Can't find any information about this.
Is it the creator of the project, all contributors who had their code merged or all contributors who have a certain amount of code in the project?
Consider a code base of 500 lines, and the following contributors:
name: my_package
description: A Widget that does everything.
authors:
- Creator <creator#gmail.com> #500 lines
- Contributor1 <cont1#gmail.com> #1000 lines
- Contributor2 <cont2#gmail.com> #100 lines
- Contributor3 <cont3#gmail.com> #10 lines
- Contributor4 <cont4#gmail.com> #1 lines
homepage: https://github.com/me/my_package
version: 1.2.0
Which contributors belong in authors?
It's common to have all people who contributed anything listed, even fixes to typos in README or code files, but it's completely up to the project owner.
It's probably a good idea to add a CONTRIBUTING.md file to your project and mention the rules you want to apply to your project. You could also mention that people who are interested include themselves to authors in pubspec.yaml so you don't need to maintain it yourself.
Related
I am using Bio.PDB to parse structures in mmCIF and PDB format. I realised that PDBIO does not deal well with two-character chain identifiers (like ‘AA’ or ‘AB’) found in assembly structures. I have made a slight change to the code that fits me. Attached you will find the modified PDBIO module. What it does basically is checking the length of the chain identifier string and adds a space in front of it, if is a single character. The formatting string is modified accordingly.
These are my changes in Bio.PDB.PDBIO module. Please consider it putting it in a future update.
Modified:
_ATOM_FORMAT_STRING = "%s%5i %-4s%c%3s%s%4i%c %8.3f%8.3f%8.3f%s%6.2f %4s%2s%2s\n"
Modified:
for chain in model.get_list():
if not select.accept_chain(chain):
continue
chain_id = chain.get_id()
if len(chain_id)==1: #Added line
chain_id = ' {}'.format(chain_id) #Added line
Modified:
fp.write("TER %5i %3s %s%4i%c \n
Stackoverflow is a site to ask questions. What you are proposing is a change to BioPython software. Luckily, BioPython is open-source, so you create a pull request so that your change can be added to the software.
Go to https://github.com/biopython/biopython/blob/master/Bio/PDB/PDBIO.py
Click on the arrow icon in the top right corner. This will create a fork of the BioPython repository
Make the changes that you mentioned above in your fork and a title and a description:
Click on propose file change. You can now visually compare your modifications side by side.
If everything looks OK, click on create pull request. This will send a pull request to the master branch of the BioPython repository. There it will be reviewed. If the authors of the BioPython software agree that this is a usefull change, they will merge it into the sofware.
I would like to create Issues / Work items / code Review with comments to certain lines of code that directly link to the file and version.
did I miss that feature? or would it be a case for UserVoice* asking for that feature?
(* for which I would not qualify obviously unless MSDN subscriber)
Yes, it is possible for you to add comments to specific code blocks or links.
In the Comments section, select the changed file. Then in the comparison view, right-click in the specific code block and select Add Comment.
Then you will see that the code line information is included in the comments:
i use one Neos installation for multiple domains with different content.
duplicating the package TYPO3.NeosDemoTypo3Org, removing the node-identifier and doing some replacements brought me nearby everything i need.
But only the first Settings.yaml found in Packages/Sites/ seems to be parsed. All changes to the Settings.yaml found in other packages (Test1 and Test2 in the following example) are ignored.
Packages/Sites/TYPO3.NeosDemoTypo3Org/Configuration/Settings.yaml
TYPO3:
Form:
yamlPersistenceManager:
savePath: 'resource://TYPO3.NeosDemoTypo3Org/Private/Form/'
Packages/Sites/UDF.Test1/Configuration/Settings.yaml
TYPO3:
Form:
yamlPersistenceManager:
savePath: 'resource://UDF.Test1/Private/Form/'
Packages/Sites/UDF.Test2/Configuration/Settings.yaml
TYPO3:
Form:
yamlPersistenceManager:
savePath: 'resource://UDF.Test2/Private/Form/'
When i delete the first Settings.yaml (Packages/Sites/UDF.Test2/Configuration/Settings.yaml), the next Setting.yaml in alphabetical order (Packages/Sites/UDF.Test1/Configuration/Settings.yaml) is used for all 3 site packages. When i also delete this file, the Settings.yaml from UDF.Test2 is used and so on.
would be awesome if somebody can enlighten me. I am new to flow and neos and any help is welcome. RTFM, i know, but as described here i have to believe, that it should work like i did?
alternative way?
is it possible not to set the savePath in the site package configuration but in the common settings ./Packages/Application/TYPO3.Form/Configuration/Settings.yaml
I see a {#package} placeholder in
### BASE ELEMENTS ###
# NAMING: base class for everything is RENDERABLE
'TYPO3.Form:Base':
renderingOptions:
templatePathPattern: 'resource://{#package}/Private/Form/{#type}.html'
but this doesn't work here
TYPO3:
Form:
yamlPersistenceManager:
#savePath: '%FLOW_PATH_DATA%Forms/'
savePath: 'resource://{#package}/Private/Form/'
as you see i am not really experienced with this stuff but i am very motivated.
All Settings.yaml are used, but the settings are merged in order of the package loading.
The loading order of packages again is based on their dependencies.
All three packages probably have the same dependencies so they are loaded one after the other (would need to check with which ordering), so third Settings.yaml is loaded, then second Settings.yaml is loaded and overwrites the third, then the first is loaded and again overwrites the second. Every setting path can only be set once, that's why.
