I'm trying to use the Performance tab to record a very tricky bug in a NodeJS/React app. The app's own JavaScript calls 3rd party code in node_modules. I struggle to find out which parts of the app's own code are involved, because there are thousands of calls within the React codebase itself and within other files in node_modules. It would be a lot more helpful if I could ignore all of these and focus on the code that I can modify.
When I type into the filter field it performs a search, but I want to exclude files in certain paths.
Is it possible to do this, and how?
Related
I am working on a Firefox extension it is a context menu for automating bbCode, HTML, MarkDown, etc.
It is functional now, but I have a file which is the size of the rest of the code combined, an Excel spreadsheet. (Yes, I know, lame)
I use it as a database for organizing the menu IDs, arguments, internationalization, etc.
It's useful, for me at least, and I want to make it available, but it is not properly a part of the application, it should be a part of the background documentation.
Is there a way in Github/Git to separate documentary files from those that a part of execution of the code?
I've looked through Github, and I haven't found a spot (with revision control) to put this.
I'm going to deploy a QML based application. Now I'm wondering it's better to use resources system for .qml files and their associated files or using relative addressing or there is a better way?
The first way maybe make the project difficult to manage if the number of qml files and your images become larger and larger. Also I think it would be harder to deploy third party plugins like Qt desktop components.
And the second way is not secure as it should be. Every one can open a text editor and edit your .qml files.
Is there a better way?
Using Resource system :
Binds all the dependencies into one single binary, thus no problem of placing them at exact locations as per the paths given in your code.
Many times you would not want to share your qml code/images etc. [close source projects], helpful in those cases. Also it is more secured as no one can modify your files and cripple your application possibly.
You will not be able to modify these dependent files at run time, which might be required in some cases.
The first way maybe make the project difficult to manage if the number of qml files and your images become larger and larger.
Contrary to what you say, I think its easier to manage them, how so many files there might be. You can see here how easy it is to do using Qt Creator.
Relative addressing:
All the dependencies are scattered at different locations, thus problem of placing them at exact locations as per the paths given in your code.
Since your files are directly available to anyone who would want to access them, unsecure.
If there is a modification required in one the files at run time, you can do it. Eg. having a log file and writing/reading some data into/from it.
Difficult to manage(compared to first approach) when number of files increase as exact paths have to be given.
One personal advantage I have found of second approach is in situations like this :
I need to send my Qt apps for Demos to clients with managers, offshore. These demos go on full day. If some minor UI feature ( eg size of a button seems very small ) is getting too much negative attention, we can direct the manager over call to the respective qml file, and make him do small changes ( eg. scale : 1.5 ) This is helpful as we wont have time to build the whole system, resend the exes to them etc.
Is there a better way? Not that I have seen any. I thinks its a matter of finding which one of the above suits your requirements more.
I've been asked to write scope the effort for rebranding a significant iPhone/iPad application for multiple customers, locale, languages, etc. Each incarnation of the rebrand might include different look and feel, possibly different behavior, or subsets of functionality.
My initial impression is it should be possible to use a single xCode project, and just include multiple .plist files targeted to specific project configurations. I'm unsure exactly how to accomplish this in xCode, thus I'm not sure how to accurately estimate the effort required.
I'm looking for pointers and developer references to find the most reasonable method to rebrand an existing app multiple times without forking new xCode project each time.
The feature I've been looking for is called "Targets" in xCode.
I'm going to use these as described here to deploy my single project into multiple binaries.
I'm not sure that's possible but with MVC, Cocoa makes it easy to localize apps.
I've used a client-server approach, where everything specific to one customer is downloaded or configured from a remote server. You still need customers with overlapping requirements, but you can switch on/off modules based on the needs of a particular customer.
Low-tech approach: grab the data, configuration files, and images from a different location in the file system. Or the same location, but drop the new customer data into the directory and archive the old. A plist, a text file, a series of #defines, etc, can switch a behavior on or off. Write your code so that it doesn't know how many images, which modules, what color the buttons are, etc, until it checks the configuration and gets the data and images it needs from your directory.
I'm developing a web app.
If I include a jQuery plugin (or the jQuery file itself), this has to be put under my static directory, which is under SCM, to be served correctly.
Should I gitignore it, or add it, even if I don't plan on modifying anything from it?
And what about binary files (graphic resources) that might come with it?
Thanks in advance for any advice!
My view is that everything you need for your application to run correctly needs to be managed. This includes third-party code.
If you don't put it under SCM, how is it going to get deployed correctly on your production systems? If you have other ways of ensuring that, that's fine, but otherwise you run the risk that successful deployment is a matter of people remembering to do all the right things, rather than some automated low-risk "push the button" procedure.
If you don't manage it under SCM or something similar, how do you ensure that the versions you develop against and test against are the same? And that they're the same as production? Debugging an issue caused by a version difference you don't notice can be horrible.
