I wonder where I can find a full list of Action Unit names which are detected from Affdex? I have manually identified some: browfurrow (AU4), browraise (AU2), chinraise (AU17). However, an official information document will be a better choice for me. Thanks
We follow the same FACS system for naming the AU's, you can find the list of Action Units on Wikipedia. For a more visual representation you can refer to Academic Pages.
Related
Is there a simple way to count how many functions, methods and/or classes there are in a library? And how many are documented? Maybe through Doxygen output?
When I try to Google a solution all I get is algorithms to count things... :)
There is a tool named Coverxygen which requires XML output from Doxygen.
Install it by:
pip install coverxygen
Bonus:
If you use Sphinx and Doxygen (and Breathe) to generate documentations, you can use DocsCov to make a badge showing documentation coverage to show on your README.
As Xin Huang pointed out in a comment above, there is a useful tool called doxy-coverage.py at https://github.com/alobbs/doxy-coverage. It prints, for each file documented with Doxygen, it prints how many entities it has (namespaces, free functions, classes, member functions, enums, #defines, etc) and how many of those are documented. It lists each of the non-documented entities. At the bottom it gives a summary of the documentation coverage (percent entities that are documented). It uses the XML output of Doxygen to do so.
I replaced the line
print("%d%% API documentation coverage" %(total_per))
by
print ('%3d%% API documentation coverage (%d of %d)'%(total_per, total_yes, total_all))
To add the total number of entities and total number of documented entities in the project.
It seems possible to modify the tool to distinguish entities by type. If I ever do this, I'll post the resulting code here.
I want to generate a multi-document summary. I have already generated single document summary of each document. In some research papers, a multi-document summary is generated by making single document by appending each input document into it and then generate a single document summary. I have done it by combining summary of each input document. but, I am not satisfied. I am following the traditional approach to finding out the relevance between a summary of each document i.e. TF-IDF. Am I working correctly? Or should I follow different approach?
Here is the scenario. I have an XML document which contains tags. I want to create a transform that does this
<tag>content A</tag> 1. content A
<tag>content B</tag> ----> 2. content B
<tag>content C</tag> 3. content C
but only if the tag contents appear on the same physical page. The numbering should restart on each new page. Is there any way to do this using XSL-FO? I know with latex the only way to accomplish something like this is to run latex twice, with the interim document used to determine content page placement.
As far as I can tell (and as confirmed by the Antenna House tech support team), there is no way to do this using standard XSL-FO. Antenna House offers <axf:footnote*/> extensions which include the ability to set an axf:footnote-number-reset="page" attribute, and as suggested in the comments, RenderX offers a generic mechanism which might be used for this purpose, but both of these involve vendor-specific extensions to the language.
This points to a number of shortcomings in XSL-FO that really should have been addressed a long time ago with a 2.0 version of the specification. A w3c committee to develop an XSL-FO 2.0 spec was formed and then disbanded quite some time ago; I have no idea why, as I find the tool indispensable for a large class of document to PDF conversions.
What is the difference between GetListItemChangesSinceToken and GetListItemChangesWithKnowledge?
Here is the awesome summary documentation, and about all that is said on the matter:
GetListItemChangesSinceToken: Returns changes made to the list since the date and time specified in the [change] token.
GetListItemChangesWithKnowledge: Returns all of the list items that meet specified criteria and that have changed since the date-time specified in the knowledge parameter for the specified list.
One takes a "change token" and the other takes "knowledge". However, I have not been able to find any documentation (or rationale) as to what advantage one has over the other, why they both exist, how they are fundamentally different, or which one is appropriate to use in protocol clients.
These SOAP services are formally defined in the [MS-LISTSWS]: Lists Web Service Protocol Specification protocol, but they seem identical, excepting the token they expect and emit. (Perhaps it is just the number of undocumented bugs?)
While GetListItemChangesWithKnowledge does have an additional syncScope parameter, MS-LISTWS says:
[syncScope] MUST be null or empty ... [syncScope] is reserved and MUST be ingored
Any input -- especially first-hand knowledge -- is greatly appreciated.
You're probably right about the number of bugs being the difference...
Here is what I could find about both methods:
GetListItemChangesWithKnowledge (different MSDN documentation)
SharePoint 2010: Lists.GetListItemChangesWithKnowledge Method suggests that this method was introduced with SharePoint 2010 and SharePoint Workspace synchronization - I couldn't verify this though
The important bit is "returns all of the list items that meet specified criteria and that have changed since the date-time specified in the knowledge parameter for the specified list"
Diving further in: The knowledge element contains "Microsoft Sync Framework knowledge data structure" (MSDN), which for example is explained here (Microsoft Sync Framework, Part 2: Sync Metadata).
GetListItemChangesSinceToken (different MSDN documentation)
Should be used instead of GetListItemChanges according to MSDN (see link above). I'm assuming it should be used because the Change element further specifies the list item to get, as it says "If Nothing is passed, all items in the list are returned."
The changeToken actually contains something from the Change Log, which in turn has information about Adds, Deletes, Renames etc. --> This is useful if you have in-depth synchronization in your application
On Synchronizing with Windows SharePoint Services, Part 1 the snychronization is explained, including a bit information on the changeToken.
Summary: It looks to me that the ...WithKnowledge method is a bit more complex as it is using the Microsoft Sync's Framework query syntax which includes a time constraint for changes. The ...SinceToken method only queries for all changes with specified action (e.g. Delete) without time constraint.
Ask yourself: Do you really want to implement such complicated methods with lacking documentation which are subject to change? I would suggest doing two things: Analyze (e.g. via Fiddler) the traffic Microsoft Workspace 2010 is generating (also check Word/Outlook). What methods is is using? Could you implement something similar? Isn't GetListItemChanges enough for most applications?
I work on unix.
I have my complete source code in unix in the form of building blocks and modules.
Like headers,sources files,make files etc.
I can copy all the files with the same directory structure to windows.
I need some tool which will convert all the source to html tags with all the links to functions,variables,classes,headers.There should be some tool to do this easily.
by this way it would be easy for debugging the code in a fast way.
Is anybody aware of such tool?
The term you're probably looking for is "documentation generator". You're specifically interested in ones that output HTML files.
Doxygen is popular, but if you want a master comparison list of documentation generators Wikipedia has a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_documentation_generators
Looking at the output generated by the different programs (on projects that use them) will probably inform your choice of which meets your needs.
You can use doxygen to generate your documentation. In its basic form it will generate what you need but to add comments that appear in the final html you will need to use special style comments.