In any case what you are trying to archive probably won't work. This is one of the things we have to fix (site package dependent configuration).
A possible workaround is either using a common package with the form configuration and just set the savePath to this package or using diferent subcontexts (like Production/Domain1 Production/Domain2) and setting this setting different per subcontext, then you could define the subcontext by domain (as the sites are triggered by domain anyway).
Has anyone had any issues with integrating the Merge Modules supplied with the API download .msi file and WiX? Or any other MSI/Installer tool?
When I add for various Features it will accept the Xerces 2.5.0.msm but including any other type of merge modules will fail with the following errors
30>light.exe(0,0): error LGHT0204: ICE27: 'SelfUnregModules' Action in InstallExecuteSequence table in wrong place. Current: Selection, Correct: Execution
30>light.exe(0,0): error LGHT0204: ICE27: Action: 'SelfUnregModules' in InstallExecuteSequence table must come after the 'InstallValidate' action.
30>light.exe(0,0): error LGHT0204: ICE27: Action: 'SelfUnregModules' in InstallExecuteSequence table must come after the 'InstallInitialize' action.
30>light.exe(0,0): error LGHT0204: ICE27: Action: 'InstallFiles' in InstallExecuteSequence table must come before the 'SelfRegModules' action. Current seq#: 4000. Dependent seq#: 2850.
The directory structure looks as so:
<Directory Id="INSTALLDIR" Name="Datacenter">
<Merge SourceFile="$(var.QuickbooksMergeModules)\Xerces2.5.0.msm" Language="$(var.LCID)" DiskId="1" Id="Xerces2.5.0.msm"></Merge>
<Merge SourceFile="$(var.QuickbooksMergeModules)\QBFC13_0.msm" Language="$(var.LCID)" DiskId="1" Id="QBFC13_0.msm"></Merge>
No matter what, cannot get it to work beyond that. I've found some information online regarding including the VC++ 7.0 runtime (I'm assuming I can use later?) but haven't attempted it yet.
Thoughts?
I would carefully read MSI Best Practice #43 and my somewhat counter argument In Defense of Merge Modules.
It's generally best to not use third party merge modules anymore. A standalone MSI brought in through a bootstrapper/chainer is better. If needed, build a stand alone MSI using the merge module and put that into your chainer. The point is, don't contaminate your MSI with problems that can be introduced through the merge module.
The fact that they have custom actions with the name SelfReg in it really makes me wonder about the quality of these modules. Self registration (any form of it) is usually a very bad thing.
I've been searching and trying to learn for ages but it just doesn't stick. There seems to be only 1 tutorial on Zend 2, and it's not very smart. Here we have a sample structure (and the tutorial proceeds with this application) http://framework.zend.com/manual/2.0/en/user-guide/modules.html :
zf2-tutorial/
/module
/Album
/config
/src
/Album
/Controller
/Form
/Model
/view
/album
/album
That's not cool - how do I know which album is which? In Zend 1 it made a lot of sense - you have modules, then you have controllers, and those controllers have actions.
Now I have a module called Album. is the src/Album/... a "single controller"? Would:
zend1application/modules/album/albumcontroller.php map to zend2application/modules/album/src/album/controller/albumcontroller.php? In that case, why are there 3 albums now? Like what happens if I change albumcontroller.php to indexcontroller.php? (I have been testing but there are so many changes it never sticks - I finally thought I should ask someone and if I know why I'll remember.
If I look at it a different way it seems the Album in module/Album and module/Album/src/Album should be the same - then why would we have it twice? Doesn't that just make room for error? Like why have a src/album folder? Why not put Controller, Form, and Model under module/Album?
Why is there a folder called Controller? There used to be a folder called controllers (plural, why singular now?) in a module before, that makes sense. But why is/are controller(s) inside a src/Album folder now?
Thank you for your time. I have tried to research but I think it's just too big absorb when (in my opinion) it seems so sparsely documented. Or, if someone could point me to a book like http://survivethedeepend.com/ but for ZF2, it'd be greatly apprecated.
Zend Framework 2 follows PHPfigs PSR-0 Standards. This means that the directory structure directly relates to the classname. But before i come close to that, let me explain the basic architecture.
First you have the ModuleNAME. Since the Module name needs to be unique, it only makes sense to map the Modulename to the Namespace of your model.
Inside the modules folder you have three sub-folders. One folder for configuration items named config. One folder for source-code files named src and one additional folder for the view files view
This separation is simply for overview. You separate configuration, view and sourcecode from another. It makes no sense to bunch them together and i guess you'd agree. This pretty much has been the same for ZF1, too.
The interesting part is the source-folder src. Earlier i mentioned about the PSR-0 Standard. And this is the place where it comes into effect. By default the source-files for each module will be looked upon from the source-folder src. So whenever you have a class, it will be using PSR-0 Standards based off of the source-folder. Mewning: My\Funky\Class would be found within src\My\Funky\Class.php
And that's basically all there is to it. Controllers usually have a FQCN like Mymodule\Controller\SomeController so you will find this class inside src\Mymodule\Controller\SomeController.php
The main question arising could be: Why are the folders sometimes all lowercase and sometimes ucfirst. The answer, once again, is PSR-Standards. Classnames and/or Namespaces are supposed to begin with an upperchar character. And since path-names are case-sensitive, the folders need to match the classnames exactly!
EDIT Another nice read i've just stumbled upon is Rob Allens latest blogpost: Thoughts on module directory structure. He explains how you can change the default setup quite easily to your likings.