Cancel C-b in tmux - tmux

In emacs C-g cancels any command that has begun. Is there a similar solution in tmux for after you have pressed Ctrl-b? I thought about researching this by hitting lots of keys but that would only make this worse.

You can use any key that is not bound to anything. From what I see in the man page Ctrl-g is in fact *not* bound to anything (in regular mode) so you can use it after Ctrl-b.
If you want to explicitly bind this noop functionality to Ctrl-g key, you can do it by placing something like this in tmux.conf:
bind C-g run 'true'

Related

Why some keyboard events are getting lost in QT?

On both Windows and MacOS I observed the following behavior:
User attempts to use a hotkey, which is a combination of two modifiers (Shift, Alt, Ctrl etc) and an alphanumeric key.
When they do it in a certain order (modifiers first, then alphanumeric) the KeyRelease event for the alphanumeric key never comes.
This has been tested right in the main loop, so I'm sure there is no other code blocking event propagation.
What can be a fix for that?

Is there a way to acquire a lock in Redis? (Node.js)

My Node.js application accepts connections from the outside. Each connection handler reads a SET on Redis, eventually modifies the set itself, then moves on. The problem is that in the meanwhile another async connection can try to read the same SET and try to update it or decide its next step based on what it reads.
I know that Redis does its best to be atomic, but this is not quite sufficient for my use case. Think about this: the set is read to understand if it's FULL (there is a business rule for that). If it's FULL, then something happens. The problem is that if there is one only slot left, two semi-concurrent connections could think each one is the last one. And I get an overflow.
I there a way to keep a connection "waiting" for the very short time the other eventually needs to update the set state?
I think this is a corner case, very very unluckely... but you know :)
Using another key as the "lock" is an option, or does it stink?
How about using blpop to do locking. blpop key 5 to wait 5 seconds for key. At start put item(to identify queue is not empty) at key. The connection acquiring the lock should remove item from key. The next connect then can't acquire the lock, because empty, but blpop has the following nice property:
Multiple clients can block for the same key. They are put into a
queue, so the first to be served will be the one that started to wait
earlier, in a first-BLPOP first-served fashion.
When connection which acquired lock has finished task it should put back item back in queue, then the next connection waiting can acquire lock(item).
You may be looking for WATCH with MULTI/EXEC. Here's the pattern that both threads follow:
WATCH sentinel_key
GET value_of_interest
if (value_of_interest = FULL)
MULTI
SET sentinel_key = foo
EXEC
if (EXEC returned 1, i.e. succeeded)
do_something();
else
do_nothing();
else
UNWATCH
The way this works is that all of the commands between MULTI and EXEC are queued up but not actually executed until EXEC is called. When EXEC is called, before actually executing the queued instructions it checks to see if sentinel_key has changed at all since the WATCH was set; if it has, it returns (nil) and the queued commands are discarded. Otherwise the commands are executed atomically as a block, and it returns the number of commands executed (1 in this case), letting you know you won the race and do_something() can be called.
It's conceptually similar to the fork()/exec() Unix system calls - the return value from fork() tells you which process you are (parent or child). In this case it tells you whether you won the race or not.

Asynchronous validation in QWizard

I'm writing a wizard UI based on the QWizard Qt object. There's one particular situation where I want the user to log in to a service using host, username, and password. The rest of the wizard then manipulates this service to do various setup tasks. The login may take a while, especially in error cases where the DNS name takes a long time to resolve -- or perhaps it may not even resolve at all.
So my idea is to make all three fields mandatory using the registerField mechanism, and when the user hits Next, we show a little throbber on the wizard page saying "Connecting to server, please wait..." while we try to connect in the background. If the connection succeeds, we advance to the next page. If not, we highlight the offending field and ask the user to try again.
However, I'm at a loss for how to accomplish this. The options I've thought of:
1) Override validatePage and have it start a thread in the background. Enter a wait inside validatePage() that pumps the Qt event loop until the thread finishes. You'd think this was the ugliest solution, but...
2) Hide the real Next button and add a custom Next button that, when clicked, dispatches my long running function in a thread and waits for a 'validation complete' signal to be raised by something. When that happens, we manually call QWizard::next() (and we completely bypass the real validation logic from validatePage and friends.) This is even uglier, but moves the ugliness to a different level that may make development easier.
Surely there's a better way?
It's not as visually appealing, but you could add a connecting page, and move to that page. If the connection succeeds, call next() on the wizard, and if the connection fails, call previous() and highlight the appropriate fields. It has the advantage of being relatively straightforward to code.
My final choice was #2 (override the Next button, simulate its behavior, but capture its click events manually and do the things I want to with it.) Writing the glue to define the Next button's behavior was minimal, and I was able to subclass QWizardPage with a number of hooks that let me run my task ON the same page, instead of having to switch to an interstitial page and worry about whether to go forwards or backwards. Thanks Caleb for your answer though.
I know this has already been answered (a long time ago!) but in case anyone else is having the same challenge. Another method for this is to create a QLineEdit, initiate it as empty and set it as a mandatory registered field. This will mean that "Next" is not enabled until it is filled with some text.
Run your connection task as normal and when it completes use setText to update the QLineEdit to "True" or "Logged in" or anything other than empty. This will then mean the built in isComplete function will be passed as this previously missing mandatory field is now complete. If you never add it to the layout then it won't be seen and the user won't be able to interact with it.
As an example ...
self.validated_field = QLineEdit("")
self.registerField('validated*', self.validated_field)
and then when your login process completes successfully
self.validated_field.setText("True")
This should do it and is very lightweight. Be sure though that you consider the scenario where a user then goes back to that page and whether you need to reset the field to blank. If that's the case then just add in the initialisePage() function to set it back to blank
self.validated_field.setText("")
Thinking about it you could also add the line edit to the display and disable it so that a user cannot update it and then give it a meaningful completion message to act as a status update...
self.validated_field = QLineEdit("")
self.validated_field.setDisabled(True)
self.validated_field.setStyleSheet("border:0;background-color:none")
self.main_layout.addWidget(self.validated_field)
self.registerField('validated*', self.validated_field)
and then when you update it..
self.validated_field.setText("Logged in")

