I would like to fork this conscrypt project and add more cipher suites, let's say TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256, what I should change/add (in conscript/boringSSL) to make it working?
I was looking at mentioned projects, but I'm not familiar with these, so I would want listed places that will need change.
Related
I am trying to make changes to the behavior of a function and print the results to a file. The ViewCfg plug-in described in the Plug-in Development Guide does something similar, but I am trying to avoid having to use Ast.get, which ViewCfg uses. I am thinking of extending Printer.extensible_printer which, according to the Frama-C API Documentation, is something I can do if I want to obtain a custom pretty-printer.
However, if I extend the pretty-printer as described in the API docs, unless I'm doing something wrong, I notice that the changes I make take place regardless of which project is set as the current project. I'm using File.create_project_from_visitor to create a new project and Project.set_current to set the new project as the current project before I use the custom pretty-printer.
Is it true that any change made by a class that extends Printer.extensible_printer applies to all projects? I happen to be using frama-c-Aluminium-20160502, which I know is not the latest version.
EDIT: Sorry, I should have made this clearer in the beginning, but I'm not actually making changes to the behavior of a function. I'm reading in the behavior of a function, then based on that, I'm trying to generate as output valid C code that's meant to be read as input by another program.
Regarding AST.get, the only reason I was avoiding it was that it sounds like it gets the entire AST, while I'm only interested in part of it, i.e. behaviors. But if I'm just making things harder for myself by avoiding it, then I'll go ahead and use it.
I'm using KDE, and I'm toying with the idea of hacking the code for Dolphin File Manager (and potentially Konqueror if necessary) to get context-sensitive drag and drop behaviour (i.e. files are moved within the same partition, or copied if they're moved across partitions or the source is read only).
To do this, I think I'd need to find out the containing partition of the source and destination (easy enough on Windows using the drive letter, but on Linux, as mount points can be almost anywhere, it can't be reliably derived from the file path), and compare them.
Does anyone know how I can find out the partition that contains a given file?
It must be possible - I know Nautilus provides this sort of behaviour, but I'm not familiar enough with GTK to track down the appropriate section in the source code to see how its done...
Qt doesn't provide API for this. For POSIX, have a look at stat.
For KDE, you can use KIO::stat() to get mostly the same info as POSIX' stat function but asynchronously.
The device id should be in the field UDS_DEVICE_ID of the result.
I'm looking at requiring my team to document their code more thoroughly for some major upcoming projects and to make life a little less painful, I am steering towards XML documentation generators such as Sandcastle, Doxygen or Box Live Documenter.
What are the key considerations I should keep in mind when evaluating the best option and what experiences have led you to a particular decision?
For me the key considerations would be:
Fully automated: Can it be set up in such a way so that pretty much
no outside work is required to
create or edit the documentation.
Fully styled: Can the documentation be fully styled so
that it looks great in a wiki or pdf
after it’s generated. I should be
able to change colors, font sizes,
layouts, etc.
Good Filtering: Can I select only the items I want to be
generated. I should be able to
filter the namespaces, file types,
classes, etc.
Customization: Can I include headers, footers, custom elements,
etc.
I found Doxygen could do all of this. Our workflow is as follows:
Developer makes a change to the code
They update the documentation tags right above the code they just changed
We click a generate button
Doxygen will then extract all the XML documentation from the code, filter it to only include the classes and methods we want, and apply the CSS styling we’ve pre-made for it. Our end result is an internal wiki that looks the way we want, and doesn’t require editing.
Extra: We have all our projects in various git repositories. We pull all these down to one root folder and generate the docs form this root folder..
Would be interested to know how others are automating even further..?
Who is paying for the documentation and why? (is the system stable enough, does it add enough value)
Who is going to read it, and why is she not using a more effective communication channel?
(if correct mostly distance in time/place)
Who is going to keep it up to date.
When are you going to destroy it? (Automatically if it hasn't been read or updated in the past three months?)
