To whom it may concern:
I am going to install simpavl/zf3-shoppingcart, installation failed on account of zend-servicemanager-di that should be removed.
Does the removal of this component has some sort of side effects?
I never used its library directly in my site, but if servicemanager component uses its features implicitly, I believe I can not remove it.
Kian William
I removed it, so far no side effects and my site works fine
Kian William
Related
For the past few days, I've been trying to add properly Meteor's CSP package, browser-policy. So far, I followed these ressources:
https://dweldon.silvrback.com/browser-policy
https://themeteorchef.com/snippets/using-the-browser-policy-package/
Things were a bit rough at the beginning but we are close to something, the last piece of the puzzle being live-chat Zopim's widget not being a fan of our new policy. I tried to whitelist and put zopim's widget code into a Meteor.startup call somewhere but it still fails on load due to some unsafe-eval as you can see below.
As I don't want to loosen up more my policies, is there any workaround for this or should I just forget about Zopim and give a shot at some other tool (which I'd be glad to hear about if you have any suggestion).
Bonus: Also, I first had my policy with BrowserPolicy.content.disallowEval(); but MDG's underscore package started to fall appart and I had to allow it. Allowing eval is clearly not ideal and I'd be glad to hear any alternative.
Your're hitting the first bullet point from the "issues" section of my post. You have to decide if disallowing eval is more important to you than that particular 3rd party script. In our case, we allowed eval for a few days while the external script was modified (fortunately the creator agreed to the change). It never hurts to send an email and just explain that you think their scripts are posing a risk to your site because you can't enable a strict content security policy.
We currently have BrowserPolicy.content.disallowEval() set and haven't run into any issues. I find it hard to believe that a core package would violate that directive. Maybe some other package is causing it, but it's hard to say without a detailed analysis of your dependencies.
What's a simple recipe to do A/B testing using Meteor?
In other words, in a Meteor environment, if I want to keep track of 2-5 versions of each view template without getting lost, is there a package or a de facto setup that's meant for this?
if you are using google analytics and content experiments, you could use this:
https://github.com/reywood/meteor-iron-router-ga/
or implement client side content experiments code yourself.
The only A/B testing package available on Atmosphere is manuel:abtest, which hasn't received any updates since January 2015 and either works very well, or hasn't been used much (it has no functionality issues raised by the community).
This is one solution I thought looked pretty interesting:
https://github.com/krzysu/meteor-ab-test
It's written in coffeescript, but the basic idea is that there is a ABTests handlebars helper that manages switching out the templates and measuring results.
We have implemented simple LMS based on Basic Web Player which is part of SharePoint Learning Kit. Now we are looking for way to be able to set SCORM in read only, eg for teacher review or parent.
Is there any SCORM data model option or options which can be set to disable it's content for editing?
You don't simply develop a SCORM API
I have been in the process of developing a LMS-RTE and a SCO for roughly a year of constant refinements and extensions. The quintessential truth I have learned is that almost everybody does a terrible job.
The SCORM standard is, at best, a little loose... Any feature present in the SCO <-> RTE interactions must be mirrored on both sides. If the LMS-Vendor ads a review feature every SCO has to implement it too. There is no way to force behavior on the SCO from the LMS side, since too many fields are optional. Even worse there is no way to automatically inspect a SCO and determine if a certain field was used and the SCO behaved as expected.
So theoretically cmi.mode preset to review should do the trick, but almost every content vendor I have encountered ignores this setting. I think everything you can get out of here is the answer: Yes it's possible, but only if the SCO supports this feature.
I personally found found logging of SCO <-> RTE communication the best solution to determine wich behavior the SCO could possibly be capable of. If you log all get and all set requests to different logs and log wich properties are touched by the SCO, you will get a idea of what the SCO can do.
I think you can use cmi.mode data model element. Could you explain more, please?
I've just started working in a continuous integration environment (TeamCity). I understand the basic idea of not getting so abstracted out in your code that you are never able to build it to test functionality, etc. However, when there is deep coding going on, occasionally it will take me several days to get buildable code--but in the interim other team members may need to see my code.
If I check the code in, it breaks the build. However, if I don't check it in, my team members are unable to see the most recent work. I'm wondering how this situation is best dealt with.
A tool like Code Collaborator (Google link, smartbear.com is down..) would allow your peers to see your code, without you committing it. Instead, you just submit it for review.
It's a little extra trouble for them to run it though.
Alternatively, setup a second branch/fork of your codebase for you to work in, your peers can sync to that, and it won't break the build server. When you're done working in your own branch, you can merge it back with mainline/trunk/whatever.
