I was assigned the task to rewrite our home-made templates with Perl Template Toolkit.
Our templates have the possibility to extract a fragment of the template (and then make HTML from it) instead of using the entire template.
How to do it with Template Toolkit?
The best solution I came with is the following:
Let we have a template x.html with fragment A.
The fragment should be extracted into new file. (I am to name it like x/A.html for consistency.) In the original template x.html it should be replaced with [% INCLUDE 'x/A.html' %]. So I could be able to use either the entire template x.html or its fragment x/A.html. Probably we may have several levels of inclusion like x/A/B.html.
Are there other ways to do it? (I don't like to idea to split it in subdirectories as described above, but haven't come up with a better solution.)
Are you asking whether there's a better way to extract the fragment from the parent template?
(Answer is: no, that's probably the best way.)
Or are you asking is there a better way to organize the extracted fragements?
(Answer is: no real best answer, everywhere will have their own house style - you aren't going to go too far wrong by picking any convention.)
Most common conventions for naming I've seen are subdirectories x/A.html and prefixes x_A.html. Whether you use the name of the parent template for x or you choose to group by functionality as simbabque suggested is another matter of taste: grouping by functionality scales better on larger and more complicated layouts where you have a great deal of reuse of components, but grouping by use case is conceptually simpler in smaller use cases with little or no component reuse.
Related
I am using AEM6.0 and in one of sightly scripts, i am having two variables
${currentPage.path} -? /content/geometrixx/en/tools
${pageHref} -> /content/geometrixx/en/tools.html
Now i need to compare these two but as ${currentPage.path} does not have .html, it will fail. Is there any way i can append .html to it to compare it successfully.
No. There is no direct way to do it. The following excerpt from the Sightly docs tells you why
Separation of Concerns: The expressiveness of the Sightly template language is purposely limited, in order to make sure that a real programming language is used to express the corresponding presentation logic. This optional logic is invoked from Sightly expressions with the Use-API pattern, making it easy to understand what is called for a given view, and to potentially have different logic for different views of the same resource.
I would suggest either using a Java / JavaScript Use API to achieve the same.
However if it is inevitable that you need to do this in Sightly itself, then you can use the following dirty hack, though I wouldn't recommend it.
<sly data-sly-test.pagePath = "${currentPage.path}.html"></sly>
<sly data-sly-test = "${pageHref == pagePath}">
<!--/** Your HTML here */-->
</sly>
A similar kind of question has been answered here.
I would like to know if there is anyone who has implemented the subjectscheme maps of DITA1.2 in their work? If yes, can you please break-up the example to show:
how to do it?
when not to use it?
I am aware of the theory behind it, but I am yet to implement the same and I wanted to know if there are things I must keep in mind during the planning and implementation phase.
An example is here:
How to use DITA subjectSchemes?
The DITA 1.2 spec also has a good example (3.1.5.1.1).
What you can currently do with subject scheme maps is:
define a taxonomy
bind the taxonomy to a profiling or flagging attribute, so that it the attribute only takes a value that you have defined
filter or flag elements that have a defined value with a DITAVAL file.
Advantage 1: Since you have a taxonomy, filtering a parent value also filters its children, which is convenient.
Advantage 2: You can fully define and thus control the list of values, which prevents tag bloat.
Advantage 3: You can reuse the subject scheme map in many topic maps, in the usual modular DITA way, so you can apply the same taxonomies anywhere.
These appear to be the main uses for a subject scheme map at present.
The only disadvantages I have found is that I can think of other hypothetical uses for subject scheme maps such as faceted browsing, but I don't think any implementation exists. The DITA-OT doesn't have anything like that yet anyway.
Help! In carefully stepping through irb to control a browser (Firefox and Chrome) using the Watir library, it seems the xpath addresses are too shifty to rely on. Eg. one moment, the xpath for one's balance seems consistent, so I use that address in my script. Sometimes it works, but too often crashing with "element not found" although every time I manually step through, the webpage data is there (firebug inspect to confirm).
Yes, using Ajax-reliant sites, but not that changing....bank websites that pretty much remain the same across visits.
So question....is there some way watir-webdriver can simply give me a long, verbose dump of everything it sees in the DOM at the moment, in the form of an xpath tree? Would help me troubleshoot.
The big answer is to not use xpath, but instead use watir as the UI is intended to be used.
When it comes to a means to specify elements in browser automation, by and large Xpath is evil, it is SLOW, the code it creates is often (as you are finding) very very brittle, and it's nearly impossible to read and make sense of. Use it only as a means of last resort when nothing else will work.
