @alephzero Clearly you don't know the developer. :)
    – Alan Munn
    Dec 12 '18 at 14:31










  • @alephzero I think @filelist keeps the heavy lifting within TeX.
    – StrongBad
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:31








1




1




I have no idea about arara, but I guess it doesn't parse the file at all, only the first n lines for % arara.
– Skillmon
Dec 12 '18 at 14:06




I have no idea about arara, but I guess it doesn't parse the file at all, only the first n lines for % arara.
– Skillmon
Dec 12 '18 at 14:06




1




1




@Skillmon Well, not only the first n lines in version 4, but at least no input files.
– TeXnician
Dec 12 '18 at 14:08




@Skillmon Well, not only the first n lines in version 4, but at least no input files.
– TeXnician
Dec 12 '18 at 14:08




1




1




Since the file name that you input can be built from TeX macros, arara would have to contain a complete TeX engine to do this completely. And then somebody is going to want to correctly handle includes in if...fi constructions, rules in include files taking account of includeonly, etc - it's probably easiest for the developers to "just say no"!
– alephzero
Dec 12 '18 at 14:24






Since the file name that you input can be built from TeX macros, arara would have to contain a complete TeX engine to do this completely. And then somebody is going to want to correctly handle includes in if...fi constructions, rules in include files taking account of includeonly, etc - it's probably easiest for the developers to "just say no"!
– alephzero
Dec 12 '18 at 14:24






4




4




@alephzero Clearly you don't know the developer. :)
– Alan Munn
Dec 12 '18 at 14:31




@alephzero Clearly you don't know the developer. :)
– Alan Munn
Dec 12 '18 at 14:31












@alephzero I think @filelist keeps the heavy lifting within TeX.
– StrongBad
Dec 12 '18 at 16:31




@alephzero I think @filelist keeps the heavy lifting within TeX.
– StrongBad
Dec 12 '18 at 16:31










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















10














I am sorry, arara limits the directive lookup scope to the current document. It would be quite challenging to detect special macros and process them accordingly, like following a file through input, include or similar streams. It is really by design.



That's being said, I've been thinking of adding a new feature in the near future called metadirective. That way, we can change the inner workings of the tool itself at runtime. Sorry if it sounds too vague for now, but your question seems to be one of the cases a metadirective could be used for external file reading. I still do not have the faintest idea of how it would be. :)



However, as alephzero mentioned in the comments, correctly parsing TeX would require a TeX engine in itself to resolve nontrivial scenarios. I want arara to be the emacs of the TeX world, but not quite the TeX engine of the TeX world (yet). :) Let me check how things go in the next weeks, so I can work on a new feature draft.



Regarding your scenario, perhaps the --preamble command line flag could be of interest. To quote my lovely user manual that took me a lifetime to write it: :)




Some TeX documents require the same automation steps, e.g, a set of articles. To this end, so as to avoid repeating the same preamble over and over in this specific scenario, arara has the possibility of setting predefined preambles in a special section of the configuration file identified by a unique key for later use. This command line option prepends the predefined preamble referenced by the name key to the current document and then proceeds to extract directives, as usual. For instance:



twopdftex: |
% arara: pdftex
% arara: pdftex


Source file: doc9.tex:



Hello world.
bye


In this example, we have a preamble named twopdftex and a TeX file named doc9.tex with no directives. Of course, our tool will complain about missing directives, unless we deliberately inject the two directives from the predefined preamble into the current execution:



$ arara -p twopdftex doc9.tex
....
Processing 'doc9.tex' (size: 18 bytes, last modified: 05/29/2018
14:39:21), please wait.
(PDFTeX) PDFTeX engine .................................. SUCCESS
(PDFTeX) PDFTeX engine .................................. SUCCESS
Total: 0.96 seconds



Hope it helps. :)






share|improve this answer

















  • 2




    It took much less time to write the user manual than your thesis. :-)
    – egreg
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:46










  • @egreg that's accurate. :)
    – Paulo Cereda
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:03










  • I was afraid it was not possible. As this is more of a laziness matter on my side, it is not such a big deal. Thank you very much for your advice anyway !
    – BambOo
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:12



















5














While arara cannot figure out what files are going to be read you can write a directive that will call arara on a different file. I think I have a workflow somewhat similar to yours where I want all my directives in a file called something like header.tex and I work on body.tex. I list all my directives in header.tex and in body.tex I have a single directive



% arara: mainfile: { rootfile: header.tex }


This directive is defined as mainfile.yaml:



identifier: mainfile
name: MAINFILE
commands:
- name: Run Arara on file
command: >
@{
return getCommand('arara', '-v', rootfile);
}
arguments:
- identifier: rootfile
flag: >
@{
return parameters.rootfile;
}


If you want to automatically deal with directives spread across arbitrary files that may or may not be included, you might be able to hack something together with listfiles to output all the files that are loaded and then have a new directive that calls mainfile on all the sub files, but this sounds difficult and probably not worth it.






share|improve this answer





















  • ooh I like this approach!
    – Paulo Cereda
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:32











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "85"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f464524%2fcan-arara-detect-a-rule-inside-a-input-file%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









10














I am sorry, arara limits the directive lookup scope to the current document. It would be quite challenging to detect special macros and process them accordingly, like following a file through input, include or similar streams. It is really by design.



