I fail to understand some options in the dumpBackup.php maintenance script of Mediawiki.
What is the effect of --include-files? In my test wiki, dumpBackup.php --current --include-files and dumpBackup.php --current both contain the pages of the File: namespace and I see no difference.
What is the effect of --uploads? In my test wiki I see that the xml file contains a tiny bit more of xml but, to me, it looks like this is all information which is there already as part of the File: page. What is the use of this flag?
When I add both --include-files and --uploads I get the next surprise. I actually expected the combined effect of both options, but what I get is the file content of the uploaded files and the upload record. Why did I not get the file contents when I used --include-files alone?
When I use only --include-files and --uploads but no --current I would have expected to get the content of the uploaded files and the upload record (and none of the other pages). However ,I get the warning no valid action specified and no further information at all
I am completely confused since I do not understand the logic behind all of this.
Related
Software: Octave v7.1.0
There seems to be no option of defining the page size while doing publish ("FILE", "pdf") . The manual for pdf is: 11.11.1 docs.octave/.../Publish.
It's kinda surprising as it's a one word addition to the output TeX file : a4paper. I can do this manually each time I publish but being able to specify it somehow within the publish function would be awesome.
Surprisingly, there are plenty options for specifying page size in figures and images. Search for papertype at: 15.3.3.2 docs.octave/.../Figure-Properties
I searched with "Matlab" and found this page, and it fetched the results for "Matlab Report Generator" mlreportgen which seems a different thing.
I'd be interested to listen about other ways of doing it automatically too (like adding that word in TeX file via shell scripting and text string manipulation maybe).
As directed by #cris-luengo in the pointer comment to the linked manual, one solution can be to edit (or create) the function files (to used by the publish function) with the desired changes to specify the paper size.
The function files location can be found by:
opening the function file in octave gui and then proceeding from there:
edit (fullfile (fileparts (which ("publish")), "private", "__publish_html_output__.m"))
or, executing the following in octave REPL/command line:
fullfile (fileparts (which ("publish")), "private")
There, among other files, 2 files will be:
__publish_html_output__.m
__publish_latex_output__.m
Edit the _latex_ containing file to add ,a4paper (or other predefined size in latex) alongwith 10pt in the line '\documentclass[10pt]{article}',, optionally with a comment in a proceeding newline as a reminder that you added it, something like: '% Modification: specify a4paper',
If pdf format were directly specified as a new function file, then I'd have preferred to modify its copy and calling that directly in publish(), but since the publish pdf eventually calls publish latex, so, the only option at hand in this method seems to edit the original publish latex function file itself.
I've installed a mediawiki and imported an example page from Wikipedia. But the template is not shown properly. https://wordpress-251650-782015.cloudwaysapps.com/wiki/Cheeta
Any hint on what could be the cause?
You're most likely missing one or more required templates/Lua modules this template relies on. If you want to get all the required templates/modules you can get them via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Export by inserting the template name and ticking the box saying Include templates, and then importing the file generated from that via http://wordpress-251650-782015.cloudwaysapps.com/wiki/Speciale:Importa. However in most cases, except if you desperately want the exact look and feel its easier to write your one template, because Wikipedia templates get enormously complex
I have been asked to update a system where header information gets injected into a tif via a 3rd party console application. I don't need to worry about that bit.
The part I have been asked to look at it the merge process that generates the header information.
The current file generated by the process is assumed as correct, before I make any changes, so I want to add this as an approved result, from that I can then check that the changes I make will alter the file as expected.
I thought this would be a good opportunity to look at using ApprovalTests
The problem I have is that for what ever reason the links to the videos are considered corruptible (Possibly show me kittens jumping into boxes or something, which will stop me working, which ironically means I slow down my work done because I cannot see any help videos).
What I have been looking at is the Approvals.Verify and Approvals.VerifyFile extensions.
But what appears to be happening is confusing me.
using VerifyFile creates a received file, but the contents of the file are just a line the name of the file I have asked it to verify.
using Verify(new FileInfo("FileNameHere")) does not appear to generate the received file that I need to flag as approved, but the test does return saying that it cannot find the approved tif file.
I am probably using VerifyFile completely wrong and might be looking at using Verify wrong as well.
useful info?
