I am making a visualization of a code base using rascal, and I am currently trying to make it interactive by letting the user click on rendered Figures.
What I want to do is to let the user click on objects that represent parts of the analyzed code, upon which the user is taken to the appropriate part of the analyzed code.
I have noticed that the loc type, when evaluated in the normal console, yields a hyperlink to the location it describes. When the loc value is printed from a callback, however, it is not.
2 possible solutions:
Make the loc output clickable again.
Control the eclipse GUI directly, showing the user the code immediately.
Is any of the above possible? If not, are there alternatives?
Accepted solutions start with the user clicking on rendered Figures and end with the user seeing the code, without the user having to manually navigate to the respective Java files (user friendly!).
I found the answer to my own question, quickly enough. Apparently, I only had to read the documentation a little more thorough.
The function edit(loc location) in the module util::Editors will make eclipse open a new tab with the file pointed at by the location. In case the location points at a specific AstNode, it will even select the source code of the node.
Related
I may have this completely wrong, but I've been searching available documentation and googling for 2 weeks now, and have my head completely wrapped around the axle.
I am trying to use SpecFlow to write a regression test for our site. This means that I want to exercise all the features so that if we inadvertently broke something, it will catch it.
The site is basically an incident reporting portal. The home page has about 50 different buttons, each of which opens up the data entry pages for a different class of incident.
The data entry pages are arranged in a "wizard" fashion, where it starts with a page of general questions, then moves on to a page of more specific questions and so on. The questions are more or less grouped in the classic "who/what/when/where/why" grouping, with one wizard page for each group, so that we don't overwhelm the user with 100 questions presented all at once.
Exactly which pages are needed depends on the particular type of incident. Some incident types have as many as 8 pages, some as few as 3.
Our specifications for each page are framed in BDD style - Given/When/Then. So it is very natural to translate those specifications into SpecFlow features, and I have done that, at least for the first page of general information questions. But the Scenario had about 30+ steps in it.
I have also written another Feature for testing from the home page -
Given I'm logged in on the home page
When I clicked the button for XYZ ticket
Then it opens XYZ ticket
And the General Information page is displayed.
And I can drive that scenario from a table so that I can test as many different incident types as I want.
So far so good.
But now I want to add
And the General Information page requirements are verified
Where the step definition for that last clause would run the whole scenario for the general information page. In other words, I want to use that other scenario that I have written as a subroutine in this one.
(And then I want to go on and do the same for each of the other wizard pages. But let's get the first one first!)
I can't figure out a way to do that. I tried writing the step definition for the above clause to invoke the step definitions of the General Information scenario, e.g.
Given("I am on the General Information page")
When ("I click this checkbox")
Then ("This happens")
You used to be able to do that (although that would still be a lot of repetition). But now that's giving a warning message that function is deprecated and will be removed (and since I've now upgraded, it may already have been removed - I haven't tried it since I upgraded.) The github issues page (https://github.com/SpecFlowOSS/SpecFlow/issues/1733 has a lot of discussion on it, none of which sheds any light on how to do what I'm trying to do. The primary author (SabotageAndi) seemed to be saying "That's a bad thing; don't do that" without really giving any alternative, at least none that I was able to understand.
Can anyone give me a direction for how to accomplish what I'm trying to do?
I want to use that other scenario that I have written as a subroutine
in this one.
You can't reuse scenarios defined in feature files.
The best you can do is create a new Step that reuse already defined steps by calling them direcly (jameswtelfer comment on 31 Jan in github issue you provide).
I have been extensively using a custom protocol on all our internal apps to open any type of document (CAD, CAM, PDF, etc.), to open File Explorer and select a specific file, and to run other applications.
Years ago I defined one myprotocol protocol that executes C:\Windows\System32\wscript.exe passing the name of my VBScript and whatever argument each request has. The first argument passed to the script describe the type of action (OpenDocument, ShowFileInFileExplorer, ExportBOM, etc.), the following arguments are passed to the action.
Everything worked well until last year, when wscript.exe stopped working (see here for details). I fixed that problem by copying it to wscript2.exe. Creating a copy is now a step in the standard configuration of all our computers and using wscript2.exe is now the official configuration of our custom protocol. (Our anti-virus customer support couldn't find anything that interacts with wscript.exe).
Today, after building a new computer, we found out that:
Firefox doesn't see wscript2.exe. If I click on a custom protocol link, then click on the browse button and open the folder, I only see a small subset of .exe files, which includes wscript.exe, but doesn't include wscript2.exe (I don't know how recent this problem is because I don't personally use FireFox).
Firefox sees wscript.exe, but it still doesn't work (same behavior as described in my previous post linked above)
Chrome works with wscript2.exe, but now it always asks for confirmation. According to this article this seems to be the new approach, and things could change again soon. Clicking on a confirmation box every time is a big no-no with my users. This would slow down many workflows that require quickly clicking hundreds of links on a page and, for example, look at a CAD application zooming to one geometry in a large drawing.
I already fixed one problem last year, I am dealing with another one now, and reading that article scares me and makes me think that more problems will arise soon.
So here is the question: is there an alternative to using custom protocols?
I am not working on a web app for public consumption. My custom protocol requires the VBScript file, the applications that the script uses and tons of network shared folders. They are only used in our internal network and the computers that use them are manually configured.
First of all, that's super risky even if it's on internal network only. Unless computers/users/browsers are locked out of internet, it is possible that someone guesses or finds out your protocol's name, sends link to someone in your company and causes a lot of trouble (possibly loss too).
Anyway...