I generally add external resources to my project directly. Doing so facilitates deployment and ensures that if someone changes the version of this file in your project, you have a clear audit history of what happened in case it causes issues in the code that you've written. Developers should know not to modify these external resources.
You could use something like git submodules, I suppose, but I haven't felt that this is worth the hassle in the past.
Binary files from external sources can be checked in to the project as well, although if they're extremely large you may want to consider a different approach.
There aren't a lot of reasons not to put external resources like jQuery into your repo:
If you pull it down from jQuery every time you check out or deploy, you have less control over which version you're using. This holds true for most third-party libraries; you probably don't want to upgrade your libraries without testing with your code to see if it breaks something.
You'll always have a complete copy of your site when you check out your repository and you won't need to go seeking resources that may have become unavailable.
For small (in terms of filesize) things like jQuery and images, I'd just add them unless you're really, really concerned about space.
It depends.
These arguments relate to having a copy of the library on your system and not pulling it from it's original location.
Arguments in favour:
It will ensure that everything needed for your project can be found in one place when someone else joins your development team. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to scramble around looking for the right versions of libraries in order to be able to get something working.
If you make any modifications to the library you can make these changes to the source controlled version so when a new version comes out you use the source control's merging tools to ensure your edits don't go missing.
Arguments against:
It could mean everyone has a copy of the library locally - unless you map the 3rd party tools to a central server.
Deploying could be problematical - again unless you map the 3rd party tools to a central server and don't include them in the deploy script.
In order to provide nice URLs between parts of our app we split everything up into several modules which are compiled independently. For example, there is a "manager" portion and an "editor" portion. The editor launches in a new window. By doing this we can link to the editor directly:
/com.example.EditorApp?id=1
The EditorApp module just gets the value for id and loads up the document.
The problem with this is ALL of the code which is common between the two modules is duplicated in the output. This includes any static content (graphics), stylesheets, etc.
And another problem is the compile time to generate JavaScript is nearly double because we have some complex code shared between both modules which has to be processed twice.
Has anyone dealt with this? I'm considering scrapping the separate modules and merging it all back into one compile target. The only drawback is the URLs between our "apps" become something like:
/com.example.MainApp?mode=editor&id=1
Every window loads the main module, checks the value of the mode parameter, and and calls the the appropriate module init code.
I have built a few very large applications in GWT, and I find it best to split things up into modules, and move the common code into it's own area, like you've done. The reason in our case was simple, we had some parts of our application that were very different to the rest, so it made sense from a compile size point of view. Our application compiled down to 300kb for the main section, and about 25-40kb for other sections. Had we just put them all in one the user would have been left with a 600kb download, which for us was not acceptable.
It also makes more sense from a design and re-usability point of view to seperate things out as much as possible, as we have since re-used a lot of modules that we built on this project.
Compile time is not something you should generally worry about, because you can actually make it faster if you have seperate modules. We use ant to build our project, and we set it to only compile the GWT that has changed, and during development to only build for one browser, typical compile times on our project are 20 seconds, and we have a lot of code. You can see and example of this here.
One other minor thing: I assume you know that you don't have to use the default GWT paths that it generates? So instead of com.MyPackage.Package you could just put it into a folder with a nice name like 'ui' or something. Once compiled GWT doesn't care where you put it, and is not sensitive to path changes, because it all runs from the same directory.
From my experience building GWT apps, there's a few things to consider when deciding on whether you want multiple modules (with or without entry points), or all in one: download time (Javascript bundle size), compile time, navigation/url, and maintainability/re-usability.
...per download time, code splitting pretty much obviates the need to break into different modules for performance reasons.
...per compile time, even big apps are pretty quick to compile, but it might help breaking things up for huge apps.
...per navigation/url, it can be a pain to navigate from one module to another (assuming different EntryPoints), since each module has it's own client-side state...and navigation isn't seamless across modules.
...per maintainability/re-usability, it can be helpful from an organization/structure perspective to split into separate modules (even if there's only one EntryPoint).
I wrote a blog post about using GWT Modules, in case it helps.
Ok. I really get the sense there really is no "right" answer because projects vary so much. It's very much dependent on the nature of the application.
Our main build is composed of a number of in-house modules and 3rd party modules. They are all managed in seperate projects. That makes sense since they are used in different places.
But having more than one module in a single project designed to operate as one complete application seems to have overcomplicated things. The original reason for the two modules was to keep the URL simple when opening different screens in a new window. Even though had multiple build targets they all use a very large common subset of code (including a custom XML/POJO marshalling library).
About size... for us, one module was 280KB and the other was just over 300KB.
I just got finished merging everything back into one single module. The new combined module is around 380KB. So it's actually a bit less to download since most everyone would use both screens.
Also remember there is perfect caching, so that 380KB should only ever downloaded once, unless the app is changed.