If you are using a Watir API (as with Watir or Watir-webdriver) then you want to identify the element based on it's own attributes, such as class, name, id, text, etc If that doesn't work, then identify based on the closest container that wraps the element which has a way to find it uniquely. If that doesn't work identify by a sibling or sub-element and use the .parent method as a way to walk 'up' the dom to the 'parent container element.
To the point of being brittle and difficult readability, compare the following taken from the comments and consider the code using element_by_xpath on this:
/html/body/form/div[6]/div/table/tbody/tr[2]/td[2]/table/tbody/tr[2]/td/p/table[2]/tbody/tr/td[2]/p/table/tbody/tr[3]/td[2]
and then compare to this (where the entire code is shorter than just the xpath alone)
browser.cell(:text => "Total Funds Avail. for Trading").parent.cell(:index => 1).text
or to be a bit less brittle replace index by some attribute of the cell who's text you want
browser.cell(:text => "Total Funds Avail. for Trading").parent.cell(:class => "balanceSnapShotCellRight").text
The xpath example is very difficult to make any sense of, no idea what element you are after or why the code might be selecting that element. And since there are so many index values, any change to the page design or just extra rows in the table above the one you want will break that code.
The second is much easier to make sense of, I can tell just by reading it what the script is trying to find on the page, and how it is locating it. Extra rows in the table, or other changes to page layout will not break the code. (with the exception of re-arranging the columns in the table, and even that could be avoided if I was to make use of class or some other characteristic of the target cell (as did an example in the comments below)
For that matter, if the use of the class is unique to that element on the page then
browser.cell(:class => 'balanceSnapShotCellRight').text
Would work just fine as long as there is only one cell with that class in the table.
Now to be fair I know there are ways to use xpath more elegantly to do something similar to what we are doing in the Watir code above, but while this is true, it's still not as easy to read and work with, and is not how most people commonly (mis)use xpath to select objects, especially if they have used recorders that create brittle cryptic xpath code similar to the sample above)
The answers to this SO question describe the three basic approaches to identifying elements in Watir. Each answer covers an approach, which one you would use depends on what works best in a given situation.
If you are finding a challenge on a given page, start a question here about it and include a sample of the HTML before/after/around the element you are trying to work with, and the folks here can generally point you the way.
If you've not done so, work through some of the tutorials in the Watir wiki, notice how seldom xpath is used.
Lastly, you mention Firewatir. Don't use Firewatir, it's out of date and no longer being developed and will not work with any recent version of FF. Instead use Watir-Webdriver to driver Firefox or Chrome (or IE).
You just need to output the "innerXml" (I don't know Watir) of the node selected by this XPath expression:
/
Update:
In case that by "dump" you mean something different, such as a set of the XPath expressions each selecting a node, then have a look at the answer of this question:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/4747858/36305
I'm struggling with the size of output files for large Modelica models. Off course, I can protect some objects in order to remove them completely from the result file. However, that gives rise to two problems:
it's not possible to redeclare protected objects
if i want to test my model in detail (eg for a short time period), i need to declare those objects publicly again in order to see their variables
I wonder if there's a trick to set the 'verbosity' of a Modelica model. Maybe what I would like is a third keyword next to public, protected, eg. transparent. Then, when setting up a simulation, I want be able to set the verbosity level to 1, or 2 with the following effect:
1--> consider all transparentelements as protected
2--> consider all transparentelements as public
This effect would propagate to all models and submodels.
I don't think this already exists. But is there an easy workaround?
Thanks,
Roel
As Michael Tiller wrote above, this is not handled the same way in all Modelica tools and there is no definite answer. To give an OpenModelica-specific answer, it's possible to use simulate(ModelName,outputFilter="regex"), to store only the variables that fully match the given regex (default is .*, matching any variable).
Roel,
I know several people wrestling with this issue. At the moment, all of this depends on the tool being used. I don't know how other tools handle filtering of results, but in Dymola you control it (as you point out) by giving the signals special qualifiers (e.g. protected).
One thing I've done in the past is to extend from a model and then add a bunch of output signals for things I'm interested in. Then you can select "Outputs" in Dymola to make sure those get in the results file. This is far from perfect because a) listing everything you want can get tedious and b) referencing protected variables is not strictly allowed (although Dymola lets you get away with it but issues a warning).
At Dassault, we are actively discussing this idea and hope to provide some better functionality along these lines. It isn't clear whether such functionality will be strictly tool specific or whether it will involve the language somehow. But if it is language related, we will (of course) work with the design group to formulate a specification that other tool vendors can support as well.
In SystemModeler, you go to the Settings tab in the Experiment Browswer in Simulation Center. Click on Output on the bottom and select which variables to store.
