Until recently, I worked with one page and builded it with parcel build src/pages/colors-and-type/colors-and-type.pug -d docs --public-url ./.
But now I have several pages, respectively, several entry points. In addition to that, I saw the confusion that comes up when I output everything to /docs/(added screenshot), how can I divide everything into folders(fonts separately, pages and styles also separately)?
Thanks in advance for help!
Related
I'd like to merge at least 2 PDF files into one while preserving all the form elements in the original PDFs. The form elements include text fields, radio buttons, check boxes, drop down menus and others. Please have a look at this sample PDF file with forms:
http://foersom.com/net/HowTo/data/OoPdfFormExample.pdf
Now try to merge it with any other arbitrary PDF file.
Can you do it?
EDIT: As for the implementation, I'd ideally prefer a command line solution on a linux plattform using open source tools such as 'ghostscript', or any other tool that you think is appropriate to solve this task.
Of course, everybody is welcome to supply any working solution to this problem, including a coded solution that involves writing a script which makes some API calls to a pdf-processing library. However, I'd suggest to take the path of least resistance first (CMD Solution).
Best Regards
EDIT #2: Well there are indeed several CMD tools that merge PDFs. However, these tools don't seem to, AFAIK, to preserve the forms in the original PDFs! These tools appear to simply just concatenate the printouts of all those PDFs into a single Printout, which is then presented as a single PDF.
Furthermore, If you printout a PDF file with forms into a file, you lose all the forms in it. This clearly not what I'm looking for.
I have found success using pdftk, which is an open-source software that runs on linux and can be called from your terminal.
To concatenate multiple pdfs into one (and preserve form-fillable elements), you can use the following command:
pdftk input1.pdf input2.pdf cat output output-file.pdf
I've checked "Similar questions" and went through a lot of search but I can't seem to find a way to combine the snippets I already figured out; would be awesome if someone is able to help.
Using pdftk, alternatively running through PowerShell
I got two .pdf files (f.e.: A=1000 pages, B=5000 pages) which I need to combine in a specific way to generate a new .pdf file. In detail I need page 1-3, 4-6[...] of file A merged with page 1-4, 4-8[...] of file B with a blank page between 1-3 & 4-6.
So far I figured how to burst the files, add a blank page and combine them to a new .pdf file. Yet I'm only able to that for one needed document at a time (a new file with 8 pages).
pdftk fileC.pdf fileD.pdf cat output fileE.pdf
pdftk A=fileE.pdf B=blankpage.pdf cat A1-1 B1-1 A2-4 output conclusion.pdf
Now I'm wondering if there's a way to output the complete file with a command? Otherwise I'd have to do it for every merge of two long files.
Thanks in advance!
I have a large project that is hosted in VSTS. I'd like see the differences in all files, project-wide, between two change lists. (It would also be helpful to do the same between two labels, since I have labels at the two points of interest.)
We have a problem that manifests between one build of our product and another; one way to go searching for the issue is to comprehensively review the code that changed between those two builds.
How can I show the differences in all files, project-wide, between one change list and another?
I've tried this:
tf diff . /recursive /version:100~150
and it seems to work, but it takes a very long time; and the output is a plain text diff. Can I browse the changes graphically, like in BeyondCompare or the IDE? Anything I can do to speed up the comparison?
I am trying to separate out internal and external documentation using the doxygen constructs of cond; but i just cant seem to get get it working. I would essentially like to exclude some files completely and not conditionally. Regardless of where i add the tag (before include, before header guards etc) , the files and source both show up.
What i have tried in vain is to take the test file from doxegen repo for
conditional test and add it to the project.
Steps to reproduce [Linux]
create a new directory.
copy paste the above file (had to rename it to .h as .c was passed over?).
generate dummy config via doxygen -g.
update Doxyfile ENABLED_SECTION = COND_ENABLED.
Run doxygen.
check html/index.html
This however is still visible in the html documentation it generates for the project. I have set the ENABLED_SECTION variable with other values , but cond_enabled function still shows up. Running the testing directory of the project (doxygen) it passes. So i am lost.
Any suggestions?
Tried with latest version 1.8.14.
Thanks!
Regarding the \cond problems (not an answer directly to the real problem you face, I think, but to long for a comment).
The mentioned file is used in the, limited, testing doxygen can do / does and the first lines contain some instructions on what to do. Furthermore there is a default Doxyfile with the tests in use. It is hard to run a separate test outside the doxygen build tree.
Regarding the remark "Running the testing directory of the project (doxygen) it passes." This is correct, here, at the moment, only testing is done against the XML output and the generated output is compared to a once created version of the XML output. No tests are done, at the moment, in respect to HTML or PDF / LaTeX. Recently the test framework has been slightly extended so in the future this should be possible (compare the xhtml and tex output, but some work has still to be done here).
The version of the parser sees the \cond in the first line (normal C comment) as a doxygen command and skips everything till the first \endcond (your friend in these cases is always doxygen -d preprocessor). I think that removing / modifying the first line will result in an already better result. There is however another hiccup for e.g. HTML output. As the function cond_enabled is not documented and EXPAND_ALL is not set to YES the function will not appear in the documentation. So best is also to add a line of documentation with the function cond_enabled.
Regarding the seen HTML problems I modified the the relevant test in doxygen slightly and pushed a proposed patch to github (pull request 714, https://github.com/doxygen/doxygen/pull/714).
Note: the problem of skipping the \cond in normal C comment is quite a bit harder to implement (seen the logical complexity of the doxygen code in pre.l and commentcnv.l.
EDIT: 2018/06/10: The push request has been integrated in the master version on github.
I have a GUI application that I am trying to determine what is being used and what isn't. I have a number of test suites that have to be run manually to test the user interface portions. Sometimes I run the same file a couple of times with "coverage.py run file_name -a" and do different actions each time to check different interface tools. I would expect that each time I ran with the -a argument, I could only increase the code covered line count by coverage.py (at least unless new files are pulled in). However, sometimes it gives lower code coverage after an additional run - what could be causing this?
I am not editing source between runs and no new files are being pulled in as far as I can tell. I am using coverage.py version 3.5.1.
That sounds odd indeed. If you can provide source code and a list of steps to reproduce the problem, I'd like to take a look at it: you can create a ticket for it here: https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/issues