Whenever a core class is initialized, a line is written to the debug log. For example, if CI_Model is instantiated, you'll see a "Model Class Initialized". I want to suppress this.
When I inherit from CI_Model, I call the parent constructor, which outputs that line. In the inherited class, I am also outputting a similar line. For example "CustomModel Class Initialized".
Unfortunately, this gives me two lines in the logs, one that is helpful, and one that is redundant.
The simplest solution would just be to go into system/core/Model.php and comment the line out.
Another approach would be to log the message from your CustomModel class with a message level other than debug. Then, update the log threshold in application/config/config.php to disable logging of debug messages. The downside to this approach is that you won't log all of the other system messages.
If all you're really trying to accomplish is to remove that one log message, I don't see any harm in just going into the core class and removing the line.
Related
One way of doing seemed to be to use the java.lang.Compiler
I tried to use the java.lang.Compiler inside Eclipse anddid not understand the Object any parameters for the methods of that class? And putting in a class did not seem to work either.
Compiler.command(any) // what is meant by any? What are valid objects to put there?
Compiler.compileClass(clazz) // Nothing happens when I out a class in there?
Compiler.compileClasses(string) // hm?
How to can I print a hello message with a Compiler inside Eclipse...?
Reading the documentation is a very important skill you need to learn.
Whenever you come across a class or a method that you don't know the functionality of, simply look at the documentation first.
Here is the docs for java.lang.Compiler: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/Compiler.html
This is the first sentence of the document:
The Compiler class is provided to support Java-to-native-code compilers and related services. By design, the Compiler class does nothing; it serves as a placeholder for a JIT compiler implementation.
So, the answer to your question is, it does nothing. According to the documentation, it does nothing. It is used to start up the Java compiler when the JVM starts. You are not meant to use this.
I want my logging methods to output some sort of request ID. To do that I need to pass a request object (or some derivative) to the logging functions.
This is all fine when logging from the request handlers, but is problematic when used from within library-style methods, as I don't wish those to be aware of any ongoing http-requests.
Furthermore, those same library methods might be used in the future by console applications, and than the request-id would be replaced by some sort of worker-thread-id.
Using a context solves the problem, but this means I will have to add a context parameter to all my methods, which is somewhat annoying.
So, basically, what I need is some sort of static storage that is passed between method and goroutine calls.
I'm not sure there's anything like that in Go, so maybe my approach is totally off-base, in that case, I would be happy to hear what is a better approach to solve the above problem.
Thanks,
Try another logging library. For instance, in log15 (https://github.com/inconshreveable/log15) a Logger as an embedded key/value context.
logger := log.New("request_id", "8379870928")
You can pass the logger object to anyone that needs to log. Later on:
logger.Warn("blabalbla")
... will embed the request_id that you have put.
I've been trying to implement a Front Controller on a VBScript (ASP Classic) based system for a couple of days. I come from a ASP.NET MVC and Java background, where MVC implementations are kind common and mostly done by existing frameworks. On VBScript, however, there's almost nothing done in this area, so it is the reason why I'm trying to do it by myself. I used this and this article as a guide on how to implement it.
I believed at first that I'd need to define some constant parameters for each request, so I created 3:
class_command 'which command responsible to execute the correct class handler
action 'which method of the class handler to execute
action_params 'which parameters the action will need
Next, I defined a generic controller handler for treating the request:
Public Function Controller_Handler(action_params)
Its task is to extract the constant parameters (class_command, action, action_params) and treat any errors (I'll add later a filter to process it) that might come like absence of the constant parameters or authentication problems.
But soon I realized a problem: how will the handler know which command to call, since the request is a string? I can't simply converting it to class using reflection, because VBScript (I think) doesn't have a reflection library or built-in feature.
So I thought I could create a Switch Case like this:
Select action_Params.Item("action_params")
Case "command_A"
' Call Command A
Case "command_B"
' Call Command_B
.
.
.
Case "Command_X"
' And so on
End Select
But that would kinda procedural way to do it. Next I thought of creating a XML file which would map all the commands and other stuff.
So my question is: is this a good way of implementing a Front Controlller pattern, considering VBScript limitations? If not, could you provide a guidance (hopefully with some example, even a simple one) on how can I do it?
Moving from classic to .net/mvc I can share what I did in classic asp to try to emulate this behavior as closely as possible without making it too much of a maintenance issue.
Using URL Rewrite in IIS are my routes. I usually just make one route and direct/rewrite all inbound requests to one controller.asp page to simplify things and not have a bunch of rules and controller redirects directly in my URL Rewrite settings for maintaining it easier (for me).
