i have a django project and my web static files are at 'web/' directory
here is the structure:
➜ web git:(ycw.alpha) tree -L 4
.
└── forward
├── asserts
│ ├── img
│ │ ├── background
│ │ ├── qr
│ │ └── thumb
│ └── style
│ ├── css
│ └── sass
├── index.html
├── package.json
├── script.js
├── source
└── unit
i have configured Nginx conf and i want nginx to directly indicate to 'web/forward/index.html' when i request my own website 'http://example.com'
i do the thing above like this:
location / {
index index.html
root /path/to/my/django/project/;
}
location /index.html {
alias /path/to/my/django/project/web/forward/index.html;
}
it indeed directly redirects to 'index.html', but the question is there are some references in 'index.html' to some static files such as img or css and the paths are relative paths like './asserts/style/css/index.css' so consequently these files are not found as 404
how can i configure it correctly?
The problem has been solved by changing 'root' in location / to '/path/to/the/index/directory' rather than the root directory of the django project, in this way you can still use relative paths of static resources in html file generally.
Related
example app tree:
articles
├── admin.py
├── apps.py
├── models.py
├── static
│ ├── css
│ │ ├── article_change.css
│ │ ├── article_create.css
│ │ ├── article_detail.css
│ └── js (obfuscated)
│ ├── article_create.js
│ ├── article_list.js
│ ├── edit_process.js
│ ├── editor.js
│ └── js (readable)
│ ├── article_create.js
│ ├── article_list.js
│ ├── edit_process.js
│ └── editor.js
├── templates
│ └── articles
│ ├── article_create.html
│ ├── article_detail.html
│ ├── edit_process.html
│ └── editor.html
├── tests.py
├── urls.py
└── views.py
static/js/js contains javascript that is human readable
static/js contains obfuscated javascript files.
I wrote a template tag to includes files:
#register.simple_tag
def jstatic(path):
s = ''
if settings.DEBUG:
s = 'js/'
return static(s + path)
in templates, I can do:
<script src="{% jstatic 'js/info.js' %}"></script>
which conditionally renders static javascript files based on DEBUG mode. whereas, if not in DEBUG mode, will serve obfuscated files.
the thing is, I don't want unobfuscated file to be accessed when DEBUG is not on, which is running the application on server.
when debug is on, I want user user only to visit obfuscated files:
static/js/js/info.js
and have no access to
static/js/info.js
all the apps follows this root tree convention, I wonder if there is a way, for me to block static/js/info.js is DEBUG is not on.
I have thought about shell setting directory permissions, but give up eventually. because, it will not work due to the wrapping structure of the directory. and it will be too much work to modify it, in the project there are about 20 apps.
This is not possible through standard configuration. How to solve this depends on your configuration, but there are three ways to solve this:
If you use some kind of minifier/webpack like configuration to obfuscate your JS files, you could move the JS files to a src directory and have your tooling only copy when DEBUG is True, and copy and obfuscate when debug is False.
You can use two static directories, one for readable files, and the other for obfuscated files (something like src/static/* and dist/static/*), and then only point to the source directory on development environments:
STATICFILES_DIRS = [ "src/static", "dist/static"] vs. STATICFILES_DIRS = [ "dist/static"] on production.
In this case, Django's static files finder will return the first match found.
Leave your configuration as is, but use a webserver like NGINX for serving static files (Which is already the recommended way to serve static files.) In NGINX's configuration you can define a location that 404's as long as it appears before the location serving your static files.
We have following project structure:
├── Makefile
├── ...
├── src
│ ├── app
│ │ ├── main.go
│ │ ├── models
│ │ ├── ...
│ │ └── dao.go
│ │ ├── ...
│ │ └── controllers
│ │ ├── ...
│ │ └── pingController.go
│ └── test
│ ├── all_test.go
│ ├── ...
│ └── controllers_test.go
└── vendor
└── src
├── github.com
├── golang.org
└── gopkg.in
I want to measure coverage of packages in src/app by tests in src/test. And currently generating coverage profile by running custom script that runs coverage for each package in app and then merges all coverage profiles into one file. Recently I heard that in go1.10 we are able to generate coverage for multiple packages.
