I would like to access a Redmine taskbase via a simple text based interface - wondering what the shortest path would be (minimum investment/development).
Right now, this boils down to 2 use cases/phases:
Import a batch of tasks into Redmine from simple, wiki-based, bulletted TODO list, ie. plain text content. This is more of a one-off task, so a quick and dirty solution would be fine.
Later, some smooth two-way synchrosation would be great.. E.g. edit loads of tasks via some friendly plain text (or XML) in an editor, or scripting where I could manipulate all of them with simple text processing; then synchronise with Redmine and commit them back.
Any ideas on the easiest way to achieve these?
I'd prefer an external solution (i.e not touching the server), especially for the one-off import case; something like a neat IDE/editor/client, or a standalone Ruby script (e.g using the RM API).
If an appropriate RM plugin would be available, I would not resist giving it a try (can get root access from our lovely IT support:)..
Current ideas:
Emacs/Org-mode, looks like a great combination of a cool task manager UI and full plain text power. It seems rich enough to capture tags, states as well. This artice looks promising Orgmode and Roundup: Bridging public bugtrackers and local tasklists, although not exactly a perfect match.
org-mode parser in Ruby, could be used in an script with redmine-api access, or - worst case(for me, right now)- in newly developed RM plugin.. This looks like a good start: org-ruby
export RM->XML, process file, import XML->RM... not sure if this is supported?
I guess it's always possible to talk to the DB directly, but I'd prefer to avoid that.
Actually, I'm also interested a similar solution for Bugzilla.
At the simplest level, you could write a RM/Rails plugin that parses an Org-Mode task list, updating corresponding issues in the RM Model.
Equally, you can build a view for Redmine (again as a Rails plugin) to generate an org list of the current (or subset of) issues.
For Bugzilla I think you would be best off using the XML-RPC interface to do your issue comparison/update sync, so you'd have to take a very different approach from Redmine.
If you have any specific questions, please update your question, it's quite broad at the moment.
Update
At the moment, there are a few plugins which will probably help you figure out your solution, for example Nick Boltons xml import and Martin Liu's Redmine CSV Import Plugin but neither of these are going to completely solve the problem for you, just give you some useful starting point.
On the other hand, If you write a script that interacts with Redmine's REST api, you don't need it to be in any specific lanugage, in fact you could do it in Emacs-lisp, if the target users of the script are all Emacs aware, then this might well be the best way to do the job. (it would certainly be the most appealing option to me.)
Maybe this can be useful: https://github.com/fukamachi/redmine-el
Related
I am looking for a easier way to manage my eclipse code snippets. I know and have used Eclipse's template and snippets features. But as far as I have found, they can only be exported and imported as XML files.
Since I use many versions of eclipse and I keep migrating between machines managing the snippets is a hassle. I am looking for a UltiSnips like method to manage these snippets/templates. Is there one?
I also looked at snip2code, but it didn't appeal to me because I sometime work offline. Also, I want to have much greater control over the snippets using version control.
Oh well! I couldn't find anything that matched the set of requirements I had. So, I've ended up creating my own.
I have been looking for some time now, and I decided to try some crowd sourcing.
I have searched (Googled) the answer and looked through Stack Overflow for some time now, and I cannot find a proper and relatively easy way of created DOCX documents via Perl.
I want to create a DOC file, and since DOCX is XML based, I was guessing that would be an easier way to achieve this.
I located a RTF::Writer module but its very limited in its capabilities.
There are more than one such library for PHP, and other languages, but I cannot use that, unfortunately.
I am not running on a Windows environment so I cannot use anything that would integrate with Office, in addition I don't want to start bundling Office with my product.
I am open to suggestions, but please provide sensible ones :) i.e. no, you are scr*wed DOCX is impossible.
Here is what I tried:
1) Take an existing DOCX, and modify the XML directly, all I achieved via this is caused Word to crash :) apparently Word is very sensitive on its attribute order
2) Googled for answers and I found some, like Win32::Word::Writer which only works on Windows and requires OLE and Office
3) Found a lot of posts from 2010, that say its impossible, well almost 4 years have passed, probably something is out there that can do it
4) Looked for commercial solutions, couldn't find one, I found FOP which is able to create RTF, which is pretty close, but it lacks a lot of the styling I would like to use
5) A lot of things (code and modules) that allow extracting data from DOCX, but nothing that can create one, weird
6) Found abandoned code like OpenOffice::OODoc which stopped being written in 2010, and of course requires OpenOffice to be installed, and potentially also requires a non-headless (i.e. requires a GUI system)
Thanks guys for any answers :}
One cheat that I've used in the past is to output HTML with a ".doc" file name.
This gives you less fine-grained control over the document formatting, but may be sufficient for your use case.