In a team environment, it is usually highly undesirable for anybody to be in an unbuildable state for days. I try to break large code deliveries to as many buildable check-ins as I can. At minimum, create and check in your interfaces even if you do not have the implementation ready so others can start to code against them.
One of the primary benefits of Continuous Integration is that it shows you when things break and when things are fixed. If you commit those pieces of code that break the system, other developers will be forced to get it into a working state before continuing the development. This is a good thing because it doesn't allow code changes to be made on top of broken things (which could cause issues where a co-workers code worked on the broken system, but doesn't work once the initial break is fixed).
This is also a prime example of a good time to use branches/forks, and simply merge to the trunk when all the broken things are fixed.
I am in exactly the same situation here.. As build engineer I have this working beautifully.
First of all, let me break down the branches / projects. #Dolph Mathews has already mentioned branching and tbh, that is an essential part of getting your setup to work.
Take the main code base and integrate it into several personal or "smaller" team branches. i.e. branch_team_a, branch_team_b, branch_team_c
Then set up teamcity to build against these branches under different project headings. So you will eventually have the following: Project Main, Project Team A, Project Team B, Project Team C
Thirdly, then setup developer checkins so that they run pre-commits builds for the broken down branches.. You can find the TC plugin for this under tools and settings.. They have it for IntelliJ or VS.
You now have your 3-tier setup..
- Developer kick starts a remote-run pre-commit build from their desktop against their project. If it passes, it get's checked into the repository i.e. branch_team_a
- Project Team A passes after several check-ins; at which point you integrate your changes from branch_team_A to main branch
- Project Main builds!
If all is successful then you have a candidate release.. If one part fails, projects a, b or c. it doesn't get checked into main. This has been my tried and tested method and works everytime. It also vastly improves team communication.
I've been working on a Flex component and I'd like to write some automated tests for it. The trouble is, the UI testing tools I've looked at (FlexMonkey and Selenium Flex API) don't simulate "enough":
Most of the bugs which have come up so far relate to the way Flex deals with dragging and dropping, which these libraries can't simulate accurately enough. For example, I need to test a case where there is a "drop" event which occurs in the bottom half of a component – neither FlexMonkey nor Selenium Flex API can do that (they may simulate a mouse event, but they won't include coordinates).
So, is there any "good" way to automate that sort of testing?
Edit: After much research, it looks like the only piece of software that can do this is iMacros, which is Windows-only and the interface is... Lacking. So I'm going to be writing my own. Basically, it will put an HTTP interface on java.awt.Robot so code (in any language) can simulate mouse/keyboard events. If you're interested, PM me and I'll keep you updated.
Edit 2: I have published the first version of the framework I wrote, Blunderbuss, over at BitBucket: http://bitbucket.org/wolever/blunderbuss/ . You'll need Jython to run it (http://www.jython.org/), but after that the flex-client example should work.
Videos of Blunderbuss live over at Vimeo:
Automating Flex testing with Blunderbuss
Blunderbuss test suite running
At the moment this remains a proof-of-concept, as I haven't had the cycles to clean it up and make it more useable… But maybe enough people bothering me would give me that time :)
I've used Eggplant to test Flash and AIR apps without having to add any hooks into the code. It's a great tool but it's quite expensive. It simulates a real user by VNC-ing into a system and uses image recognition - among other things - to interact with the app.
I am definitely interested in your custom Java class, and (though I am not the best at Java (yet...)), I would be willing to help out if you're thinking of making this collaborative.
As to Flash MouseEvents. Unfortunately, there really isn't an accurate way to simulate the drag/drop experience in Flash. MouseEvents, when generated by the mouse, are handled in a very different way than regular events and while you could simulate actions by passing events into the handling functions, or by making the dispatcher fire a new DragEvent( DragEvent.DRAG_DROP..., it will not be the same as having the user interact with it. And for some functionality (like gaining access to the clipboard), nothing inside Flash will accomplish your goals.
To be honest, you're probably headed in the right direction -- using something which is not written in Flash to drive faked mouse events is probably your best bet.
I've never had to use it in Flex but i recently stumbled across some info on automation packages in the MS Surface SDK... after looking into it those classes automated user behavior which can be used for testing i.e. move a fake mouse to this point, perform this action. As you're using Flex mx.automation packages and classes. My guess (and hope) is that you'd be able to achieve what you want using these classes.
You could also try auto-hotkey - it is similarly a macro-editing program but it has proven to be very efficient and you can write scripts and set it up very easily.