Using Request.ServerVariables("HTTP_X-ORIGINAL-URL") in controllers.asp you can grab the actual URL that was entered, which return something like.. /real/url
In controllers.asp programatically call the view based on the entered url using Server.Execute("view1.asp")
I have one class file called routes.asp that is included in each model/class file, and helps me gather the URL properties oRoute.GetPath_FirstDirectory() and so on. The model/class file then uses this data to create its property values that can be consumed by the view. Using CLASS_INITIALIZE in each model/class to populate itself from the route/url, or it could also be done directly in the view.
In the respective view I include my class/model file (if even needed) using <!--#include file="class.asp"--> then simply open Set Model = new cModelClass to initialize and start using it in the view. I don't include the class in the controllers.asp because the view will not inherit any of the variables from controllers.asp when using Server.Execute() to the view. So I include it directly in the view.
Error handling can be at multiple levels here, but ideally its in the controllers.asp. Specific error handling is usually at the actual model/class CLASS_INITIALIZE to avoid redundant use of the class in the controller, since it's already going to be initialized in the view.
Now this is not exactly what goes in in .Net mvc, but it's the best way I've come up with, and easiest to maintain for me. Maybe others have other implementations, but this is mine and solely based on my experience. And so far, it's been working out pretty well.
I'm currently writing an application that plays podcasts. I'm representing all the feeds and the episodes within them as QStandardItem objects within a QStandardItemModel. Right now, I don't have a way to save this model--when the application closes, the feed model goes up in smoke. I looked at using QSettings, but that only works for datatypes that fall under QVariant.
Looking at this post gave me some hope, but I think I'm doing something wrong. I've got the following code in the constructor for my application.
//Expand QVatiant to use QStandardItemModel
qRegisterMetaType<QStandardItemModel>("QStandardItemModel");
That, however, gives me this error at compile time.
/ [...] QtSDK/Desktop/Qt/4.8.1/gcc/lib/QtGui.framework/Versions/4/Headers/qstandarditemmodel.h:424: error: 'QStandardItemModel::QStandardItemModel(const QStandardItemModel&)' is private
Ah. That reminds me of this caveat from the Qt documentation for QMetaType, here.
Any class or struct that has a public default constructor, a public copy constructor and a public destructor can be registered.
So, where do I go from here? Qt is behaving exactly as it should, so this approach won't work. I'm thinking of saving off the model as an xml file, but that seems like a ton of effort. This seems like a pretty common problem--I just don't know where to look for the answer.
Here's the best solution I could come up with: Create a method that saves the model into an XML document, and call it whenever I change the model (e.g. add or remove a podcast). I don't have the actual source code on hand, but since there's no real easy way to save the data structure wholesale, this is the best solution.
I am trying to implement AssemblyInitialize/AssemblyCleanup attributes in my Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 for the exact purpose as stated here. That link even describes the process which I need to follow to implement the code.
A quick summary of that purpose is to create an initial block of code which will run right before any test no matter which of the codedUITests I run in the solution and then a block of code which will run after the last codedUITest is completed. Example: I need to open up a specific application, then run a series of codedUITests which all start at that application and which are executed in any order, then close the application after everything is finished; this is more efficient than opening/closing the application for each codedUITest.
What I don't understand is where I need to place the code laid out at the bottom of that page (also shown below). I stuck all that code right under my 'public partial class UIMap' and the code runs except it runs the 'OpenApplication' and 'CloseApplication' commands before/after each CodedUITest instead of sandwiching the entire group of CodedUITests.
How do I implement the code correctly?
Update:
I discovered AssemblyI/C last night and I spent 3 hours trying to
figure out where to put the code so it works. If I put the
AssemblyInitialize at the beginning of a specific test method then:
1) It still wouldn't run - it was giving me some error saying that
UIMap.OpenWindow() and UIMap.CloseWindow() methods need to be static
and I couldn't figure out how to make them static.
2) Wouldn't the specific [TestMethod] which has the AssemblyI/C on it
need to be in the test set? In my situation I have a dozen
CodedUITests which need to run either individually or in a larger
group and I need to get the AssemblyI/C to Open/Close the window I am
testing.
You've added the methods to the wrong class. By putting then into the UIMap partial class, you are telling the runtime to run those methods every time you create a new UIMap instance, which it sounds like you're doing every test.
The point of the ClassInitialize/ClassCleanup methods is to add them to the class with your test methods in it. You should have at least one class decorated with the TestClass attribute, which has at least one method decorated with a TestMethod attribute. This is the class that needs the ClassInitialize and ClassCleanup attributes applied to it. Those methods will run one time for each separate TestClass you have in your project.
You could also use the AssemblyInitialize and AssemblyCleanup attributes instead. There can only be one of these methods in any given assembly, and they will run first and last, respectively, before and after any test methods in any classes.
UPDATE:
AssemblyInitialize/Cleanup need to be in a class that has the TestClass attribute, but it doesn't matter which one. The single method with each attribute will get run before or after any tests in the assembly run. It can't be a test method, though; it has to be a static method and will not count as a "test".