So I tried to replace that script with oneliner, and tried running
GOPATH=${PROJECT_DIR}:${PROJECT_DIR}/vendor go test -covermode count -coverprofile cover.out -coverpkg all ./src/test/...
It gives me "ok test 0.475s coverage: 0.0% of statements in all"
When I do
cd src/test/
GOPATH=${PROJECT_DIR}:${PROJECT_DIR}/vendor go test -covermode count -coverprofile cover.out -coverpkg all
Logs show that specs are runned and tests are successfull, but still I have "coverage: 0.0% of statements in all" and empty cover.out.
What am I missing to properly compute coverage of packages in app by tests in test?
You can't with the current state of go test but you can always use third party scripts.
https://github.com/grosser/go-testcov
Short answer:
go test -race -coverprofile=coverage.txt -covermode=atomic ./... # Run all the tests with the race detector enabled
go test -bench=. -benchmem ./... # Run all the benchmark for 3s and print memory information
In order to create a test for a Go code, you have to create a file (in the same folder of the root code) that have the same name of the code, and append "_test" to the name. The package have to be the same too.
So, if I have a GO Code called strings.go, the relative test suite have to be named: strings_test.go.
After that, you have to create a method that have in input the t *testing.T
struct, and the name of the method have to start with Test or Benchmark word.
So, if the strings.go contains a method called "IsUpper", the related test-case is a method called TestIsUpper(t *testing.T).
If you need the Benchmark, than you need to substitute the Test word with Benchmark, so the name of the method will be BenchmarkIsUpper, and the struct that the method take in input is b *testing.B.
You can have a look at the following link in order to see the tree-structure necessary for execute the test in GO: https://github.com/alessiosavi/GoGPUtils.
There you can find Benchmark and TestCase.
Here an example of tree-struct
├── string
│ ├── stringutils.go
│ └── stringutils_test.go
I have a React app hosted on an S3 bucket. The code is minified using yarn build (it's a create-react-app based app). The build folder looks something like:
build
├── asset-manifest.json
├── favicon.ico
├── images
│ ├── map-background.png
│ └── robot-icon.svg
├── index.html
├── js
│ ├── fontawesome.js
│ ├── packs
│ │ ├── brands.js
│ │ ├── light.js
│ │ ├── regular.js
│ │ └── solid.js
│ └── README.md
├── service-worker.js
└── static
├── css
│ ├── main.bf27c1d9.css
│ └── main.bf27c1d9.css.map
└── js
├── main.8d11d7ab.js
└── main.8d11d7ab.js.map
I never want index.html to be cached, because if I update the code (causing the hex suffix in main.*.js to update), I need the user's next visit to pick up on the <script src> change in index.html to point to the updated code.
In CloudFront, I can only seem to exclude paths, and excluding "/" doesn't seem to work properly. I'm getting strange behavior where I change the code, and if I hit refresh, I see it, but if I quit Chrome and go back, I see very outdated code for some reason.
I don't want to have to trigger an invalidation on every code release (via CodeBuild). Is there some other way? I think one of the challenges is that since this is an app using React Router, I'm having to do some trickery by setting the error document to index.html and forcing an HTTP status 200 instead of 403.
A solution based on CloudFront configuration:
Go to your CloudFront distribution, under the "Behavior" tab and create a new behavior.
Specify the following values:
Path Pattern: index.html
Object Caching: customize
Maximum TTL: 0 (or another very small value)
Default TTL: 0 (or another very small value)
Save this configuration.
CloudFront will not cache index.html anymore.
If you never want index.html to be cached, set the Cache-Control: max-age=0 header on that file only. CloudFront will make a request back to your origin S3 bucket on every request, but it sounds like this is desired behavior.
If you're wanting to set longer expiry times and invalidate the CloudFront cache manually, you can use a * or /* as your invalidation path (not / as you have mentioned). This can take up to 15 minutes for all CloudFront edge nodes around the world to reflect the changes in your origin however.