Since you are controlling software on all of the computers, you could add a mini-server on every machine, listening to localhost only, that simply calls your script. Then define host like secret.myprotocol to point to that server, e.g., localhost:1234.
Just to lessen potential problems a bit, local server would use HTTPS only, with proper certificate, HSTS and HPKP set to a very long time (since you control software, you can refresh those when needed). The last two, just in case someone tries to setup the same domain and, for whatever reason, host override doesn't work and user ends up calling a hostile server.
So, links would have to change from myprotocol://whatever to https://secret.myprotocol/whatever.
It does introduce new attack surface ("mini-server"), but should be easy enough to implement, to minimize size of that surface :). "Mini-server" does not even have to be real www server, a simple script that can listen on socket and call wscript.exe would do (unless you need to pass more info to it).
Real server has more code that can have bugs in it, but also allows to add more things, for example a "pass through" page, that shows info "Opening document X in 3 seconds..." and a "cancel" button.
It could also require session login of some kind (just to be sure it's user who requests action, and not something else).
The title of this blog post says it all: Browser Architecture: Web-to-App Communication Overview.
It describes a list of Web-to-App Communication techniques and links to dedicated posts for some of them.
The first in the list is Application Protocols, which I have been using for years already, and it started to crumble in the last year or so (hence my question).
The fifth is Local Web Server, which is the one described by ahwayakchih.
UPDATE (this update follows the update on the blog post above mentioned)
Apparently I wasn't the only one thinking that this change in behavior was a regression, so a workaround has been issued: the old behavior (showing a checkbox that allows to remember the answer) can be restored by adding these keys to the registry:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Edge]
"ExternalProtocolDialogShowAlwaysOpenCheckbox"=dword:00000001
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome]
"ExternalProtocolDialogShowAlwaysOpenCheckbox"=dword:00000001
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Chromium]
"ExternalProtocolDialogShowAlwaysOpenCheckbox"=dword:00000001
[Disclaimer: I'm not sure if this kind of question is accepted here as it is about a piece of software deployed already. Rest assured I didn't drop any confidential information. Also do tell me if I violated any rules in SO by posting this so I can take it down immediately]
I have a working Learning Management System web application and I recently received a bug report about a button not showing. After investigating, I have proved that the user was not using the web app as intended. When taking an exam, he was opening multiple tabs to exploit the feature that informs him whether the answer was correct or not. He then will use this information to eliminate the wrong answers and submit all the right answers in another tab/window.
I'm using Rails 4.2. Is there a way to prevent multi-tab browsing? I'm thinking like if a user is signed in and he attempted to open a new tab of the webapp, he should see something like "Please use one tab" and all the features/hyperlinks/buttons are disabled.
Here's a screenshot of how I proved he was using multiple tabs. Notice that there are multiple logs of the same attempt # because the current implementation allows saving a study session and resuming later (this is the part that's exploited). The opening of multiple tabs searches for the most recent attempt session and continues from there. This is also the reason why most of the sessions don't have a duration value -- the user only finishes a study session for one tab (by clicking a button that ends the study session). The system cannot compute for the duration because the other sessions don't have an end timestamp.
-
This is what a single-tab user looks like:
This is more of an application misuse issue more than a bug.
You should add protection not only from multi tab, but for multi browsers aw well, so it can't be purely FrontEnd check.
One of the solutions could be using ActionCable to check if a user has an active connection already and then act accordingly.
Another, for example, generate a GUID in JS and pass it with every answer. If its different from previous answer, it means user opened a new window.
But of course the solution would depend on your current architecture, without knowing how do you currently organise client-server communication it's hard to give exact and optimal solution.
I found an answer here. I just placed this js in the application view to prevent any extra instance of the website.
Thanks for everyone who pitched in.
I have an application that allows a user to open multiple windows/modules. Each module has it's own popup menu, some of these are create at runtime when a form is created, some design time and I have a lot of them in each module, some are used when I right click a form, some are used in toolbutton.
The problem I have is that I have a lot of windows opened, when I right click to access the popup menu, the generated menu goes haywire, I mean, it's not showing the correct labels. Sometimes it'll show all "Save as.." or any other label I need to display. I guess the easiest way to explain this is by showing you a screenshot of the menu
Is this a GDI/User Objects problem? If so, how do I resolve this? I tried increasing my GDI and Uses object limits as a test but still getting this problem. The problem will be resolve if I close one or two windows; however, I cannot ask my users to limit the number of windows opened in the application. A check with windows task manager shows that my application is using 4,312 User Objects and 5,570 GDI objects with 437 Handles at the time this problem is occuring.
I want to write an application that assigns Fogbugz cases programmatically, how would I accomplish this? Is it possible to achieve this given any of the following scenarios:
The user enters text in my
application's input field and the
Fogbugz report is opened in the
browser where the "note" field is
populated with the text from the user
input
The fogbugz report is assigned to the
specified user in the application
without the browser even being opened
i.e. the report is stored directly in
the DB.
I'm planning to add default values to the other fields as well so I would assume the process would be the same for adding text to the "note" field.
You can do this with the Fogbugz API. See the heading "Editing Cases" for the specifics on how to edit a case (which includes creating a new one). It's a little complicated (or perhaps just oddly designed) but, as I remember, you basically have to call cmd=new if you want to create a new case, supply your text in the 's' parameter and set the ixPersonAssignedTo to the correct person. For an existing case, use cmd=edit.
This is possible both with a regular form posted to your Fogbugz installation and some server side code that calls the API.
You might want to write a plugin for FB and allow others to use it. (share it or sell it)