I mostly prefer better code to make my life less painful, over more documentation, but I like scenario & unit tests and a high level architecture description.
[edit] Documentation costs time and money to write and keep up to date. JavaDoc style documentation has a serious detrimental effect on the amount of code simultaneously visible and might be a good idea for the developers using the code, but not for those writing it.
As we know that we can assign the variables to Adobe illustrator file. Is it possible to access these variables by using Drupal 7 variables feature?
Short answer: no.
Longer answer: This is theoretically possible, but.
What you're referring to really amounts to rewriting some of the fundamental underpinnings of the internet. This would require, at minimum, extremely innovative development and entirely recreating several major software components. For example:
1) Users' browsers read and render hypertext. They would need to be rewritten to understand AI equivalents of links, pages, and other internet standards.
2) Javacript, Jquery, and other client-side components would need to be rebuilt from scratch. You would also need to invent a new CSS and DOM that their replacements can understand.
3) Apache .... would be mostly okay with some minor tweaks. One or two new extensions at most.
4) PHP (which stands for "PHP hypertext preprocessor" and not "PHP advanced graphical tool") would need to be entirely redone, along with all of it's extensions, integrations, and fundamental concepts.
5) Drupal and all its modules (which are build on the assumption that the output will be hypertext) would need to be substantially retooled. In particular, you would need a replacement for PHPTemplate that accesses AI objects.
So: There's a lot to do. I would say "let's get started," except that 6) AI is a proprietary product and we don't have licenses to develop and extend it.
I think it depends on what you want to do with the resulting file. Are you thinking of a variable data Illustrator document that would be generated from the values in Drupal? If so, I think that is very possible. The Illustrator file format specification is somewhat available, you would just need to process the file without the help of Illustrator (which may present some challenges).
If you want to generate something that would be viewable in a browser you're better off using SVG with some sort of placeholder that you could replace with regular expressions or maybe some XPath queries to get the nodes you want to manipulate and then adding your values there.
As Dominic said, the end use isn't very clear here so the answers are really dependent on what you need to accomplish.
Just found StyleCop, looks like something worth using for my projects. Then I found out you could use it with ReSharper (a tool I've also never used). So I downloaded ReSharper, as well as StyleCop for ReSharper. I'm just a bit confused about it, though:
With just StyleCop installed (no ReSharper), I get yelled at for referring directly to private variables in code-behind. It wants me to instead do this.variable. Alright, fine.
If I use just ReSharper, it tells me to remove all of the 'this' calls I just added. Which one is better?
If I use ReSharper + StyleCop for ReSharper, it now tells me to add 'this' to all private member references (just like StyleCop did all by itself). However, now it also wants me to add 'this' to all of the controls I'm referencing from the .aspx page (i.e., Label.Text = this.variable -> this.Label.Text = this.variable).
I'm so confused. What is the best standard to follow? Or am I just fine doing it the way I am now (Label.Text = variable)?
The key point is consistency. Your particular formatting with regard to this point comes down to personal preference.
Does the extra wordiness provide additional clarity as to which variable you're referencing or does it obscure the meaning by flooding the page with extra text?
This is a judgment call. They do enforce other rules that make sense; however, a large part of what they do is enforce consistency. As #Martin said, feel free to disable rules that don't make sense for your workflow.
Sorry when working on a team it all comes down to understanding the politics; after all, we work to get paid!
If the person that decided your next
pay raise uses StyleCop, then you
should always include the “this.”
likewise if the boss uses ReSharper
you should do what ReSharper says.
There are a lot more important wars to win this, e.g. 10,000 line classes, over sized method
If you are luckly enough to decide what tools (and coding standards) are used yourself, then I would just choose ReSharper and read the “clean code” book.
I think it's up to you which conventions you want to follow (it's a matter of personal preferences). At least in ReSharper, you can edit the rules to no longer show certain warnings/hints.