for instance:
<div translate>
This is <strong>awesome</strong>
</div>
I would like to know if there's a better approach to prevent sending those inlinr tags to the .po file.
I try to avoid putting markup in my localized strings when I can, but sometimes it is unavoidable.
However in the case of em and strong, they may need to be left in. Check out the answers to this question and you'll see that in some cases the translator may need to change or remove those tags altogether.
Another case that comes up often is inline links in text. You might consider putting the actual url for the link in a variable and adding a comment not to change the text inside braces.
Related
This should probably be easier than it is. I just want to put a link inside an HTML paragraph element.
%p{class: "answer"}="Please upload your data to this portal in text (tab-separated) format. Download our template #{raw(link_to 'here', '/templates/upload_template.xlsx')} for sample data and a description of each column."
Rails is encoding the tag information. I don't want tags to be encoded. I want them to be tags.
You can use more than one line inside any block, to solve your problem we will have something like this:
%p{class: "answer"}
Please upload your data to this portal in text (tab-separated) format. Download our template
= link_to 'here', '/templates/upload_template.xlsx'
for sample data and a description of each column."
You can use interpolation directly in Haml, and doing this seems to fix the issue in this case.
So instead of doing this:
%p= "Text with #{something_interpolated} in it."
you can just do
%p Text with #{something_interpolated} in it.
i.e. you don’t need the = or the quotes, since you are just adding a single string. You shouldn’t need to use raw either.
(Also, note you can do %p.answer to set the class attribute, which may be cleaner if the value isn’t being set dynamically.)
Why this is being escaped here is a different matter. I would have expected the two cases (%p= "#{foo}" and %p #{foo}) to behave the same way. However, after a bit of research, this behaviour seems to match how Rails behaves with Erb.
As the title suggests I would like to find a way to replace URLs within a body text (for a blog) with image tags for those URLs. I suspect I will need to do some form of regex. Has anyone done something like this before?
EDIT:
To describe the use case a bit more, I have a blog-esque site I am building. I would like blog writers to be able to 'drop' urls into text posts (separated by newlines), and have rails intelligently parse the string and replace any urls with images (perhaps in a helper method).
The sanest approach is to use something like Markdown (or exactly like it) and ensure that your posts are marked up correctly. This seems to be the most up-to-date gem for Markdown, https://github.com/vmg/redcarpet.
Alternatively, if you want to do this by yourself, it would still be prudent to mark up a link in some way. For example, {image src=link_to_the_image_here}.
This will make finding images within the body of text easier.
In my rails 4 app i want to add comments to my articles, but i want to add functional as most forum-engines do (like SMF), and i need to add bb-code for it.
Are there any good gem for it? With rails 4 support? How then in controller i can translate [quote] to some div with some style?
Also how is it good to store html data in database?
For example if i use haml, and somebody post comment as
- current_user.id
or something similar to this, how to secure my app from "bad boys" ? Sure i can change comments system to something like: quote_parent_id, but if i have multiple quotes in one comment? so it is hard to realise, better is to store html, but to secure it somehow.
Could i do this? And how? Please give good ideas, tutorials, gem-links.
Look into https://github.com/veger/ruby-bbcode
Since it converts to HTML and does not excecute user input as Ruby code - you'll be fairly safe. However, I havent tried the gem and its possible it introduces some XSS vulnerabilities.
Have you considered Markdown as an option?
You should also look into https://github.com/asceth/bbcoder ( I should note I am the original author ).
In the controller, changing a string such as "[quote=user]My post of epic importance[/quote]" into a div etc is just doing:
# assume params[:comment] is the text you are converting
params[:comment].bbcode_to_html
As for storing html in a database, there is no right or wrong answer. If you want to allow users to edit their posts later then I would lean towards not storing the html version but storing their original bbcode version. This way when you allow them to edit you aren't having to convert html back to bbcode.
To make sure you aren't open to XSS and other attacks I recommend combining other gems like sanitize.