That's being said, I've been thinking of adding a new feature in the near future called metadirective. That way, we can change the inner workings of the tool itself at runtime. Sorry if it sounds too vague for now, but your question seems to be one of the cases a metadirective could be used for external file reading. I still do not have the faintest idea of how it would be. :)



However, as alephzero mentioned in the comments, correctly parsing TeX would require a TeX engine in itself to resolve nontrivial scenarios. I want arara to be the emacs of the TeX world, but not quite the TeX engine of the TeX world (yet). :) Let me check how things go in the next weeks, so I can work on a new feature draft.



Regarding your scenario, perhaps the --preamble command line flag could be of interest. To quote my lovely user manual that took me a lifetime to write it: :)




Some TeX documents require the same automation steps, e.g, a set of articles. To this end, so as to avoid repeating the same preamble over and over in this specific scenario, arara has the possibility of setting predefined preambles in a special section of the configuration file identified by a unique key for later use. This command line option prepends the predefined preamble referenced by the name key to the current document and then proceeds to extract directives, as usual. For instance:



twopdftex: |
% arara: pdftex
% arara: pdftex


Source file: doc9.tex:



Hello world.
bye


In this example, we have a preamble named twopdftex and a TeX file named doc9.tex with no directives. Of course, our tool will complain about missing directives, unless we deliberately inject the two directives from the predefined preamble into the current execution:



$ arara -p twopdftex doc9.tex
....
Processing 'doc9.tex' (size: 18 bytes, last modified: 05/29/2018
14:39:21), please wait.
(PDFTeX) PDFTeX engine .................................. SUCCESS
(PDFTeX) PDFTeX engine .................................. SUCCESS
Total: 0.96 seconds



Hope it helps. :)






share|improve this answer

















  • 2




    It took much less time to write the user manual than your thesis. :-)
    – egreg
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:46










  • @egreg that's accurate. :)
    – Paulo Cereda
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:03










  • I was afraid it was not possible. As this is more of a laziness matter on my side, it is not such a big deal. Thank you very much for your advice anyway !
    – BambOo
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:12
















10














I am sorry, arara limits the directive lookup scope to the current document. It would be quite challenging to detect special macros and process them accordingly, like following a file through input, include or similar streams. It is really by design.



That's being said, I've been thinking of adding a new feature in the near future called metadirective. That way, we can change the inner workings of the tool itself at runtime. Sorry if it sounds too vague for now, but your question seems to be one of the cases a metadirective could be used for external file reading. I still do not have the faintest idea of how it would be. :)



However, as alephzero mentioned in the comments, correctly parsing TeX would require a TeX engine in itself to resolve nontrivial scenarios. I want arara to be the emacs of the TeX world, but not quite the TeX engine of the TeX world (yet). :) Let me check how things go in the next weeks, so I can work on a new feature draft.



Regarding your scenario, perhaps the --preamble command line flag could be of interest. To quote my lovely user manual that took me a lifetime to write it: :)




Some TeX documents require the same automation steps, e.g, a set of articles. To this end, so as to avoid repeating the same preamble over and over in this specific scenario, arara has the possibility of setting predefined preambles in a special section of the configuration file identified by a unique key for later use. This command line option prepends the predefined preamble referenced by the name key to the current document and then proceeds to extract directives, as usual. For instance:



twopdftex: |
% arara: pdftex
% arara: pdftex


Source file: doc9.tex:



Hello world.
bye


In this example, we have a preamble named twopdftex and a TeX file named doc9.tex with no directives. Of course, our tool will complain about missing directives, unless we deliberately inject the two directives from the predefined preamble into the current execution:



$ arara -p twopdftex doc9.tex
....
Processing 'doc9.tex' (size: 18 bytes, last modified: 05/29/2018
14:39:21), please wait.
(PDFTeX) PDFTeX engine .................................. SUCCESS
(PDFTeX) PDFTeX engine .................................. SUCCESS
Total: 0.96 seconds



Hope it helps. :)






share|improve this answer

















  • 2




    It took much less time to write the user manual than your thesis. :-)
    – egreg
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:46










  • @egreg that's accurate. :)
    – Paulo Cereda
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:03










  • I was afraid it was not possible. As this is more of a laziness matter on my side, it is not such a big deal. Thank you very much for your advice anyway !
    – BambOo
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:12














10












10








10






I am sorry, arara limits the directive lookup scope to the current document. It would be quite challenging to detect special macros and process them accordingly, like following a file through input, include or similar streams. It is really by design.