Might be useful to know, that as this is a legacy application, running as a windows service, I have wrapped the service in a harness that allows me to call the routines, so the files are physically being written elsewhere on the machine outside of my control (well there is a config, but the return of the service I call generates a file in a fixed location if it is successful). I have tried copying that into the Unit Test project, but that doesn't appear to help.
Verify(File) and VerifyFile(string) are both meant to verify an existing file. As such they merely setting the received file to the file you pass in. You will still need to move/approval/create the approved file.
Here is the pseudo code and process.
[UseReporter(typeof(DiffReporter), typeof(ClipboardReporter)]
public void TestTiff()
{
string tif = YourProcessToCreateTifFile();
Approvals.VerifyFile(tif);
}
[Note: if you don't have an image diff installed, like TortoiseDiff, you might want to use the FileLauncherReporter]
Run this, once you get the result, move the file over by pasting your clipboard into a cmd window.
It will move the temporary tif to your test directory with the name ClassName.TestTiff.approved.tif
After that the test should pass until something changes.
Happy Testing!
I know there's a lot of documentation over the topic, this one, and this one but i couldn't find one that explains so that a 5 year old - or a designer - could understand :) .
My knowledge is html and css, and I need to design the templates for the user login process using Django AllAuth. I'm alone in this one, with no knowledge of python.
Someone please point me to some good documentation to help answering my question:
1 - How can I design each account/page html if I don't know what element is coming? Do I need to work on the views.py file? (possible to do so without any python knowledge?)
2 - how can I actually test all error messages without having to go thru all the login steps every time?
Thank you, guys
I did something like this. It was for django-registration, but the idea is the same.
-Go to github, and clone all the templates. In case, you are not familiar, there will be a folder called templates inside allauth app folder, and download the whole folder. Inside it , there will be base.html, and a folder called allauth.
-base.html is not needed, and you can delete it.
-inside all-auth folder, you will have a bunch of self-evident html files. Open the files, now, the only important content lies between {% block content %}{% endblock %}. Copy that to the html files you want, but make sure to have the same file name; otherwise, allauth woent recognize.
-If you want even more customization, run server, obtain the (soem name)" html codes, and you will see a bunch of html form fiels with id = "(some name)" and name = "". These are HTML fields. As long as you keep the same id and name for each field, you can use them however you want.
Summary: Run server with default allauth templates that you get from github. Go to source of the django generated html files. Copy all the fields that are relevant, and use them however you want.
I know I am not full clear, but it is somewhat a long process.
Here is the official django page: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/forms/#customizing-the-form-template
I've a file in a folder and I don't know anything about this file (how it's generated and updated) because it comes from an application running on my system of which I don't have the source code.
The file format is clearly json and I successfully created an hard link to it (using the shell command ln file hardLinkToFile) and placed it on another directory.
At this point I check the "2" files and they are exactly the same as expected, but when I perform an action in the application that cause an update of the original file the hard link doesn't get updated.
Any idea on how I can solve this problem?
UPDATE: As pointed out by both Vlad Lazarenko and mvds the file probably get deleted and a new one is created, is there something I can do to obtain a solution equivalent to the hard-link one I thought initially about?
If a hard link is not getting updated, it means that application is removing the old file and creates a new one. Thus, you still have a hard copy of the previous file, but new file has a totally different inode, though path is still the same. You can verify it simply by changing the content of that file yourself - the link should get updated.
I am getting the same behavior in TextEdit, but not in TextMate. I would suspect this is due to the revision control built in to OS X Lions document architecture. TextEdit uses versioning, while TextMate does not. Most likely this function replaces the file instead of changing it, as described by #Vlad Lazarenko.
#Vlad and Francesco. It's really in this way. I verified that vi leaves the inode unchanged and the src and dest file are both changed, while e.g. the kate editor doesn't and I was getting mad to understand why the changes I made in the src file weren't also in the dest file.
You can easily check this with the command ls -li srcfile destfile before editing one of them with each editor I mentioned.
By the way it's not nice that the hard link are application dependent
I guess it is a bit too late...
Anyways, accidentally I found that, if you change the default app for the file, the hard link gets separated from original file. Even if you click on change all and do not relate to that specific file.