The closest I've ever managed is to generate an OpenOffice document and then use that to export as .docx (in headless mode).
You need some fonts installed, but no GUI for this. I use OpenOffice::OODoc, and it's enough to let me open up an existing document and add text/pictures.
The OpenOffice (LibreOffice) export process is not 100% reliable, but I've never been able to get a simple, repeatable test case to reproduce it - just hangs occasionally. I add a timer to kill the process and let it retry.
Not a perfect situation, I'm afraid and I hope someone has a better solution.
Anyone out there using LiveCode in a multi developer project?
Either way, can someone recommend a good source control system / plugin to use?
We've looked at MagicCarpet but since it is no longer developed we wish to use something else.
Thanks
I'm working on a solution to this problem by exporting the stack file as a structured directory of script, json and image files which will diff and merge nicely in most VCS. It is not yet available but the intention is it will be open source. My goal is to demonstrate it at the RunRevLive conference in May.
Here's the repo for lcVCS https://github.com/montegoulding/lcVCS
I have put a git library stack on revOnline (libVersionControl) that exports to structured xml files that git can handle. It works as far as it goes, but I have hopes that Monte's solution will supersede this effort.
revOnline link to stack
Yes, our team has been using LiveCode with multiple developers. Since the Livecode community is still young, acquiring good source control tools can be a challenge. Our solution has been to break code into modules (stack files). When there are updates to merge into the main codebase, we clone our existing codebase, and merge code changes manually using line by line compare in a text editor. This is not a fun process, but is much less painful than it sounds.
If I were to redesign the system, we would simply use Git (Github.com etc.). There is no reason this would not work with Livecode stacks.
We use LiveCode in a small team with Subversion.
We don't have a perfect solution, but it is very lightweight; we all use a custom extension to the standard toolbar, which among other things has a 'save+backup' button. When we started using it with Subversion, we added code to this button which saves an XML sidecar file for the stack. The file contains all the scripts, custom properties, and optionally fields (controlled by user property in each stack). In our case almost all of our work is in scripts, so this works for us.
The effect is that each time we commit to SVN, we're always committing two files, the LiveCode stack and the accompanying sidecar file - the latter works fine for diffing etc.
Where this lets us down is that we don't have any solution for merging. If we were working on larger systems more actively, we'd also modify I expect look to modify the sidecar format into a complete folder of files. For now however this makes the situation workable (and it takes no noticeable time to generate the sidecar file).
Happy to share code if that was useful.
I know of a tool thats being worked on that is going to really help in this regard. When he showed it to me it looked very functional already. But I'm not sure when he will share it with the community.
So the point is, its just a matter of time before people's stuff comes together to make a turn key solution for this.
I have been lurking for a long time on this forum and I found it to be the most useful. This is my first question so forgive me if it is not phrased properly. I am looking for a simple nawk based (the server doesn't belong to me so I can not install gawk even if I wanted) CMS or collection of shell/awk scripts to help me manage my growing collection of pure XHTML 1.0/CSS files which represent my personal website. I tried TinyTim and Blis on my personal computer. Apart of being non-portable (sorry but Bash and gawk are not standard Unix tools) I found them not to be fully functional. Can anybody suggest any other solutions? I have my own growing collection of quick scripts but I need something more robust. I am willing to consider simple Perl based solution. Python would be a stretch but I really like the language and I am using it daily for scientific computing so I am willing at least to learn about that option.
I wrote a static site generator using awk and sh called Zodiac. It supports Markdown and plain HTML, a main site layout, metadata and its written in POSIX awk and sh. This could be the awk-based content management system you're looking for.
An interesting question! But this is not a traditional answer. I have numerous comments that won't fit well into the S.O. comment format, so please forgive this violation of etiquette.
As much as I like *awk, I can see several obstacles.
1. I'm not aware of any CMS tools created with nawk. I have a wide range of experience of what is available with awk, and as you've discovered, there are several, (TinyTim and Blis), but they're based on bash/gawk and they're not as fully featured as you require.
When I went to the mother-ship of awk (www.awk.info), I got the distinct impression that the site has been hacked. I did find A tiny CMS in awk , but assume it is a gawk based system. The two sites have related authors, so I'm afraid it may be hacked too. Beware!
2. It sounds like you are thinking of a traditional awk command-line and shell script based system. If so, my limited experience with CMS systems has been that they are GUI based systems for content creation and management, so a GUI page creator, AND THEN a GUI wrapper around something similar to a traditional unix repository/SCCS system. CMS experts are welcome to enumerate the differences.
So, why not just make some wrapper scripts around CVS or similar that allow you to control your repository as you need?