(The options are state variables, derivatives, algebraic variables, parameters, protected variables and if you mark the Store simulation log-option, you'll get some interesting statistics on events over time and function evaluations, opening another possibility to track down parts of the simulation and model that creates more evaluations)
I am not sure if this helps you, but in Dymola you can go to Simulation->Setup->Output and mark a checkbox saying "Store Protected variables". That way it is possible to declare most variables as protected: during normal simulation they are not stored, but when debugging your model, you just mark that checkbox and they are stored.
Of course that is not the same as your suggested keyword transparent, but maybe it helps a little...
A bit late, but in Dymola 2013 FD01 and later you can select which variables to store based on names (and model names) using the annotation __Dymola_selections, and even filter on user-defined tags - so you could create a tag name "transparent" in the model. See "Matching and variable selections" in the manual.
This is a general design question not relating to any language. I'm a bit torn between going for minimum code or optimum organization.
I'll use my current project as an example. I have a bunch of tabs on a form that perform different functions. Lets say Tab 1 reads in a file with a specific layout, tab 2 exports a file to a specific location, etc. The problem I'm running into now is that I need these tabs to do something slightly different based on the contents of a variable. If it contains a 1 I may need to use Layout A and perform some extra concatenation, if it contains a 2 I may need to use Layout B and do no concatenation but add two integer fields, etc. There could be 10+ codes that I will be looking at.
Is it more preferable to create an individual path for each code early on, or attempt to create a single path that branches out only when absolutely required.
Creating an individual path for each code would allow my code to be extremely easy to follow at a glance, which in turn will help me out later on down the road when debugging or making changes. The downside to this is that I will increase the amount of code written by calling some of the same functions in multiple places (for example, steps 3, 5, and 9 for every single code may be exactly the same.
Creating a single path that would branch out only when required will be a bit messier and more difficult to follow at a glance, but I would create less code by placing conditionals only at steps that are unique.
I realize that this may be a case-by-case decision, but in general, if you were handed a previously built program to work on, which would you prefer?
Edit: I've drawn some simple images to help express it. Codes 1/2/3 are the variables and the lines under them represent the paths they would take. All of these steps need to be performed in a linear chronological fashion, so there would be a function to essentially just call other functions in the proper order.
Different Paths
Single Path
Creating a single path that would
branch out only when required will be
a bit messier and more difficult to
follow at a glance, but I would create
less code by placing conditionals only
at steps that are unique.
Im not buying this statement. There is a level of finesse when deciding when to write new functions. Functions should be as simple and reusable as possible (but no simpler). The correct answer is almost never 'one big file that does a lot of branching'.
Less LOC (lines of code) should not be the goal. Readability and maintainability should be the goal. When you create functions, the names should be self documenting. If you have a large block of code, it is good to do something like
function doSomethingComplicated() {
stepOne();
stepTwo();
// and so on
}
where the function names are self documenting. Not only will the code be more readable, you will make it easier to unit test each segment of the code in isolation.
For the case where you will have a lot of methods that call the same exact methods, you can use good OO design and design patterns to minimize the number of functions that do the same thing. This is in reference to your statement "The downside to this is that I will increase the amount of code written by calling some of the same functions in multiple places (for example, steps 3, 5, and 9 for every single code may be exactly the same."
The biggest danger in starting with one big block of code is that it will never actually get refactored into smaller units. Just start down the right path to begin with....
EDIT --
for your picture, I would create a base-class with all of the common methods that are used. The base class would be abstract, with an abstract method. Subclasses would implement the abstract method and use the common functions they need. Of course, replace 'abstract' with whatever your language of choice provides.
You should always err on the side of generalization, with the only exception being early prototyping (where throughput of generating working stuff is majorly impacted by designing correct abstractions/generalizations). having said that, you should NEVER leave that mess of non-generalized cloned branches past the early prototype stage, as it leads to messy hard to maintain code (if you are doing almost the same thing 3 different times, and need to change that thing, you're almost sure to forget to change 1 out of 3).
Again it's hard to specifically answer such an open ended question, but I believe you don't have to sacrifice one for the other.
OOP techniques solves this issue by allowing you to encapsulate the reusable portions of your code and generate child classes to handle object specific behaviors.
Personally I think you might (if possible by your API) create inherited forms, create them on fly on master form (with tabs), pass agruments and embed in tab container.
When to inherit form and when to decide to use arguments (code) to show/hide/add/remove functionality is up to you, yet master form should contain only decisions and argument passing and embeddable forms just plain functionality - this way you can separate organisation from implementation.