I am using jqtransform throughout my ColdFusion site for styling form fields. One of my pages uses some CFSELECT tags which bind to a CFC to get their data. However, because jqtransform works before my binding does, I do not see anything in the drop-down. I understand the reasons for this, but I guess what I need to do is find a way of telling jqtransform to run again AFTER the binding has refreshed?
I have looked at similar topics regarding jqtransform with dynamic data, but none that actually work. Any help much appreciated!
See https://stackoverflow.com/a/20649876/3080438
Modify the pligin as the article.
After your binding, you re-jqTransform the select box
Related
I am attempting to write a Redmine plugin which further filters textilizable fields (issue description, updates, wiki content, etc.).
I've leafed around the plugin documentation but did not really find a good place to start. The view hooks seem to allow you to inject content at pre-defined injection points. Nothing really stood out toward creating a filter for textilizable content.
The most straightforward way is to hack the code in application_helper.rb and create your own filter function along the same lines of the :parse_inline_attachments, :parse_wiki_links, :parse_redmine_links. However, I do not see a good way of inserting that in a plugin without monkey patching the entirety of textilizable(*args).
Am I missing something obvious here?
One possible way, here: http://www.redmine.org/boards/3/topics/33949
This board topic mentions the caveats associated with view hooks (mentioned above) and offers a workaround or two that lets you change content by overriding views.
We've been noticing an increase in number of broken links on our sitecore website.
Some it is due to
User Training
Publishing Issues (linked page is not yet published)
Maybe content editor issues
It's been hard to verify some of these but sometimes the link might have the authoring page URL (which means someone didn't follow the SOP), sometimes they have a strange url like /shell/Content Editor/...
So we are trying to proactively fix these before the pages go live.
I had a couple ideas like writing a Handler that would look through all "Rich Text Fields" and looking for inconsistencies (like authoring server URL). Also using a crawler-type of validator could help us (http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html#Description) but we were wondering what the community was doing to address this issue.
The "internal link checker" usually works well but doesn't detect many of this erroneous setups (as I believe it sees them as 'external links').
Your input is greatly appreciated!
If you have RichText fields and create internal links, your internal link looks like this in the HTML view: "a href="~/link.aspx?_id=EB3AD128E7BF4F3C9F3812F701D7724E&_z=z" and when you hover with your mouse over it, is show "/Sitecore/Shell/Controls/Rich Text Editor/" before the ~/link.aspx. This is normal behavior. This link is modified to a normal link during rendering of the RTE field.
However, be sure to use the Sitecore controls like to render these RTE fields and to render links. Also using sc:fld() in XSLT instead of sc:field() can create strange links because sc:fld is rendering the raw value of the field.
In all of the Sitecore projects I have been working on, I didn't have much issues with broken links.
There is a known bug with copy-pasting links from a rich text editor, where path info is appended to the link (generating the /shell/Content Editor/ stuff).
Sitecore have a fix for it here:
http://sdn.sitecore.net/Products/Sitecore%20V5/Sitecore%20CMS%206/ReleaseNotes/KnownIssues%20Recommended/Copying%20and%20pasting%20link%20in%20rt%20fields%20may%20break%20the%20link.aspx
I would suggest a new Validation Action added to the workflow command before the items are finalized. Then you could actively stop them from being published and give immediate feedback. If you're not using workflows, you could add a new item level validator, but those often get ignored in my experience -- too many false positives on the existing validators.
I'd like to allow embedded youtube videos (and other commonly embedded media) to be displayed using Django. Is there anyway in Django to allow this to happen?
The context is that I'm trying to display rss items, which may or may not have one or more embedded videos in a given item. Using the "safe" filter discards them, and writing a custom filter that returns mark_safe(html), where "html" is the passed through item, also discards them. Is there anyway to get past this?
Would you have to pull out the embedded objects from the rss items from within the view, and then re-embed them inside the template?
While I'm new to Django, I've done a fair amount of searching on this topic, and haven't found a useful answer yet. Any help would be much appreciated.