That's being said, I've been thinking of adding a new feature in the near future called metadirective. That way, we can change the inner workings of the tool itself at runtime. Sorry if it sounds too vague for now, but your question seems to be one of the cases a metadirective could be used for external file reading. I still do not have the faintest idea of how it would be. :)



However, as alephzero mentioned in the comments, correctly parsing TeX would require a TeX engine in itself to resolve nontrivial scenarios. I want arara to be the emacs of the TeX world, but not quite the TeX engine of the TeX world (yet). :) Let me check how things go in the next weeks, so I can work on a new feature draft.



Regarding your scenario, perhaps the --preamble command line flag could be of interest. To quote my lovely user manual that took me a lifetime to write it: :)




Some TeX documents require the same automation steps, e.g, a set of articles. To this end, so as to avoid repeating the same preamble over and over in this specific scenario, arara has the possibility of setting predefined preambles in a special section of the configuration file identified by a unique key for later use. This command line option prepends the predefined preamble referenced by the name key to the current document and then proceeds to extract directives, as usual. For instance:



twopdftex: |
% arara: pdftex
% arara: pdftex


Source file: doc9.tex:



Hello world.
bye


In this example, we have a preamble named twopdftex and a TeX file named doc9.tex with no directives. Of course, our tool will complain about missing directives, unless we deliberately inject the two directives from the predefined preamble into the current execution:



$ arara -p twopdftex doc9.tex
....
Processing 'doc9.tex' (size: 18 bytes, last modified: 05/29/2018
14:39:21), please wait.
(PDFTeX) PDFTeX engine .................................. SUCCESS
(PDFTeX) PDFTeX engine .................................. SUCCESS
Total: 0.96 seconds



Hope it helps. :)






share|improve this answer












I am sorry, arara limits the directive lookup scope to the current document. It would be quite challenging to detect special macros and process them accordingly, like following a file through input, include or similar streams. It is really by design.



That's being said, I've been thinking of adding a new feature in the near future called metadirective. That way, we can change the inner workings of the tool itself at runtime. Sorry if it sounds too vague for now, but your question seems to be one of the cases a metadirective could be used for external file reading. I still do not have the faintest idea of how it would be. :)



However, as alephzero mentioned in the comments, correctly parsing TeX would require a TeX engine in itself to resolve nontrivial scenarios. I want arara to be the emacs of the TeX world, but not quite the TeX engine of the TeX world (yet). :) Let me check how things go in the next weeks, so I can work on a new feature draft.



Regarding your scenario, perhaps the --preamble command line flag could be of interest. To quote my lovely user manual that took me a lifetime to write it: :)




Some TeX documents require the same automation steps, e.g, a set of articles. To this end, so as to avoid repeating the same preamble over and over in this specific scenario, arara has the possibility of setting predefined preambles in a special section of the configuration file identified by a unique key for later use. This command line option prepends the predefined preamble referenced by the name key to the current document and then proceeds to extract directives, as usual. For instance:



twopdftex: |
% arara: pdftex
% arara: pdftex


Source file: doc9.tex:



Hello world.
bye


In this example, we have a preamble named twopdftex and a TeX file named doc9.tex with no directives. Of course, our tool will complain about missing directives, unless we deliberately inject the two directives from the predefined preamble into the current execution:



$ arara -p twopdftex doc9.tex
....
Processing 'doc9.tex' (size: 18 bytes, last modified: 05/29/2018
14:39:21), please wait.
(PDFTeX) PDFTeX engine .................................. SUCCESS
(PDFTeX) PDFTeX engine .................................. SUCCESS
Total: 0.96 seconds



Hope it helps. :)







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Dec 12 '18 at 14:52









Paulo Cereda

33.2k8125209




33.2k8125209








  • 2




    It took much less time to write the user manual than your thesis. :-)
    – egreg
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:46










  • @egreg that's accurate. :)
    – Paulo Cereda
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:03










  • I was afraid it was not possible. As this is more of a laziness matter on my side, it is not such a big deal. Thank you very much for your advice anyway !
    – BambOo
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:12














  • 2




    It took much less time to write the user manual than your thesis. :-)
    – egreg
    Dec 12 '18 at 15:46










  • @egreg that's accurate. :)
    – Paulo Cereda
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:03










  • I was afraid it was not possible. As this is more of a laziness matter on my side, it is not such a big deal. Thank you very much for your advice anyway !
    – BambOo
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:12








2




2




It took much less time to write the user manual than your thesis. :-)
– egreg
Dec 12 '18 at 15:46




