I have stored a JavaScript file in a TYPO3 extension (under Resources/Public/Css/JavaScript/Backend/Iconpack.js), which is used as a JavaScript module in the backend.
However, when developing the extension, I packed the file full of console.log() to allow debugging, and also to better document certain things.
Of course I want that in the final extension as well as when downloading via composer, only a minimized version of this JavaScript is loaded, but not the original source file.
On the other hand, of course, I want the original source file to be stored somewhere in the git repository, so that you can actually continue working on it.
In the frontend, I would normally just store Iconpack.js, for example, in the same folder, create a minimized version from it, i.e. Iconpack.min.js, and use this minimized file.
But unfortunately that doesn't work in this case, because the file path for JavaScript modules is also the namespace.
What would be the best way to solve this?
To summarize:
The minimized version should be able to be used directly in the backend via Iconpack.js.
The namespace should be TYPO3/CMS/Iconpack/Backend/Iconpack and not TYPO3/CMS/Iconpack/Backend/Iconpack.min or similar.
The source file should not end up in TER or be loaded via composer.
But the source file should be accessible via Github.
I was able to find out that I can at least prevent a certain file from being loaded via composer with .gitattributes.
Unfortunately, that doesn't solve the question of where I should best place it so that other developers have it easier and it's clear that it's the source file.
Currently I only have the minimized version stored in git for this reason, but that makes little sense for an open source repository: https://github.com/quellenform/t3x-iconpack/tree/main/Resources/Public/JavaScript/Backend
Ideas?
Related
I am using this code: https://github.com/pradeepramakrishna/Lightning-Experience/tree/master/aura-components to compile on my org.
I have got one components as eventLib.lib and interactive.js in eventLib folder. I have put this folder in c:MyDevOrg\force-app\main\default\aura folder in the local machine and tried to deploy in the org using VSCode but it didn't work.
I tried creating folder in the Files tab and added the interactive.js in the folder but that is also not seeming to work with the Aura components.
How can I deploy this lib into the org as it is being used in some Aura components.
We don't know what you're trying to achieve. You asked a very technical question to which the answer is "you're probably doing it wrong". Instead try to write what business functionality you are trying to achieve and you might get better answers.
You shouldn't have to import ui:eventLib. It's supposed to be part of core Salesforce's Aura components framework. But.
You've referenced a repo that wasn't updated in a while, no promises this still compiles / is best way to do X.
This repo seems to rely on open source Aura framework which is well... dead in the water.
You might be able to reuse something from this repo in your app using SF's built-in tags - but whole ui: library has been deprecated. Announced in Winter'20 = almost 2 years ago, finally dead in May 2021.
I don't think eventLib was ever exposed, might be something needed just in open source version which complicates the matter more. The answer would be to not work with the really "decompiled" tags but with their higher abstracted versions like ui:inputDate.
So, back to my question. What exactly are you trying to achieve.
You want to build something on pure SF platform (use pure Aura/LWC).
Want to have an app written in Angular, React etc, pure JS, connecting to SF data via API? (build it, upload as static resourcethen import using lightning:container)
want to prettify an existing Java/PHP/.NET app, make it look more Lightning-ish and embed it as iframe? (look into https://www.lightningdesignsystem.com/ and connected apps + "canvas")
want to expose piece of SF as reusable element that can be embedded in another website but could even be an Outlook plugin? (search for "lightning out")
want to look at modern equivalent of that old open source Aura repo and decide what to do next? Check https://lwc.dev/ out.
I'm developing an extension in VS Code to add language support for OpenSCAD (Script-based 3D modeling program). Currently, I have been working on a way to open / preview a file in OpenSCAD from VS Code, which I have been able to do successfully using my own preview manager.
My issue is that I want to add configurable naming formats when exporting an OpenSCAD file that use environment variables similar to those used in the tasks.json file. More info can be found here: https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/variables-reference. As an example, taking the file test.scad and the export configuration ${fileBasenameNoExtension}.stl would export to the file test.stl.
Additionally, I want to add a custom variable, ${#} that would evaluate after all other variables as a unique version number to avoid duplicate exported files. Using the example file: test.scad and the export configuration, ${fileBasenameNoExtension}_${#}.stl, the extension would export to the file test_1.stl for the first time. Then, seeing that test_1.stl exists, it would export to test_2.stl, and so on. I implement similar functionality in all of my exporting utilities, so it is important I can implement it here.
Now that the intro is done, on to the actual question: To anyone who knows more about the VS Code API than I do, in order to best get the functionality described above, should I implement environment variable evaluation into my custom preview manager or reimplement the preview manager I have using tasks? Because I have already implemented my own preview manager that I am happy with, I would prefer to do the former. However, I have been unable to find any functions in the VS Code API that will evaluate the environment variables in a string. Is there a typescript function to evaluate environment variables in the API that I have missed?
If re-implementing this functionality using tasks is a better way to achieve my goal, would I have to sacrifice the control I have in my preview manager, such as being able to selectively kill open previews and dispalying active exports?