3. System effectiveness I: using CVS as a place holder for the repository side of your CMS system, think how big that source code is, and that it is written in 'C', which gives much finer access and control to sub-systems related to file ownership and security issues (as well as many others) than you can access in nawk or any shell. (Compiled C executes much faster of course, but in this day of 3Ghz+ processors, it's not an absolute requirement to insist on complied code)
4. system effectiveness II: You say you want to store mostly XHTML 1.0/CSS type files. That is a major set-back for your project, awk is reg-ex based language and can't effectively parse XML-like data. Have you lurked enough here to have read parse xml in bash OR complex conversions
Of course, the post I was really looking for, I can't find! Search for phrases like 'friends don't let friends do XML in sed/awk/bash' ;-)!
5. Re TinyTim and Blis: Reconsider your objection to gawk/bash: these 2 excellent languages are super-sets of nawk and ksh(88). Depending on how little/much the script rely on gawk/bash specific features, at the easy end, you may only need to change the 'she-bang' at the top of the file to #!/bin/nawk , #!/bin/ksh OR more realistically, make that change and then rewrite some code for nawk/ksh. Worst case is that the gawk and bash code rely so heavily on specific 'branded' features that is really impractical to rewrite. It's worth a look.
To complete the picture, also see gawkxml.
Obviously a gawk system, but I did make a conversion to nawk with some code changes. It worked for my needs, but I didn't try to fix the case of the self-verifying aspect of the code that didn't work ;-(
EDIT
6. Finally, look at the range of systems from the original awk creators in their classic book 'The Awk Programming Language', Chap 4 Reports and Databases, 'A relational database system' AND Chap. 6, Little Languages. There may be ideas there for you (no prebaked CMS however ;-).
So, given that perl and python both have good-to-great XML processing built-in via imported modules, I think you have to seriously consider them OR install something like xmlstarlet (per the S.O. links above) and write your shell system wrappers to work with it.
I hope this helps.
Try Jekyll:
http://jekyllrb.com/
You just write up some text files using some simple, intuitive syntax. Then when you run Jekyll, it generates a whole folder full of plain HTML files, ready to upload.
The code can be extended using Ruby plugins which add extra functionality.
It is supported on GitHub Pages: if you upload a repository full of Markdown files, GitHub will run Jekyll on it automatically and host it on your personal subdomain.
There's also Hyde which is written in Python, but I haven't tried it.
A Google search for "static website generator" will yield millions of results. Try a few and pick what you like!
Are there any libraries out there that do this? Playing around with Common Lisp it seems like this would be one of the most useful things to lower barrier of entry for newcomers. ASDF seems mostly designed for deployment, not for rapid prototyping and development. Following threads on comp.lang.lisp it seems like people agree that CL's package system is powerful, but lacks the ease of something like Python's dead simple module system. It is FAIL in the sense that it's designed for power not usability.
Glad to know if I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'm stunned that noone has tried to build a Python module-like system on top of ASDF.
Zach Beane wrote how he nowadays starts new Common Lisp projects by using Quicklisp and Quickproject. This might be along the lines you want.
Not sure if it's ready for prime time or whether it fits your requirements at all, but here's a link to XCVB.
I don't know. I mostly use ASDF for my in-development compilation needs. Once you notice that you'd benefiot from more than one source file, open <projectname>.asd, slap in a basic ASDF system definition template and start slapping filenames in. As and when you notice a cross-file dependency, update the dependency list.
But, then, I use the exact same method dealing with Makefiles (yes, I know there are automatic dependency checkers that can do it for you, but since I mostly code on my own, it's easier to just amend the Makefile/ASDF definition as I go).
In SBCL, there's a hook on REQUIRE that checks for ASDF systems, so you end up with something that is about as convenient as Python's import, but somehow I suspect that is not what you meant.
This may not be the answer you want, but clearly you have some idea of what you want in a module system. Have you considered creating one yourself? That is, taking your limited domain, your limited requirements, your environment and simply pounding out whatever abstractions will quickly make your life easier?
That's one of the key benefits of Lisp I'm sure you know, is that these simple abstractions and little tools are typically very easy to craft in Lisp.
I'm not suggesting solving everyone who has a problem with the package system or ASDF, I'm simply suggesting solving your own problem as you understand it, which is likely simpler and smaller than some more powerful larger scope.
There is Mudballs now, too.
If you're looking for a piece of software to add this functionality to then it's a good bet.
If you want a command line tool that just uses bash to generate new common lisp project directory and file layouts, you may find one that I created for myself useful: lispproject. If it doesn't match your needs, go ahead and fork it or the repo it gets it templates from to suit your needs: lisp-project-template. Look at the sh file in lispproject repo to see how the templates are used. Also, please note that you may need to adjust the calls to sed to fit your platform as I am using this on macOS. Alternative sed calls are in the main script but just commented out if you need them.
it's designed for power not usability
that's how most Lisp gurus like it.