To debug / reporting purpose, before a refactor, we need to print the current file name in a rule refactor method.
Here we do a LOT of highly specific filtering, so I need to dump filenames where filter passes BEFORE doing any changes, so rector reporting will not output nothing.
Can a rector rule access current parsed file name?
Found !
in the rule we can use
$this->file->getFilePath()
Also, in the refactor method we can also see line of current node
$node->getLine()
Related
I want to ignore test files in codeql result.
but this query includes test files.
import codeql.ruby.AST
from RegExpLiteral t, File f
where not f.getBaseName().regexpMatch("spec")
select t
ignore test files in the result
regexpMatch requires that the given pattern matches the entire receiver. In your case that means it would only succeed if the file name is exactly "spec". Maybe you rather want to test for ".*spec.*" (or use matches("%spec%")).
I am not sure though if that answers your question. As far as I know there is in general no direct way to ignore test sources. You could however do one of the following things:
Exclude the test directory when building the CodeQL database; for GitHub code scanning see the documentation
For GitHub code scanning filter out non-application code alerts in the repository alerts list (see documentation)
Manually add conditions to your query which exclude tests, for example a file name check as you have done or checking the code for certain test-related constructs
Is there a way to prevent Guard to run all the watchers that match a file structure but only the first one?
I basically need to instantiate a different object if the file copied in my root folder has a specific structure or not. For instance, if the file name matches \d{2}-\d{6}_\d{5}_\d+_\d+.csv I need to instances object A while for all the other .cvs files object B.
As first attempt I was trying to use negative lookbehind but due to lookbehind limitations it looks like I cannot do that.
So, now I'm trying to force Guard to execute only the first watcher that matches.
My Guardfile looks like
guard :my_csv_files do
watch(%r{^\d{2}-\d{6}_\d{5}_\d+_\d+.csv$})
end
guard :others_csv_files do
watch(%r{^.+.csv$})
end
Thanks
This has been available for a while, but was never documented. (Until today).
There's a :first_match option, which does exactly what you want:
https://github.com/guard/guard/wiki/Guardfile-DSL---Configuring-Guard#guard
I am looking for a way to separate the repetitive html codes from web pages, and for this I am planning to use the macro functionality. The problem here is for every macro I need to put this macro in a file, or put some of them in a file and include this in the template file.
What I need is to include once just the directory name something like
<#import "/tags/widgetDirectory" as widgets />
here the /tags/widgetDirectory is a directory , and every files here can be seen as a macro defined.
when I need to insert a code part from a file from this directory lets say slide.ftl I will just use
<#widgets.slider />
the system will check for slider.ftl in the /tags/widgetDirectory directory . here the slider.ftl can have <#macro> as first and as last line , or these can transparently added and system can load it as a macro
this will easy my designer work.
Maybe there is better way for doing this kind of widgets/components based web design ?
best regards,
This feature (importing directories) is something that's planned for FM actually... but it won't happen anytime soon. But I guess it can be solved fairly well with a hack right now. Instead of #import, use your own TemplateMethodModelEx, that you could use like <#assign widgets = importDirectory('/tags/widgetDirectory') >. This will return a TemplateHashModel that's also implemented by you and is bound to the directory path. When an item of that hash is get, it uses Environment.getCurrentEnvironment().include. The included file is expected to create a macro with name __main or something. So then you get that variable with Environment.getCurrentNamespace().get("__main") and return it as the result of the hash lookup. Of course this hash should also maintain a cache, so that if the same item is get twice, it wont include the template for the second time, just return the macro extracted earlier. This can be developer further, so that if the include file didn't define __main, then it's supposed that it prints directly to the output, and so it will be included again, when the "tag" is called again.
As I learned from DevGuide testing ReSharper plugins works as follows:
Plugin is loaded and test input file is passed to it
Plugin performs it's actions on the passed file
ReSharper's test environment writes plugin actions results to .tmp file in a special format that depends on the type of functionality tested (for example, if we test completion, .tmp file will contain the list of generated completion items)
ReSharper's test environment compares .tmp file with .gold file to decide if test is failed or succeeded
But I need the following scenario. The first two steps are the same as the above ones, then:
I write code that obtains the results of plugin's actions and check are they what I'm expected so I can make test fail if needed
How can I achieve this?
I need it because I have a code that uses AST generated by ReSharper to build some graphs and I want to test are the graphs built correctly.
Yes, you can do this. You need to create your own test base class, instead of using one of the provided ones.
There is a hierarchy of base classes, each adding extra functionality. Usually, you'll derive from something like QuickFixAvailabilityTestBase or QuickFixTestBase, which add the functionality for testing quick fixes. These are the classes that will do something and write the output to a .tmp file that is then compared to the .gold file.
These classes themselves derive from something like BaseTestWithSingleProject, which provides the functionality to setup an in-memory solution and project that's populated with files you specify in your test, or BaseTestWithTextControl which also gives you a text control for the file you're testing. If you derive from this class directly (or with your own custom base class), you can perform the action you need for the actual test, and either assert something in memory, or write the appropriate text to the .tmp file to compare against the .gold.
You should override the DoTest method. This will give you an IProject that is already set up, and you can do whatever you need to in order to test your extension's functionality. You can use project.Solution.GetComponent<> to get at any shell or solution component, and use the ExecuteWithGold method to execute something, write to the .tmp file and have ReSharper compare to the .gold file for you.
Find.find("d") {|path| puts path}
I want to exclude certain type of files, say *.gif and directories.
PS: I can always add code inside my block to check for the file name and directory type, but I want find itself to filter files for me.
I don't think you can tell find to do that.You could try using Dir#[], which accepts file globs. If you are looking for particular types of files, or files that can be filtered with the file glob pattern language, it may be a better fit.
eg
Dir["dir/**/*.{xml,png,css,html}"]
would find all the xml, png, css, and html files under the directory d.
Check out the docs for more info.
You can't make find do it, but Find may help: in the block, you need to check whether the current path is one of those you'd like to exclude or not; if so, then call Find#prune. This seems to be the standard idiom when using Find.
If you decide to use Dir#[] instead, you may call reject on its result, passing a block to exclude certain types of files. However, note that, as far as I understand, Dir#[] reads all the contents of your d directory before you can filter, while Find#prune guarantees not to read the contents of pruned subdirectories if you call it within the block passed to Find#find.