I figured out the answer to this question... I was using feedparser, which was removing certain content. I ended up adding a monkey patch (I believe this is the correct term) to allow more material make it through:
feedparser._HTMLSanitizer.acceptable_elements.add("object")
feedparser._HTMLSanitizer.acceptable_elements.add("embed")
feedparser._HTMLSanitizer.acceptable_elements.add("iframe")
Use django-embed-video. It provides you all functionality you need.
Parse youtuble links from RSS
Pass them to template
Use this http://djangosnippets.org/snippets/212/ template tag to convert links to embedding code
I'm making components for a site and I'm wondering if I can return a cfform inside a return variable from a component and force coldfusion to output it parsed.
Obviously using "writeOutput(")" doesn't work.
How could I achieve this?
Thanks for your time!
You can't return a cfform, because tags can't be used inside of a CFScript based component. You're far better off doing something like this with a custom tag, which then references your component to get pieces to build out the form.
I would avoid (if at all possible) putting any cfform related pieces into a component, script-based or not.
If you did want to ultimately go this route, you'd need to put the cfform (and it's relevant pieces) either in another component that gets called by the script based one, or in an include that then is saved to a variable. All of the solutions related to trying to get the cfform into your CFC are going to be messy.
If you absolutely must do this (though I would shy away from it myself) you might want to have a look at this:
http://www.madfellas.com/blog/index.cfm/2011/1/26/Using-CFML-tags-in-cfscript-C4X-prototype
I'm developing a blog application using Django. Currently, the URL /blog/ displays the front page of the blog (the first five posts). Visitors can then browse or "page through" the blog entries. This portion is mapped to /blog/browse/{page}/, where page, of course, is an integer that specifies which "page" of blog entries should be displayed.
It's occurred to me, though, that perhaps the "page number" should be an attribute of the querystring instead (e.g., /blog/browse/?page=2), since the content of the browse pages is not static (i.e., as soon as I add another post, /blog/browse/2/ will have different contents than it had before the post was added). This seems to be the way sites like Stack Overflow and Reddit do things. For example, when paging through questions on Stack Overflow, a "page" attribute is used; likewise, Reddit uses a "count" attribute.
Extending this thinking, I realize that I use the same template to render the contents of both /blog/ and /blog/browse/, so it might even make sense to just use a URL like /blog/?page=2 to page through the contents of the blog.
Any suggestions? Is there a "standard" way of doing this, or at least a "best practice" method to use?
For my money, the best general purpose approach to this issue is to use the django-pagination utility. It's incredibly easy to use and your URLs should have the format you desire.
I prefer to use the GET URL parameter, as in URL?pg=#. It's very common and provides a standard visual clue to users about what is going on. If, for instance, I want to bookmark one of those pages or make an external link, I know without thinking that I can drop the pg parameter to point at the "latest" front-page index. With an embedded #, this isn't as obvious... do I leave off the parameter? Do I always have to set it to 1? Is it a different base URL entirely? To me, having pagination through the GET parameter makes for a slightly more sensible URL, since there's an acceptable default if the parameter is omitted and the parameter doesn't affect the base URL.
Also, while I can't prove it, it gives me the warm fuzzy feeling that Google has a better chance at figuring out the nature of that page's content (i.e. that it is a paginated index into further data, and will potentially update frequently) versus a page # embedded inside the URL, which will be more opaque.
That said, I'd say this is 99% personal preference and I highly doubt there's any real functional difference, so go with whatever is easier for and fits in better with your current way of doing things.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that my opinion is Django specific... I have a few Django apps so I'm relatively familiar with the way they build their URLs, and I still use a "pg" GET parameter with those apps rather than embedding it in the URL directly.
It seems like there are two things going on. A static page, that won't change and can be used for permalinking, like an article, as well as a dynamic page that will update frequently. There is no reason you cannot use both. URL rewriting should allow this to work quite nicely. There's no reason to let the implementation control the interface, there is always at least one way to skin every cat.