Or, is there a compromise that could use all of the power from tasks without losing any functionality I've already developed?
Link to branch of my extension's repository: https://github.com/Antyos/vscode-openscad/tree/PreviewModel
I am working on the SAPUI5 application with normal ES5 code and using grunt-openui5 to create the Component-preload.js file to deploy to CRM system. Now I am planning to use ES6 style coding but we need to support an old browser. Therefore, I need to transpile it down to ES5 and then create the Component-preload.js file. Now my concern with this approach is when I debug the production issue, everyone gets it right, I want to debug my ES6 file, not ES5 file.
Any help or guidance is very appreciated.
One way to have a transpiled, debuggable preload file and separate ES6 based source files is probably to use the sap-ui-debug=true URL parameter option. Instead of the normal files, it will try to load -dbg.js versions of everything. This for instance is what the SAP WebIDE generates:
If you can set up your build set so that the original, untranspiled files are copied as -dbg versions, and your preload picks up the transpiled ones you might be able to make it work.
Here's the section of the SDK documentation that'll give you some more background information: https://openui5.hana.ondemand.com/#/topic/c9b0f8cca852443f9b8d3bf8ba5626ab
I have a NetBeans javascript project with several included paths for plugins. I do not want to include the plugins in my core repository, so I have created separate, external folders for each and am including them via an include path. Because I test across many devices, I need my changes to upload on save and this works fine for the main code base, however, I would like to be able to edit a plugin via the include path and see those changes auto uploaded as well. Is this possible?
As of right now, the only alternative I see is to create separate projects for each plugin, which I am willing to do if this is the only option. The single project workflow is very preferable to me and I might be willing to switch IDE's if this is possible in another environment.
I would be happy to elaborate if my intentions are unclear.
I don't think it's possible. What about creating one single "umbrella" project for all plugins and simply manage it the same way you do the main project?
Personal note: What you have is basically several projects and the uploading is focused always on single project. So what you want is like "I want to treat them as projects but not to at the same time" :) Btw, how do you edit a plugin? I guess open it as a project in NetBeans or use some text editor. So again you basically treat it as a project.
Using online interfaces to a version control system is a nice way to have a published location for the most recent versions of code. For example, I have a LaTeX package here (which is released to CTAN whenever changes are verified to actually work):
http://github.com/wspr/pstool/tree/master
The package itself is derived from a single file (in this case, pstool.tex) which, when processed, produces the documentation, the readme, the installer file, and the actual files that make up the package as it is used by LaTeX.
In order to make it easy for users who want to download this stuff, I include all of the derived files mentioned above in the repository itself as well as the master file pstool.tex. This means that I'll have double the number of changes every time I commit because the package file pstool.sty is a generated subset of the master file.
Is this a perversion of version control?
#Jon Limjap raised a good point:
Is there another way for you to publish your generated files elsewhere for download, instead of relying on your version control to be your download server?
That's really the crux of the matter in this case. Yes, released versions of the package can be obtained from elsewhere. So it does really make more sense to only version the non-generated files.
On the other hand, #Madir's comment that:
the convenience, which is real and repeated, outweighs cost, which is borne behind the scenes
is also rather pertinent in that if a user finds a bug and I fix it immediately, they can then head over to the repository and grab the file that's necessary for them to continue working without having to run any "installation" steps.
And this, I think, is the more important use case for my particular set of projects.
We don't version files that can be automatically generated using scripts included in the repository itself. The reason for this is that after a checkout, these files can be rebuild with a single click or command. In our projects we always try to make this as easy as possible, and thus preventing the need for versioning these files.
One scenario I can imagine where this could be useful if 'tagging' specific releases of a product, for use in a production environment (or any non-development environment) where tools required for generating the output might not be available.
We also use targets in our build scripts that can create and upload archives with a released version of our products. This can be uploaded to a production server, or a HTTP server for downloading by users of your products.
I am using Tortoise SVN for small system ASP.NET development. Most code is interpreted ASPX, but there are around a dozen binary DLLs generated by a manual compile step. Whilst it doesn't make a lot of sense to have these source-code versioned in theory, it certainly makes it convenient to ensure they are correctly mirrored from the development environment onto the production system (one click). Also - in case of disaster - the rollback to the previous step is again one click in SVN.
So I bit the bullet and included them in the SVN archive - the convenience, which is real and repeated, outweighs cost, which is borne behind the scenes.
Not necessarily, although best practices for source control advise that you do not include generated files, for obvious reasons.
Is there another way for you to publish your generated files elsewhere for download, instead of relying on your version control to be your download server?
Normally, derived files should not be stored in version control. In your case, you could build a release procedure that created a tarball that includes the derived files.
As you say, keeping the derived files in version control only increases the amount of noise you have to deal with.
In some cases we do, but it's more of a sysadmin type of use case, where the generated files (say, DNS zone files built from a script) have intrinsic interest in their own right, and the revision control is more linear audit trail than branching-and-tagging source control.