Sanitize.clean(text.to_s).bbcode_to_html
Some more notes:
Multiple tags and nested tags are parsed as they are seen without any additional steps required. So a comment or post with lots of bbcode tags, multiple quotes, b tags or anything else is dealt with by just calling bbcode_to_html on the variable/string.
If a user tries to use haml in their post it should appear as-is. haml shouldn't try to eval the string unless you specifically tell it to which I'm not even sure how to do that unless haml as a special filter or operator.
I have a question.
I have comment model, in which it has body column that users can type anything in there.
obviously user might type the url link to other website.
In my guess, I think it should be replaced with < a href > tag when it is being saved.
Is there any good gem or something to handle this kind of thing?
If you don't want to use a full-blown markdown parser (Redcarpet), use Rinku. It's super fast and safe. Do not use any regex based solutions as you would most likely open yourself to security risks.
text = "Hello! Check this out: https://github.com/vmg/rinku"
Rinku.auto_link(text, mode=:all, link_attr=nil, skip_tags=nil)
Produces:
=> "Hello! Check this out: https://github.com/vmg/rinku"
Preserving for posterity's sake, but I feel it's important to note that this is NOT a secure way to solve the problem. Unless you want to figure out all the security implications for yourself, don't follow this advice. Jiří Pospíšil's answer is better. =D
You don't really need a gem to do that (I personally try to avoid gems for something so simple). Write a regular expression that is reasonably reliable for your purposes, and then use something like
input.gsub(regex, 'some text')
to convert the links into their html equivalent. Note that you'll need to use raw to display the results of this, otherwise rails will escape the output for you. This also means users will be able to put other arbitrary markup in, unless you escape it as it goes into the database. Make sure you do that.
Alternately, you could do the same thing as you display it, with slightly different considerations/steps necessary.
Can I use ActionView::Helpers::SanitizeHelper#sanitize on user-entered text that I plan on showing to other users? E.g., will it properly handle all cases described on this site?
Also, the documentation mentions:
Please note that sanitizing
user-provided text does not guarantee
that the resulting markup is valid
(conforming to a document type) or
even well-formed. The output may still
contain e.g. unescaped ’<’, ’>’, ’&’
characters and confuse browsers.
What's the best way to handle this? Pass the sanitized text through Hpricot before displaying?
Ryan Grove's Sanitize goes a lot farther than Rails 3 sanitize. It ensures the output HTML is well-formed and has three built-in whitelists:
Sanitize::Config::RESTRICTED
Allows only very simple inline formatting markup. No links, images, or block elements.
Sanitize::Config::BASIC
Allows a variety of markup including formatting tags, links, and lists. Images and tables are not allowed, links are limited to FTP, HTTP, HTTPS, and mailto protocols, and a attribute is added to all links to mitigate SEO spam.
Sanitize::Config::RELAXED Allows an even wider variety of markup than BASIC, including images and tables. Links are still limited to FTP, HTTP, HTTPS, and mailto protocols, while images are limited to HTTP and HTTPS. In this mode, is not added to links.
Sanitize is certainly better than the "h" helper. Instead of escaping everything, it actually allows the html tags that you specify. And yes, it does prevent cross-site scripting because it removes javascript from the mix entirely.
In short, both will get the job done. Use "h" when you don't expect anything other than plaintext, and use sanitize when you want to allow some, or you believe people may try to enter it. Even if you disallow all tags with sanitize, it'll "pretty up" the code by removing them instead of escaping them as "h" does.
As for incomplete tags: You could run a validation on the model that passes html-containing fields through hpricot, but I think this is overkill in most applications.
The best course of action depends on two things:
Your rails version (2.x or 3.x)
Whether your users are supposed to enter any html at all on the input or not.
As a general rule, I don't allow my users to input html - instead I let them input textile.
On rails 3.x:
User input is sanitized by default. You don't have to do anything, unless you want your users to be able to send some html. In that case, keep reading.
This railscast deals with XSS attacks on rails 3.
On rails 2.x:
If you don't allow any html from your users, just protect your output with the h method, like this:
<%= h post.text %>
If you want your users to send some html: you can use rails' sanitize method or HTML::StathamSanitizer