I am trying to understand the code in this page: https://github.com/corroded/git-achievements/blob/gh-pages/git-achievements
and I'm kinda at a loss on how it actually works. I do know some bash and shell scripting, but how does this script actually "store" how many times you've used a command(im guessing saving into a text file?) and how does it "sense" that you actually typed in a git command? I have a feeling it's line 464 onwards that does it but I don't seem to quite follow the logic.
Can anyone explain this in a bit more understandable context?
I plan to do some achievements for other commands and I hope to have an idea on HOW to go about it without randomly copying and pasting stuff and voodoo.
Yes on 464 start the script, everything before are helping functions. I dont know how it gets installed, but I would assume you have to call this script instead of the normal git-command. It just checks if the first parameter is achievement, and if not then just (regular) git with the rest parameters is executed. Afterwards he checks if an error happend (if he exits). And then he just makes log_action and check_for_achievments. log_action just writes the issued command with a date into a text file, while achievments scans for that log file for certains events. If you want to add another achievment you have to do it in this check_for_achievments.
Just look how the big case handles it (most of the achievments call the count_function which counts the # usages of the function and matches when a power of 2 is reached).
Related
(Please, help me adjust title and tags.)
When I run connmanctl I get a different prompt,
enrico:~$ connmanctl
connmanctl>
and different commands are available, like services, technologies, connect, ...
I'd like to know how this thing works.
I know that, in general, changing the prompt can be just a matter of changing the variable PS1. However this thing alone (read "the command connmanctl changes PS1 and returns) wouldn't have any effect at all on the functionalities of the commands line (I would still be in the same bash process).
Indeed, the fact that the available commands are changed, looks to me like the proof that connmanctl is running all the time the prompt is connmanctl>, and that, upon running connmanctl, a while loop is entered with a read statement in it, followed by a bunch of commands which process the the input.
In this latter scenario that I imagine, there's not even need to change PS1, as the connmanctl> line could simply be obtained by echo -n "connmanctl> ".
The reason behind this curiosity is that I'm trying to write a wrapper to connmanctl. I've already written it, and it works as intended, except that I don't know how to properly setup the autocompletion feature, and I think that in order to do so I first need to understand what is the right way to write an interactive shell script.
I'm having trouble monitoring a file for changes. I need to be able to know when a file changes, and when it does, I need the new line that was added. I intend to parse each line and find ones that match certain criteria, and act on information in those lines. I know the expected number of matching lines ahead of time, but I do not know how many lines in total will be added to the file, or where the matching lines will be.
I've tried 2 packages so far, with no avail.
fsnotify/fsnotify
As fas as I can tell, fsnotify can only tell me when a file is modified, not what the details of the modification was. Since I need to know what exactly was added to the file, this is no good for me.
(As a side-question, can this be run in a loop? The example that I tried exited after just one modification. I need to monitor for multiple modifications.)
hpcloud/tail
This package tries to mimic the Unix tail command, but it seems to have its own issues. The output that I get includes timestamps and other data - I just want the added line, nothing else. Also, it seems to think a file has been modified multiple times, even when it's just one edit. Further, the deal breaker here is that it does not output the last line if the line was not followed by a newline character.
Delegating to tail
I came across this answer, which suggests to delegate this work to the tail command itself, but I need this to work cross-platform (specifically, macOS, Linux and Windows). I don't believe that an equivalent command exists on Windows.
How do I go about tackling this?
#user2515526,
Usually changed diff is out of scope of file watchers' functionality, because, you know, you could change an image, and a watcher would need to keep a track several Mb of a diff in memory, and what if we have thousands of files?
However, as bad as it sounds, this may be exactly the way you want to implement this (sure, depends on your app, etc. - could be fine for text files), i.e. - keeping a map of diffs (1 diff per file) since last modification. Cannot say I like it, but sounds like fsnotify has no support for changes/diffs that you need.
Also, regarding your question about running in a loop, maybe you can get some hints here: https://github.com/kataras/iris/blob/8370d76910cdd8de043753ed81ae080eae8dc798/utils/file.go
Its a framework that allows to build a server that watches for TypeScript file changes. So sounds similar to your case/question.
Cheers,
-D
I am making an app with a TON of features. My problem is that applescript seems to have a cut-off point. After a certain number of lines, the script stopps working. It basically only works until the end. Once it gets to that point it stops. I have moved the code around to make sure that it is not an error within the code. Help?
I might be wrong, but I believe a long script is not a good way to put your code.
It's really hard to read, to debug or to maintain as one slight change in a part can have unexpected consequences at the other part of you file.
If your script is very long, I suggest you break your code in multiple parts.
First, you may use functions if some part of the code is reused several times.
Another benefit of the functions is that you can validate them separately from the rest of the execution code.
Besides, it makes your code easier to read.
on doWhatYouHaveTo(anArgument)
say "hello!"
end doWhatYouHaveTo
If the functions are used by different scripts, you may want to have your functions in a seperate library that you will call at need.
set cc to load script alias ((path to library folder as string) & "Scripts:Common:CommonLibrary.app")
cc's doWhatYouHaveTo(oneArgument)
At last, a thing that I sometimes do is calling a different script with some arguments, if a long code fits for slightly different purposes:
run script file {mainFileName} with parameters {oneWay}
This last trick has a great yet curious benefit : it can accelerate the execution time for a reason I never explained (and when I say accelerate, I say reduce execution time by 17 or so for the very same code).
I notice that the commands I have in my shell scripts never get added to the history list. Understandably, most people wouldn't want it to be, but for someone who does, is there a way to do it?
Thanks.
Edit:
Sorry about the extremely late reply.
I have a script that conveniently combines some statements that ultimately result in lynx opening a document. That document is in a dir several directories below the current one.
Now, I usually end up closing lynx to open another document in the current dir and need to keep switching back and forth between the two. I could do this by having another window open, but since I'm mostly on telnet, and the switches aren't too frequent, I don't want to do that.
So, in order to get back to lynx from the other document, I end up having to re-type the lynx command, with the (long) path/filename. In this case, of course, lynx isn't stored in the command history.
This is what I want added to the history, so that I can get back to it easily.
Call it laziness, but hey, if it teaches me a new command....
Cheers.
As #tripleee pointed out, which problem are you actually trying to solve? It's perfectly possible to include any shell code in the history, but above some level of complexity it's much better to keep them in separate shell scripts.
If you want to keep multi-line commands in the history as they are, you might want to try out shopt -s lithist, but that means searching through history will only return one line at a time.
I sweated over the question above. The answer I'm going to supply took me a while to piece together, but it still seems hopelessly primitive and hacky compared to what one could do were completion to be redesigned to be less staticky. I'm almost afraid to ask if there's some good reason that completion logic seems to be completely divorced from the program it's completing for.
I wrote a command line library (can be seen in scala trunk) which lets you flip a switch to have a "--bash" option. If you run
./program --bash
It calculates the completion file, writes it out to a tempfile, and echoes
. /path/to/temp/file
to the console. The result is that you can use backticks like so:
`./program --bash`
and you will have completion for "program" in the current shell since it will source the tempfile.
For a concrete example: check out scala trunk and run test/partest.