Here is the command I ran to set cache-control on my index.html file after uploading new files to s3 and invalidating Cloudfront:
aws s3 cp s3://bucket/index.html s3://bucket/index.html --metadata-directive REPLACE --cache-control max-age=0 --content-type "text/html"
It's much better to run an invalidation for index.html on every release than to defeat Cloudfront's purpose and serve it (what is basically an entrypoint for your app) from S3 every single time.
I am using Hugo to deploy a static page to github pages
I have a git repo in the /public folder but the contents of the /static folder are not a part of the repository. Therfore they are not uploaded to the username.github.io page.
the /static folder contains images and css files. This is why my page does not look good after pushing to github.
My workaround is that each time I manually copy the /static folder into the /public folder after I build the site.
I think there should be a better solution and I am probably missing something in the config.toml file of the hugo workflow.
I am following the instructions from this site
Any ideas how to automatically include /static files into the repository?
Hugo copies all the files in the static/ directory into the public/ directory when your site is rendered. For example, if you have a static/ folder that looks like this:
.
├── css
│ └── main.css
└── img
├── favicon.png
└── avatar.png
Then when you build your site, the public/ folder will look like this:
.
├── css
│ ├── main.css
│ └── <theme css files>
├── img
│ ├── favicon.png
│ ├── avatar.png
│ └── <theme images>
<more content folders>
So the files in your static folder are probably being included already. The problem is likely to be that your theme is looking for your static files in the wrong place. Take a look at your theme documentation and see if it says anything about static assets.
I guess this is sort of a followup question to Where should i create django apps in django 1.4? The final answer there seemed to be "nobody knows why Django changed the project structure" -- which seems a bit unsatisfactory.
We are starting up a new Django project, and currently we are following the basic structure outlined at http://www.deploydjango.com/django_project_structure/index.html:
├── project
│ ├── apps
│ │ ├── app1
│ │ └── app2
│ ├── libs
│ │ ├── lib1
│ │ └── lib2
│ ├── settings.py
│ ├── urls.py
│ └── wsgi.py
└── manage.py
But I think we also are anticipating a multi-developer environment comprising largely independent applications with common project-level components, so it seems cleaner to me to separate out the project and app paths.
├── project
│ ├── settings.py
│ ├── urls.py
│ └── wsgi.py
├── apps
│ ├── app1
│ └── app2
├── libs
│ ├── lib1
│ └── lib2
└── manage.py
It's hard to come up with any specific, non-stylistic rationale for this, though. (I've mostly worked only with single-app projects before now, so I may be missing something here.)
Mainly, I'm motivated by the fact that Django 1.4 seems to be moving in the latter direction. I assume there is some rationale or expected use case that motivated this change, but I've only seen speculation on what it might be.
Questions:
What was the motivation for the 1.4 project structure change?
Are there use cases where having apps inside/outside of the project makes a non-trivial impact?
It's much easier to extract an app from a project because there are no more imports like this:
from projectname.appname.models import MyModel
instead you import them the same way you would import apps which are installed via a python package
if you use i18n then this could make an impact because makemessages searches for translation strings in the current directory. a good way to translate apps and the project using a single .po file is to create the locale folder outside the project dir
├── project
│ ├── settings.py
│ ├── urls.py
│ └── wsgi.py
├── app1
├── app2
├── locale
│ ├── en
│ └── de
└── manage.py
I marked the earlier response as an answer, but I ran into this blog post off the IRC archives that seems to have some additional info.
http://blog.tinbrain.net/blog/2012/mar/15/django-vs-pythonpath/
As I understand it, the gist is:
When you're developing, manage.py implicitly sets up PYTHONPATH to see the project-level code, with the result that import myapp works for an app defined inside the project.
When you deploy, you generally don't run manage.py, so you would have to say import myproject.myapp, thus things break on deployment if you don't know about this.
The "standard" fix is to add the project to PYTHONPATH, but this results in double-imports (myapp and myproject.myapp), which can generate weird behavior on things like signals.
So the 1.4 project structure seems mainly intended to eliminate the possibility of devs relying on an odd effect of manage.py.