custom validator against remote object

I have a need to validate a field against our database to verify unique-ness. The problem I seem to be having is that the validators doValidation() exits before we've heard back from database.
How can I have the validator wait to return its payload until after we've heard from the DB?
Or perhaps a better question might be (since I think the first question is impossible), how can I set this up differently, so that I don't need to wait, or so that the wait doesn't cause the validation to automaticallly return valid?
If you're using a remote object, you can specify the method call inside your remote declaration and assign a function to the result call. The result call only runs once the remote server returns something, so it won't be run before your validation.
Do your validation call in said result function call (which you will have to create) and you should be good. Your code should go something like this:
<s:RemoteObject id="employeeService"
destination="ColdFusion"
source="f4iaw100.remoteData.employeeData"
endpoint="http://adobetes.com/flex2gateway/"
result="employeeService_resultHandler(event)"/>
**<s:method name="dataCheckCall" result="dataCheckResult(event)"/>**
<s:RemoteObject />
And in your script:
function protected dataCheckResult(event:ResultEvent):void {
**doValidate();**
}
Edit: As soon as you call "dataCheckCall" the method will start running. If, for whatever reason, you want to call this WITHIN your validator, you can do so, and then dataCheckResult will run whenever it returns with it's payload (pretend doValidate is called elsewhere). I've left a message below as well.
You are trying to fit an asynchronous process (fetching data from a DB) into a synchronous process (checking all the validators in turn).
This won't work...
You'll need to either roll your own validator framework, or use a different method of determining the legality of your controls.
P.S. The MX validators are rubbish anyway!
What I've managed to do, seems to work, mostly. I don't like it, but it at least performs the validation against the remote source.
What I've done, then, is to use an 'keyUp' event handler to spin off the database lookup portion. In the meanwhile, I set up a string variable to act as some kind of a Flag, which'll be marked as 'processing'. When the response event fires, I'll examine its contents, and either clear the flag, or set it to some kind of other error.
Then, I have created a new 'EmptyStringValidator' will check the contents of this flag, and do its job accordingly.
Its indirect, but, so far, seems to work.

Implementing Undo/Redo within a TextArea

Im wondering how to implement undo redo functionality with a TextArea. I already have an undoredo framework functionality working, now I have two questions.
When do I start/stop a new undo/redo command, eg when a user hits undo, how far back do I go.
How do I implement this(1.) in a normal TextArea
My thinking:
I thinking that I should create a new undo command, when anything but a alphanumber+space is hit. To do this I would use the keyDown event and test if the key is alpha num if it is not I will reset the command.
Sound good?
Listening for keydown events would miss any text editing that user does with the mouse (cut/copy/paste).
I think a better approach would be to listen for 'change' event on the control (which fires whenever the content changes through user input), and just push the full content of the control (its 'text' or 'htmlText' attribute) with every change event into a undo-buffer (an Array of Strings). I assume that the memory usage is not an issue (it probably isn't, depending on the expected size of the controls content and number of undo levels).
This way, you implement undo/redo just by copying the corresponding control state (moving up and down through array, basically) in the undo buffer back into the control.
The 'proper' approach would be to track the actual edits, and would be condsiderably more complicated.
1.When do I start/stop a new undo/redo command, eg when a user hits undo, how far back do I go.
Do you think your users will need to undo multiple steps? If so, then you may want to have a history (e.g. Paint .NET) and allow infinite undo-s. Otherwise, just remember the most recently performed action.
1.) You should listen for the Event.CHANGE event on the TextField and create a history step each time the event is fired. A history step consists in your case of two values: old and new.
Old is the value of the TextField before change, new is its value after the change.
2.) Your history is a sequence of actions or you can use the Memento Pattern. I think actions are much easier to use. A history action has two methods, undo() and redo(). So in undo() you have to say textField.text = oldContent and in the redo() method you say textField.text = newContent. Your history will also need a pointer to the current action.
3.) To make it a little bit better. You should not listen only for Event.CHANGE but instead listen for the first CHANGE and then the next FOCUS_OUT for that TextField. In that case, a history step is only created once I stop editing the TextField. But it depends on your TextField and how you want to distribute history steps. A multiline TextField should not create a history step only on FOCUS_OUT :)

Resources