I merged some dll files together and now my code that would find classes in one of the merged dll files cannot see the custom attributes I had on them. It can find all the classes fine but the attributes are missing. Any ideas how I can remedy this?
Edit: Further investigating show that the attributes are on the class but the Guid for the type is different than the original so GetCustomAttribute cannot find it.
/copyattrs or /copyattrs:True. You can also specify which attributes you want to use with the /attr:filename tag.
By default, it will use the attributes from the first assembly you merge in.
Related
In our automated tests, a typical line in our code might look something like:
find('.edit-icon').click
We're on our way to using css-modules in our project and I've been warned that class names may change dramatically. A pretty zany example is this site that uses emojis in its class names (when you inspect the page):
css modules by Glenn Maddern
How might I best prepare for a change this drastic? I imagine many of our specs breaking, but I am a little worried about being unable to write tests at all with this new technology in our project.
Using custom capybara selectors you can abstract away from the actual css query being done and move it to one location. In your comments you mentioned the need to change to a class attribute that begins with a passed in value.
Capybara.add_selector(:class_starts_with) do
css { |locator| "[class^=\"#{locator}\"]"
end
would do that and then can be called as
find(:class_starts_with, 'something')
or if you set Capybara.default_selector = :class_starts_with it would just be
find('something')
Rather than changing default_selector another option would be to just define a helper method like find_by_class_start or something that just calls find with :class_starts_with passed (how Capybara's #find_field, etc work).
Also note the custom selector above would only really work if only one class name was set, if multiple are expected you could change the selector to "[class^=\"#{locator}\"], [class*=\" #{locator}\"]"
I have a set of data rendered using ASP.Net (VB.Net) to a web page. I now want to export that data to XML. I have created some code to generate a schema, however, I don't know what to do next. I want to have the schema be in-line with the XML data, and I would like the compiler to check to make sure that the data I'm entering for the XML content validates against the included schema. Anyone know of a way to do this? The idea is for me to be able to open the resultant file in Excel with fields of the correct type.
I've build XML documents before, and this is my first schema document I've created programmatically. However, I've never worked with inline schema's, much less used them to strongly-type the XML being added to the document.
I've read over the following, which were quite helpful, but neither of which addressed the issue I mention above:
http://www.aspfree.com/c/a/XML/Generating-XML-Schema-Dynamically-Using-VBNET-2005-Essentials/
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/kaevans/archive/2007/06/05/inline-an-xml-schema-into-your-xml-document.aspx
I have no idea what you mean by "... I would like the compiler to check to make sure that the data I'm entering for the XML content validates against the included schema."
The compiler never checks that. If you want to validate your XML Document against a schema programmatically, you should probably use http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.xml.schema.xmlschemavalidator.aspx.
But for inlining the schema with your document, you sort of answered your own question. The second link in your question, to http://blogs.msdn.com/b/kaevans/archive/2007/06/05/inline-an-xml-schema-into-your-xml-document.aspx, is exactly what you are trying to do.
You can think of an inline XML Schema as a document-within-a-document. Well, using Kirk's example, the outermost document is more of a container which uses the undefined namespace (no schema). His example uses a document root of "DerekDoc" that belongs to the undefined namespace. You can name yours whatever you want.
Inside that root are essentially two documents. One is the inline XML Schema. You would just add it as a child element of the root. The other is the XML document that you intended to conform to the XML Schema. You will need to use the xmlns attribute to set this element to the namespace defined by your XML Schema (the target namespace of the schema).
It might work (I haven't tried it) to set the root element to the target namespace of the schema, but it might be harder for clients to validate the document since it's a forward reference.
I am creating some Magnolia templates and would like to know if any one has found a way to create a #cms.newBar and somehow use a node as the list of available paragraphs. The syntax is as below:
[#cms.newBar newLabel="Add Content" paragraph="template1, template2" /]
I want to use the node instead to avoid having to come back and add new templates when they are created.
I have seen the docs here and know that nothing is specified but wanted to see if anyone had found a way?
You can do several things, all boiling down to the same:
configure a string property containing "template1, template2", in your template definition. Assuming you're using Freemarker as the templating language, refer to it with ${def.thatProperty} (def references your template definition)
have your model class return that value: ${model.whatsCooking}, where your model class has a method String getWhatsCooking() which returns "template1, template2" (or whatever else you could come up with that decides what paragraphs should be available
STK does something similar to (1) - its template definitions contains Lists of "available" paragraphs, and its templates use some utility method to turn that into a comma-separated list, use with the new bar, so something like ${stk.toStringList(def.main.paragraphs)} (I can't recall the exact names and semantics, but you get the gist).
You should perhaps consider looking into STK for that, and a whole lot of things.
As for documentation, perhaps the templating guide and other docs will be more useful than the javadoc/tlddoc in this case.
HTH,
I need to access data from pre-existing tables. I've started working my way through creating a module to display the data etc. However, Orchard is prefixing the table commands with the 'Table_Prefix' and 'Module Name'.
Is there any way I can specify what table to bind the model, so that I can use the existing IRepository
I'm trying to steer clear of modifying the core code, or implement my own IRepository ( which I've got a feeling is what I'm going to have to do.)
Thanks in advance.
You can create custom table naming convention (so that it would fit your current naming) by altering the core code, in three ways:
Record name mapping is created in BuildRecord method of
CompositionStrategy class
(Orchard.Framework/Environment/ShellBuilders/CompositionStrategy), so you can simply modify the code here.
By altering the Apply method of Orchard.Data.Conventions.RecordTableNameConvention class. This is where the record table name mappings (built in point 1.) get pushed to NHibernate.
Create your own implementation of FluentNHibernate.Conventions.IClassConvention (similar to RecordTableNameConvention mentioned above and replace the default one used by AutoMap in Orchard.Data.Providers.AbstractDataServicesProvider's CreatePersistenceModel(...) method with it.
You could also create your own IDataServicesProvider implementation, but that would surely be an overkill if you only need to change the table naming convention.
I was modifying CompositionStrategy and discovered that you have to modify the following
1. SetupService.cs (Modules\Orchard.Setup\Services):
Tables hardcoded in the Setup method are
"Orchard_Framework_DataMigrationRecord" and
"Settings_ShellDescriptorRecord"
2. InfosetController.cs (Modules\Upgrade\Controllers):
Multiple tables were hardcoded in this class which need to be updated.
3. DataMigrationManager.cs (Data\Migration):
Replace the SchemaBuilder parameters to the contructor.
I am using Unity2 with XML configuration. It has the neat feature to specify namespaces and assemblies in the XML config for which automatic type lookup is performed, so that you do not need to always specify full name or create an alias.
Is it possible to specify assemblies and namespaces for the automatic type lookup programatically, without them being explicitly listed in the XML configuration? My goal is to simplify the XML configuration for my application's administrators. Types from two or three namespaces will almost always be used in the container registrations, so I would like these namespaces to be included in the lookup automatically.
There's nothing built in explicitly to support this.
An option would require a few more steps in your code. instead of just calling container.LoadConfiguration(), you'd instead explicitly grab the configuration section:
var section = (UnityConfigurationSection)ConfigurationManager.GetSection("unity");
Then, you'd go into the Namespaces or Assemblies properties on the section, and add new NamespaceElement or AssemblyElement objects pointing at the "standard" namespaces and assemblies. Then you apply the updated configuration section to the container. Something like this:
section.Namespaces.Add(new NamespaceElement() { Name = "my.standard.namespace" });
container.LoadConfiguration(section);
I haven't actually tried this, :-), but it should work.