Are Go HTML template file extension names arbitrary? - go

I see different people naming HTML files index.html or index.tmpl. Both seem to work the same, what's the difference? I see no official documentation about it. Can extension names just be chosen arbitrarily?

The file parsing function and method expect full file names. The template package does not impose any restrictions or make any assumptions about the extensions used in the file names.

Related

godoc pass external reference file containing documentation for code without comments

Instead of comments written in the code itself, is it possible to pass an external reference file to the godoc command containing the documentation for any uncommented code?
The requirement here is that we need to generate documentation for a codebase that does not have any proper comments within the code and we also want to keep changes to the source files to a minimum.
Any other approach which fits this requirement is welcome. No strict rule to use godoc

How to write a test for parseFile in Go

I have a parseFile function that given a file parsing for certain information and returns a struct. How do I write a test for this function?
With Java, I could have a file in the test folder but I not sure how to best do it in Go.
Thanks and regards
You can do exactly the same in Go, albeit it is handled a bit differently.
Create a folder called "testdata" next to your *_test.go files.
This folder is by convention ignored by the go tools, as are all folders beginning with an underscore. This is why I name my resources directories for web applications _components instead of bower_components, for example.
Now, you can access said folder with a relative path from your tests, and it won't pollute your namespace or sth.
You should be able to commit a file to the same folder as your test, and read in a relative path by way of os.Open("./path_to_file").
If the issue is that you're looking for a file in a specific location, I'd recommend parameterizing whichever method loads the information to accept different filepaths.

wxWidgets: Preferred way to name .po/.mo files: en/app.mo or en.mo?

My application is to be written using wxWidgets, but the question may be related to using gettext in general.
For the application named app, some sources suggest I sould create <lang>/ subdirectory, create the app.po file inside with the translation, and convert it to the distributed app.mo file in the subdir.
Another approach is to create app.pot (i.e. the template from the sources via xgettext), and to msginit and msgmerge it to the <lang>.po for the language.
For the first approach, more .mo files can be put inside the <lang>/ subdirectory. Also the wxLocale::AddCatalog() gets the domain name (where the domain can naturally be app, wxstd, etc.). On the other hand, the <lang>.po file name is descriptive on itself -- wherever it is located.
What are the pros and cons of the two approaches? Is there any text that explains the path to be chosen?
Thanks for your time and experience,
Petr
The Unix convention is to use app.mo for binary catalogs, see the contents of /usr/share/locale directory. Sometimes lang.po is however used for the source ones, as done in wxWidgets itself (see its locale subdirectory), but they're still installed into language-specific subdirectory using the app-dependent name.

Adding syntax highlighter to JamWiki-1.2

The tutorial http://sinnerinc22.blogspot.de/2010/07/adding-syntax-highlighter-to-jamwiki.html describes how to enable syntax highlighting in JAMWiki.
My problem is that in the recent version of JAMWiki v1.2 the two files to be modified WEB-INF/jsp/top.jsp and WEB-INF/jsp/close-document.jsp do not exist any longer...
There is a third-party syntax highlighting tag extension available with JAMWiki 1.2 link that may work for you
I have added SHJS to my installation just following SHJS instructions rather than JAMWiki instructions. Simply edit JAMWiki JSP pages to add content as documented here. To see how does it work, look into the source code of this HTML document.
You even do not need to compile anything after you edit JSP, the server does this for you automatically.
Following up on Audrius's answer, here's exactly what you need to modify.
./jamwiki.war/WEB-INF/jsp/topic.jsp Modify it to look like this
Download the SHJS zip and copy all of the individual files from ./css/, ./lang/, ./sh_main.js, and ./sh_style.css from the zip to JamWiki.war/shjs/. (This will flatten the directory structure so everything is now in ./shjs/. Flattening the structure is optional but it makes for easier paths when referencing them in the jsp.)
You can modify the .war with 7zip or dig into your web app container file system and place the JSP and shjs folder directly.
Redeploy or refresh as needed depending on your preferred edit method.

What is the file contents.css in CKeditor?

CKeditor's installation instructions tell me to just unzip the whole distribution file on my webserver's production directory. But it is full of files I definitely don't want there, like source code, examples, and even server-side code in PHP. I got rid of most of these files but there is one I'm not sure about: contents.css.
I can see this file uses a lot of styles I definitely don't want to see in my site. My question is:
Is contents.css required by CKeditor, or used by default? Do I even need this file on my production site?
I suppose it depends on what you're using in CKeditor, or what you plan to use later. Personally, I'd suggest renaming the file (something like) contents.css.old and creating a new contents.css file, copy across all the styles that you think you'll need and then destruct-test your implementation of CKeditor, to assess whether you've got all the styles that you need.
Add to, or remove from, that file to get your finished version and then use that one. I'd strongly advise keeping the original version around though, for future development purposes.
To your specific questions, though:
Is contents.css required by CKeditor, or used by default?
I believe so.
Do I even need this file on my production site?
Not so far as I know, its absence will likely cause things to look a little less-pretty, though, until you apply your own styles.
As suggested, above, though, I'd rename the original and then create your own stylesheet with the same name, it's rather easier than going through all the various js files looking for, and changing as appropriate, references to contents.css.

Resources