I installed gitlist on my developer server and i am trying to style the git description file of a git repository.
I tried to inject html code inside the description file but this is not recognized as html but as text.
After that, i tried to find and edit the php file of gitlist which is not allowing me to style the description file, but i didn't found something.
Is there anyone who could help me?
git-description-style http://dev.siggouroglou.gr/git-description-problem.png
From the GitList homepage:
GitList is free and open source software, written in PHP, on top of Silex and the Twig template engine.
Twig is often deployed with its escaper extension enabled, which is a relatively safe default setting. With this setting enabled, any text put into Twig templates will be escaped by default, e.g. HTML escaping will turn < into <. This extension also supports JavaScript escaping.
While this setting is enabled (and I recommend keeping it enabled), you can use the raw filter in templates to disable escaping of certain elements. This will require modifying the template code.
Assuming your description is in a variable called description, something like this in the appropriate template should do the trick:
{{ description|raw }}
Note that permitting raw output does decrease your security. Make sure you trust your users not to put anything harmful into their repository descriptions.
Related
I have a set of templates as files, like base.html, login.html, profile.html, header.html and so on. They are structured in folders.
It's fine to have them as separate files during development but when I deploy the app, I'd like to have them all embedded as strings or parsed and compiled templates ready to use from the code as usual.
How should I better make these templates as Go code? So that I don't have to have a templates folder in production, but everything in the single executable file?
With Go 1.16 there would be official "embed" package and the following would be possible (is possible if you read this after February 2021):
//go:embed "mytemplate.tmpl"
var myTemplate string
This code embeds mytemplate.html at compile time and it becomes available as a string (or as []byte or as a FileSystem, if you wish). No 3rd-party tools or libraries needed.
The most simple solution is to embed templates in string literal inside Go source code.
There is a tool that can help, see go-bindata.
I used go generate in some of previous projects for this type of operation, see blog post on go generate command for introduction.
As of the Go 1.16 release, there is the //go:embed comment directive.
This allows you to directly embed files in your binary.
Link for draft design of the go:embed comment directive
Link for the Github issue for go embed with some updates
In addition to go-bindata which was already mentioned, there is go-bindata-assetfs which you can use to serve static files from a webserver. It's good for Javascript, CSS, etc.
I have a simple use case on a site that I am publishing with Jekyll:
I need to list values of a certain type. Let's say one type has URIs of the form .../base/typex/value. I am generating a file .../typex/value.md and Jekyll happily serves it.
I also want to serve pages listing all values. That page should be named .../base/typex or .../base/typex/ (I don't mind either way).
I cannot use the file .../base/typex/index.md to do this because in some cases, index is actually a valid value.
I am creating .../base/typex.md, but Jekyll ignores it, regardless of the permalink that I put in there that specifically has no trailing slash. Instead of serving the file, Jekyll serves the directory listing.
Is there any way I can solve this puzzle? If Jekyll had support for serving .../base/typex.md, everything would be good, but it seems as if as soon as there is a directory .../base/typex/, Jekyll simply ignores this file. Is there any workaround or configuration I can use? (And this is going to get hosted on GitHub, so I have no control over the Web server configuration.)
( https://github.com/dret/webconcepts/issues/25 has the backstory, in case anybody is interested. But the issue is fully described here, so there is no need to follow that link. )
I just tried to reproduce it with your provided repository, thanks for that!
If you create a file http-method.md in /concepts and set the permalink to
permalink: /concepts/http-method/, my local jekyll serves the page both in /concepts/http-method and /concepts/http-method/
So, I've been trying to get a web page to display links to videos (over a symbolic link) dynamically (i.e., without hardcoding an <a></a> tag for each one) I have, and I think I may have found a solution, albeit a hacky one:
Video
Ignoring that this is a horrible way to do this, does anyone know how to format the following?:
I'm guessing there is an apache config file somewhere, but it is extremely hard to search for it as I do not know what it is called when files are just listed in this manner.
i'm basically looking to resize the widths of columns, and maybe even do some pretty-fication.
this is all running on my web/file server and is being accessed form my local machine.
