Tailwind offers a feature where you can give an input element the peer class and then, in a sibling element use the peer-invalid: pseudoclass to apply conditional stylings. This is commonly used to provide helper text when a form field is not valid.
I don't see how this can be tested in JS-DOM though, as JS-DOM doesn't have access to the actual CSS when it is just rendering components in unit tests.
The information I have seen about getting JS-DOM to use CSS at all is kinda sketchy, so I was wondering if it's even worth trying to get it to evaluate a bunch of tailwind classes in a NextJS/Jest/RTL project. I'm using Tailwind 3 so it's not even like I have a big file full of generated classes I could try and pass to JS-DOM :/
So can it be done? (Note the hard fact please mods!!!)
(And, somewhat more subjectively, should it be done? Or is there a better way to approach this?)
I am trying to create a custom lexer based off of JavaScript for QScintilla. I have figured out how to add keywords the the lexer. However, I can not figure out how to alter the way they look when typed in like it does when you type the word function, for example.
I need to figure out how to do this with, for example, the word "fill".
Here's the code I currently have:
QsciLexer *lexer=new QsciLexerJavaScript;
QsciAPIs *api = new QsciAPIs(lexer);
api->add("fill");
api->prepare();
ui->textEdit->setLexer(lexer);
You need to subclass the QsciLexerCustom class. Then you need to make/configure several QsciStyle objects inside that class. The actual syntax highlighting is done in the styleText() function, which you need to override.
You can find detailed explanation on this website:
https://qscintilla.com/
More specifically on this page:
https://qscintilla.com/syntax-highlighting/
I hope it helps
As part of an attempt to port a fairly large/complex existing application to the Ember world, I'm generating and compiling named Handlebars templates dynamically, and associating views with them, using the technique:
var template = Ember.Handlebars.compile("some handlebars stuff");
Ember.TEMPLATES["myTemplate"] = template;
var view = Ember.View.create({
templateName: "myTemplate"
});
One of the things I'd like to do is be able to recompile new/different Handlebars template markup which overwrites the template named "myTemplate" and have it be accessible to views at that name.
I'm getting unexpected results trying to do this - a couple fiddles that illustrate the problems:
First fiddle - Shows what happens if you wait before rendering a view after the named template contents have changed.
Second fiddle - Shows what happens if there's no delay before rendering a view after the named template contents have changed.
There's obviously some magic under the hood that I'm not understanding. Can anyone shed some light on this?
UPDATE:
I went through the source code for Ember.View and the container module, and came to realize that I could solve the problem in the First fiddle by overriding the "template" computed property in a way that skips the container cache lookup. I've put up another fiddle here to demonstrate the solution I found.
This seems to be working the way I'd like it to - but - it feels like I might be fighting with the framework and "unhooking" from the container in a way that might bite me later. Is there a better, more Ember-esque way to accomplish what I'm trying to do? Will the hack I found break things?
UPDATE 2
I've also discovered that it's also possible to simply call
view2.get('container').reset();
before appending view2 in the First fiddle. Seems cleaner/safer, but is it "legal"? I've updated the First fiddle to illustrate this.
(in the second fiddle, both views show the second template)
This is because view1.appendTo($("#target")); just schedules the append, actual view rendering does not happen until end of the run loop. Before that happens, you've set Ember.TEMPLATES["myTemplate"] = template2;
(in the first fiddle, both views show the first template)
Pretty sure this is because ember container caches template fx, but not 100% on that. Checking...
I'm going to call this one answered. As I mentioned in my second comment, I'm using the solution shown in this fiddle in my project, along these lines:
mYiew.get('container').reset();
There's some discussion about the container not being intended to be used as an API here: https://github.com/emberjs/ember.js/commit/5becdc4467573f80a5c5dbb51d97c6b9239714a8 , but there doesn't seem to be any mention of using the container from Views for other use cases.
Also, a View's container can be accessed directly (at ".container") - meaning the devs haven't made it "hard" to get to the way they have for an Application's ".__ container __". This might suggest something about how they intend it to be used.
Since a View having the ability to clear its cache whenever it wants to doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable or a bad practice, I'm using the above mentioned solution...at least until someone sets me straight with a better idea (or a cache API).
Say I request
parent/child/child/page-name
in my browser. I want to extract the parent, children as well as page name. Here are the regular expressions I am currently using. There should be no limit as to how many children there are in the url request. For the time being, the page name will always be at the end and never be omitted.
^([\w-]{1,}){1} -> Match parent (returns 'parent')
(/(?:(?!/).)*[a-z]){1,}/ -> Match children (returns /child/child/)
[\w-]{1,}(?!.*[\w-]{1,}) -> Match page name (returns 'page-name')
The more I play with this, the more I feel how clunky this solution is. This is for a small CMS I am developing in ASP Classic (:(). It is sort of like the MVC routing paths. But instead of calling controllers and functions based on the URL request. I would be travelling down the hierarchy and finding the appropriate page in the database. The database is using the nested set model and is linked by a unique page name for each child.
I have tried using the split function to split with a / delimiter however I found I was nested so many split statements together it became very unreadable.
All said, I need an efficient way to parse out the parent, children as well as page name from a string. Could someone please provide an alternative solution?
To be honest, I'm not even sure if a regular expression is the best solution to my problem.
Thank you.
You could try using:
^([\w-]+)(/.*/)([\w-]+)$
And then access the three matching groups created using Match.SubMatches. See here for more details.