It took much less time to write the user manual than your thesis. :-)
– egreg
Dec 12 '18 at 15:46












@egreg that's accurate. :)
– Paulo Cereda
Dec 12 '18 at 16:03




@egreg that's accurate. :)
– Paulo Cereda
Dec 12 '18 at 16:03












I was afraid it was not possible. As this is more of a laziness matter on my side, it is not such a big deal. Thank you very much for your advice anyway !
– BambOo
Dec 12 '18 at 16:12




I was afraid it was not possible. As this is more of a laziness matter on my side, it is not such a big deal. Thank you very much for your advice anyway !
– BambOo
Dec 12 '18 at 16:12











5














While arara cannot figure out what files are going to be read you can write a directive that will call arara on a different file. I think I have a workflow somewhat similar to yours where I want all my directives in a file called something like header.tex and I work on body.tex. I list all my directives in header.tex and in body.tex I have a single directive



% arara: mainfile: { rootfile: header.tex }


This directive is defined as mainfile.yaml:



identifier: mainfile
name: MAINFILE
commands:
- name: Run Arara on file
command: >
@{
return getCommand('arara', '-v', rootfile);
}
arguments:
- identifier: rootfile
flag: >
@{
return parameters.rootfile;
}


If you want to automatically deal with directives spread across arbitrary files that may or may not be included, you might be able to hack something together with listfiles to output all the files that are loaded and then have a new directive that calls mainfile on all the sub files, but this sounds difficult and probably not worth it.






share|improve this answer





















  • ooh I like this approach!
    – Paulo Cereda
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:32
















5














While arara cannot figure out what files are going to be read you can write a directive that will call arara on a different file. I think I have a workflow somewhat similar to yours where I want all my directives in a file called something like header.tex and I work on body.tex. I list all my directives in header.tex and in body.tex I have a single directive



% arara: mainfile: { rootfile: header.tex }


This directive is defined as mainfile.yaml:



identifier: mainfile
name: MAINFILE
commands:
- name: Run Arara on file
command: >
@{
return getCommand('arara', '-v', rootfile);
}
arguments:
- identifier: rootfile
flag: >
@{
return parameters.rootfile;
}


If you want to automatically deal with directives spread across arbitrary files that may or may not be included, you might be able to hack something together with listfiles to output all the files that are loaded and then have a new directive that calls mainfile on all the sub files, but this sounds difficult and probably not worth it.






share|improve this answer





















  • ooh I like this approach!
    – Paulo Cereda
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:32














5












5








5






While arara cannot figure out what files are going to be read you can write a directive that will call arara on a different file. I think I have a workflow somewhat similar to yours where I want all my directives in a file called something like header.tex and I work on body.tex. I list all my directives in header.tex and in body.tex I have a single directive



% arara: mainfile: { rootfile: header.tex }


This directive is defined as mainfile.yaml:



identifier: mainfile
name: MAINFILE
commands:
- name: Run Arara on file
command: >
@{
return getCommand('arara', '-v', rootfile);
}
arguments:
- identifier: rootfile
flag: >
@{
return parameters.rootfile;
}


If you want to automatically deal with directives spread across arbitrary files that may or may not be included, you might be able to hack something together with listfiles to output all the files that are loaded and then have a new directive that calls mainfile on all the sub files, but this sounds difficult and probably not worth it.






share|improve this answer












While arara cannot figure out what files are going to be read you can write a directive that will call arara on a different file. I think I have a workflow somewhat similar to yours where I want all my directives in a file called something like header.tex and I work on body.tex. I list all my directives in header.tex and in body.tex I have a single directive



% arara: mainfile: { rootfile: header.tex }


This directive is defined as mainfile.yaml:



identifier: mainfile
name: MAINFILE
commands:
- name: Run Arara on file
command: >
@{
return getCommand('arara', '-v', rootfile);
}
arguments:
- identifier: rootfile
flag: >
@{
return parameters.rootfile;
}


If you want to automatically deal with directives spread across arbitrary files that may or may not be included, you might be able to hack something together with listfiles to output all the files that are loaded and then have a new directive that calls mainfile on all the sub files, but this sounds difficult and probably not worth it.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Dec 12 '18 at 16:15









StrongBad

13.1k646102




13.1k646102












  • ooh I like this approach!
    – Paulo Cereda
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:32


















  • ooh I like this approach!
    – Paulo Cereda
    Dec 12 '18 at 16:32
















ooh I like this approach!
– Paulo Cereda
Dec 12 '18 at 16:32




ooh I like this approach!
– Paulo Cereda
Dec 12 '18 at 16:32


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f464524%2fcan-arara-detect-a-rule-inside-a-input-file%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

"Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

Alcedinidae

Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?