I'm tinkering with tipsi-stripe's paymentRequestWithCardForm() method to make it support UI localization (project app is supposed to support EN, IT and DE). I'm browsing tipsi-stripe's and can't find anything localization-related.
Also changing language settings of the device changes UI only partly (see screenshots).
Related
So I have a React Native app based on react-native-firebase-starter that I'd like to debug using better tools than just console.log output via react-native log-android. Debugger breakpoints, object inspection etc.
For a standard React Native app, this would be possible using the "Debug JS remotely" option which, as I understand it, runs the app's JS inside desktop Chrome and hence can use it's dev tools.
This does not seem to work for React Native Firebase however. I presume this is because it uses a lot of native Android/iOS modules along with mobile-only Firebase auth, and thus is only happy running entirely on the device. ...or something like that.
Am I doing something wrong or is there a way round this? What debugging setup will give me the best DX here?
The example project react-native-firebase-starter is natively built (as opposed to being created with Expo) and will therefore work as expected with the debugging tools you have mentioned.
Make sure when running the app the build variant Debug is selected, as in Release mode Metro Bundler / Packager and the debugging tools are not available.
If the debugging level via Chrome Dev Tools does not suffice, there are other tools created for React Native with better functionality (such as breakpointing). The most notable ones are:
React Native Tools extension for Visual Studio Code. Allows setting breakpoints and iterating through code in the editor.
React Native Debugger, which has a similar interface to Chrome Dev Tools and allows breakpoints to be set in the Sources tab.
Up-to-date installation instructions and configuration are provided in their respective repositories.
We have a custom authorization plugin for OSX, written using this as our base:
https://github.com/skycocker/NameAndPassword
and referencing the official documentation where needed:
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/authorization_plug-ins/using_authorization_plug-ins
The plugin was working perfectly, until the Mojave release. With Mojave, our auth plugin UI does not draw and we only see the circular login arrow button. The only way to login is to ssh into the machine, uninstall our auth plugin and re-enable to default OSX login mechanism.
We added additional logging and found that the plugin is indeed being loaded and runs normally. It's just the UI that is not displaying anymore. My guess is that they have changed some requirements for custom auth plugins but have not updated the documentation.
Does anyone have any ideas as to why the UI might not be displaying in Mojave?
EDIT:
Some more information. We have found that we are able to tab through the controls that are part of our plugin. This implies that the controls are actually there, but are either off screen or maybe just not being drawn? Very strange indeed...
EDIT 2:
I tried building the NameAndPassword sample, and it displays fine in Mojave. This sample used a .nib for the interface, which I cannot edit in the recent version of xcode. So, I tried recreating the interface as a .xib and surprisingly, the UI for NameAndPassword is now gone as well!
So, there is perhaps something happening behind the scenes when the .xib file is compiled which is causing the UI to not be drawn, which is NOT happening with a .nib based interface.
Do you have this flag enabled : self.window?.canBecomeVisibleWithoutLogin = true
Both frameworks are (hybrid) mobile app frameworks which try to access the native UI components with the JavaScript API provided by the different platforms like iOS and Android. They don't use any HTML and CSS for the UI design like e.g. Ionic do and they are not wrapper frameworks but actually a kind of cross-compiler frameworks. That's what i found out. BUT I didn't get the actual differences between these two frameworks. Why should i prefer one of these? Are they doing exactly the same job?
best regards, Tom
I know this is quite old, but I'll give my answer for the benefit of anyone else arriving here.
Full disclosure, I worked for Appcelerator from 2012-2019.
In short, they're both quite similar.
You write a specific flavor of JavaScript that includes custom objects
Your JavaScript code gets compressed, minified, etc. so it becomes the input to an interpreter that gets shipped with your app
When your app runs, it launches the interpreter which starts executing your code
At this point, JavaScript is being run in "native land", so the interpreter can act as a bridge between your JavaScript code and the native SDK
The result is a native app with access to features of the underlying platform
A "native app" shouldn't simply be defined as an app that runs natively, because that would make a PhoneGap app a native app.
A "native app" should be defined as an app that runs and behaves natively. That means, an app that abides by the native OS' ui/ux guidelines.
MAIN DIFFERENCES?
I'd have to say that the main difference is its internal design. Appcelerator started in 2007, when "mobile" was very young.
React Native was launched in 2015.
In 2015 mobile was already in full swing, and mobile OS' were pretty mature, so I infer that React Native's design benefits from all lessons learned by Appcelerator (and others).
As for which one is better, I'd say React, because Titanium is now dead.
I would like build a app using sproucore framework, but i also want to integrate it with Titanium to have some desktop capability like file system, packaging, offline working etc...
I know that with sproutcore 2 this would be pretty easy since it allows to use the framework like a normal javascript library. But the project is still in beta and the docs are patchy at most (I consider patchy even the 1.x docs, actually).
So, I want to ask, which would be the best way to go to integrate sproutcore and Titanium API?
Titanium's main mission is to use JavaScript to build native apps, not to provide a OS-access layer for web apps. It would be hard to mix native and SproutCore UI elements.
That being said, here's some information that might help you:
Titanium has reversed it's application model starting with version 1.0:
http://developer.appcelerator.com/question/71/what-happened-to-html--css
The main app doesn't run in a web view anymore, instead it runs directly in JavaScriptCore and creates only native UI elements. One of the native UI elements is a web view
(http://developer.appcelerator.com/apidoc/mobile/latest/Titanium.UI.WebView-object)
and it's possible to make that full screen and run your SproutCore app inside of the web view. From there, you can call out to Titanium to call Titanium methods for file system access and the like.
Also, if you only target the desktop, you could even access the JavaScript context object of a webview and use it directly in JavaScriptCore.
Johannes
My app is a pref pane which includes a background application in its bundle.
I wonder if anybody has already figured out the best practice for distributing a "pref pane only" app via the Mac App Store. Are there already any pref pane apps in the store?
Apple states apps containing preference panes are not "self-contained", they install code or resources in a shared location that is not allowed by the guidelines hence in violation of both 2.15 and 2.30 in https://developer.apple.com/appstore/mac/resources/approval/guidelines.html
Let me start by saying that I have not submitted any apps that contain system preference panes (in fact I have not submit any apps to the Mac App Store, only the iOS App Store). This answers is based on my reading of the guidelines and my understanding of how OS X works.
I've read the Mac App Store guidelines and I don't see that they preclude system preference panes. 2.15 says:
Apps must be self-contained, single application installation bundles, and cannot install code or resources in shared locations
Finder treats a .prefpane file like any other file - Finder launches the app which handles files of this type (i.e. System Preferences.app) and opens that app and passes the file as an argument. When a .prefpane file is opened System Preferences.app asks the user were to install it (in the System Library or the Users Library). It is System Preference.app that is 'installing' the .prefpane.
If an app were to include a .prefPane in its bundle and a mechanism for allowing the user to open file in Finder then I do not think the above guideline would have been contravened.
I find it hard to believe that Apple wants developers to cluttered up users menu bars with unnecessary icons when they have already provided a much better solution.
I'd like to know if anyone has tried to submit an app that provides an option to install a system preference pane. I'd also like to know if I've missed some documentation from Apple which discuss this (besides the guidelines quoted above).