This is what you're looking for:
http://perishablepress.com/better-default-directory-views-with-htaccess/
This tutorial details how directory listing by Apache can be modified to suit your taste using HTAccess file.
Using Apache HeaderName and ReadmeName directives and the module "mod_autoindex.c" you can add custom markup to your directory listing pages.
For displaying links to A/V and other files, look at my website: https://wrcraig.com/ApacheDirectoryDescriptions.
It goes beyond the default directory description, providing a spreadsheet to assist in creating detailed descriptions and exporting them in FancyIndex/AddDescription format for inclusion in .htaccess.
It also provides a menu driven BASH scripted alternative, using the FancyIndex descriptive data above (automatically adding A/V durations) to recursively populate a custom index.html while retaining the security features of .htaccess.
The site has examples of the input spreadsheet and both the FancyIndex output and the optional BASH scripted output.
If I have a very simple http directory:
default.html
info.html
contact.html
etc...
Should default.html link to the other files in the directory, I've always been able to simply use an anchor tag thus:
Contact me!
Will this always work, assuming that there is only one file in the directory with a name matching this extension-less href value?
It depends on the server and how it is set-up.
Remember that there's no innate mapping between URIs and files on a webserver, the webserver is always following some sort of rule as to what file to send. The simplest takes the path part of the URI and does a direct mapping to a filepath local to the webserver, but it could be doing just about anything else. A common case is using the file extension to do con-neg, so if you have contact.html and contact.atom and so on in the same local directory corresponding to the path, it picks that closest to the Accept header from the user-agent.
Putting file extensions (whether of "static" files or handlers like .php, .aspx, etc.) in URIs is rather pointless since there is no such thing as a file on the web (there are files on the server, and the client can save the stream to a file, but on the web itself there are octet streams that may or may not correspond to a file). And less than ideal; presumably contact.html has something to do with contact details, while "contact" expresses this idea well, ".html" has nothing to do with contact details and doesn't belong there.
Hence the more sensible URI would not have ".html" in it, unless this was in some way expressing something useful (such as explicitly asking for a HTML version and bypassing content-negotiation, or if the page was actually about HTML).
On the other hand, just mapping directly to file names is a quick and easy way to do things, so while I certainly frown on such arbitrary cruft in URIs I won't jump through too many hoops not to use it, especially in secondary URIs used for stylesheets, images etc. rather than those which are expected to regularly appear in the address bar of a browser.
On the third hand, once you remove such cruft, adding more sophisticated handling later if required, becomes a much easier transition.
There is a content negotiation feature in Apache2 which does that, but personally, I do not like to rely on that.
If I need nice URLs, I'd better use mod_rewrite and implement completely custom url scheme which would be easy to modify & customize without limits.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/content-negotiation.html
No it does not automatically appends .html as he could not know which file extension to use. Let's say you have a contact.html and a contact.php. Which one should he use.
However you can do all this using rewrite rules (e.g. in a .htaccess file). Just search for some examples here on SO or in the web.
I have a basic web application packaged as an EAR deployed on GlassFish.
The web module has some html files.
The html files have a common footer, an html file, that I would like to extract out and make an include.
When I do, and put:
<!--#include virtual="insertthisfile.html" -->
in an html file, it does not work.
Should this work?
This is a technique called Server-Side Includes (SSI). It may not be enabled on your web host. If it is, sometimes they force a .shtml extension to be required for included files, so try renaming your file insertthisfile.shtml.
If that doesn't work, you might be able to enable SSIs in a .htaccess file (assuming your web server is Apache). You can find instructions on how to do this by googling. There's a decent set here.
If that fails, I would contact your web host and see if they have SSIs enabled.
Should this work?
Perhaps, at some special settings, with some experienced programmer, this could be useful.
In my case the include statement seems to be ignored.
I could include some text with
(embed src="include.shtml")
(/embed)
Above, I type () instead of angular brackets.
With the "embed", the setting in the header of the page does not apply to the included text; it should be repeated again, and, by default, the result is ugly.
It looks strange, as if the designers of the html did not build-in the very basic tool, the include command. For short articles, the include could save an order of magnitude in the size of files.