EDIT
Actually, assuming that you know that [\w-] is all that is used in the names of the parts, you can use ^([\w-]+)(.*)([\w-]+)$ instead and it will handle the no-child case fine by itself as well.
WACK says:
If you feel you need to have lots of arguments, consider creating a CT instead.
...
CT are significantly more powerful and
flexible than custom functions. Try to
use UDFs for simple matters... Use CT
and Components for more involved
processes, especially those you can
think of as discrete actions rather
than simple "massaging"
Okay, but how are you usually making decisions? Interesting to know real-life practice and examples.
For me it happens when a function has many not-required arguments, so I have to call them myFunc(arg1="foo", arg2="bar"). Sometimes <cfmodule> syntax simply becomes more readable, but not always.
Other reason is that I don't like long (say, more than 2 screens of code) UDFs.
But all these thoughts are very subjective, that's why I'm interested in reading other people opinions. Maybe there's better rules for that?
Thanks in advance.
There a probably plenty of people in the community that would disagree with me, but here is how I generally think about it. If what you need to do involves output to the screen, and if it makes sense to "wrap" this around some other code or text, then a custom tag might be in order. In all other cases a UDF works fine and generally better. That being said, in close to 8 years of CF development, I really haven't ever came across a very good reason for a custom tag. I'm not saying the reasons don't exist, but I would say that they are rare.
If you have a very long UDF, is it safe to assume that this is something where you are outputting to the screen by calling this UDF (not really returning a value I mean)? I would consider breaking that UDF into smaller more manageable parts if that could make sense, but like you are alluding to, what matters in the end is what is the most readable, to you, your team and those who may come after you.
Update: Out of curiosity, which CFWACK book are you referring to (version and volume) and which page?
As I remember things, custom tags can be called at any time, where as UDFs have to be defined before you can use them. This makes custom tags easier generally. If you had huge libraries of UDFs it would be burdensome to make sure they are all included and potentially hard work for the server to parse them all (in olden days at least).
However UDFs can be used in a more compact way
<cfif myUdf(myVariable)>
The advantage of custom tags is that they can sit nicely with your markup.
<h1>Order Page</h1>
<cf_basket_nav>
<ul>
<cfloop ...>
<li>
<cf_basket_item item="#items[i]#">
</li>
</cfloop>
</ul>
</cf_basket_nav>
Generally nowadays I would have a 'utils' CFC with methods for what were your UDFs.
one consideration on the use of custom tags over udfs or cfc methods is when you find that a subroutine needs to be passed an array of child items, you can use nested custom tags to associate a child custom tag and its elements to a parent custom tag. this allows you to do very nice clean coding thats easy to read:
<cfmenubar ... >
<cfloop array="menuitems" ...>
<cfmenubaritem url="#i.url#">
#i.label#
</cfmenubaritem>
</cfloop>
</cfmenubar>
yes,yes i know we have nicer dhtml stuff like menus and tabs, this is simply to point out an example. you can use cfassociate in the custom tag to "pass" the attributes to the parent custom tag and then in the executionmode="end" access all the dynamically generated child items in the array of associated attributes. this is where you would loop and output the menu to the screen in this example.
also, as another commented, allows you to do some clever things... one thing in particular i use is that i set prefix="" and then i can essentially force simple html tags (like the <a> tag) to get kicked through a custom tag handler at runtime - so an html tag becomes intelligent at runtime... i do this so i can analize the href and the target attributes and decide if i want to display a pdf icon (or other mime type icon) next to the link... its pretty slick! this is especially helpful in a content management system or when 7you have html developers using dreamweaver or contribute and you want to have their tags fire smart coldfusion tags without them doing anything outside of standard html - the editor doesnt know any difference and they dont need to go into "code" view to make some fairly powerful functionality.
finally, in a custom tag you can choose to suppress output (or use a cache), so this can be very useful to wrap around chunck of dynamically generated html... access the thistag.generatedcontent variable in the executionmode EQ "end" mode
dont throw out the baby with the bathwater on this one ... i agree their usage is much less frequent since we have cfcs, however there is still some powerful functionality in custom tags... i usually have one or 2 in every application (and at least dozens of cfcs)
hth
jon
cfmodule has no advantage over functions; cfinvoke works just the same.
Of course, with cfimport you can enable a nice tidy namespaced CT syntax - and this is when custom tags are good: when working with clear open/close construct, or if nested logic is important.
For everything else, especially when returning results, functions are easier to handle.
Jeremy pointed to useful option: wrapping HTML by CT. But this feature seems to be so rarely used. Any way, it's a plus for CT.
Also I thought that I prefer function because I love cfscript coding. Few times I had to wrap legacy CT into UDF only to be able to use it at totally cfscript-ed page. It's a plus for UDF.
Simple reusable code can go into a UDF. This might include things like string formatting, data structure manipulation, etc etc.
For anything more complex than that, I would consider using CFCs instead of a custom tag. You'll be able to write much cleaner code in an OO model. You can always wrap the logic in your CFCs with a custom tag if you want to provide ease of use for someone who is more used to working with tags.
Not sure why I fell into this pattern, but in general I use Custom Tags (always with cfmodule) for anything that outputs HTML and UDFs for anything that merely returns simple data/objects. I realize that UDFs can do output as well, but I don't like my functions to have any side effects and this feels like one. For similar reasons, I now use Custom Tags anywhere where previously I would have used a cfinclude, since they provide encapsulation of data.