I have a Middleman project that includes several Less files. I think Middleman attempts to build the files but fails. I can reproduce this on a a clean install. I just initiate a project, add an empty 'test.less' within the source folder and then either build or run the server -- both fail. I get an error to the tune of: cannot load such file -- less (LoadError)
Is there a way to explicitly ignore these files?
Middleman has support for ignoring files. The docs for this are part of the dynamic pages feature.
In your config.rb you can call ignore "test.less" and this file will be ignored.
You can make this more complex by using globs or regexes e.g. ignore "*.less". See the ignore docs for more detailed information.
Related
It looks like middleman s3_sync doesn't upload my robots.txt. Is there a way to enable it to always upload a specific file?
It depends on the version of Middleman S3_Sync that you are using.
Versions 3.0.x build the list of files based on the content of the build directory. In that case, copying the file into the build directory will include it in the sync.
Versions 3.3.x moved to the Middleman sitemap in preparation of MM 4. It currently only syncs the files that Middleman is aware of. Copying a file into the build directory doesn't make S3_Sync aware of it.
In the second case, there are two options available.
The first one is to move robot.txt to the source directory. This will include it in the sitemap and it will be sync'ed.
The second is to open an issue (or even better, a pull request) that will ask for the ability to include files that originate from outside of the source directory.
It would help to get the version of Middleman and s3_sync that you are using.
I want to set up my HelloWorld intellij-erlang project with all files in the same directory so I can easily switch between IDEA and emacs/vim.
<my-project>/hello.erl
<my-project>/hello.beam
Now, if I configure the output directory to be the same as the source, hello.erl gets emptied as part of the build and the compilation fails.
I assumed it's something to do with copying resources to the output directory, so I've configured intellij-erlang to exclude *.erl from the resources with a !?*.erl pattern, but this does not have any effect, hello.erl still gets emptied before the compilation takes place.
As an experiment, I've also tried using separate src and out directories, and intellij-erlang always copies the *.erl to out irrespective of the resource patterns.
Based on all this, I would conclude that intellij-erlang cannot work with all files in the same directory. Have I missed anything?
Erlang programs should be build on standard OTP directory structure. Build tools like rebar (used by intellij) or erlang.mk build on this conventions. And so should all IDE's.
Intellij does it, just like you notice. And so does Emacs's plugin (that I use and can confirm). I would guess so does Vim's one.
So if you would like to be able to switch easily between your IDE's you should try to keep to this convetion of keeping you source files in src and compiled files in bin (and headers in include).
I'm trying to get my head around bundles in MVC 4. From what I've read, you simply point it at a script or bunch of scripts, give it a name, and it'll bundle them up. If you're not in debug it will also minify them.
Sample Code:
bundles.Add(new ScriptBundle("~/bundles/jquery").Include(
"~/Scripts/jquery-{version}.js"));
If it's done dynamically, why does the project have .min.js files for every script? Does the minifying process actually just load .min.js rather than minify it itself?
If you run in debug mode, the .debug.js files are included. If you run in release mode, the .min.js files are included. If the file is not .debug.js or .min.js, it's included in both cases.
In release mode, all the files, are minified and bundled in one file. No matter if they were or not were previously bundled.
I usually have the original, not .min.js or .debug.js files, and let the bundler do all the job of minification.
There is also another important thing you must be aware of: the bundler will reorder the included files according to internal rules. And, if you use wildcards, the files are included alfabetically. This can make fail your scripts if there are dependencies and they are included in the worng order. You can run your site in debug mode to check the order (look at the rendered script tags). If the order is wrong, you can tweak the file names or implement an IBundleOrderer.
This is a very interesting article on bundling.
If CMake is re-executed after the source directory is moved, an error like this is given:
CMake Error: The current CMakeCache.txt directory /new-path/CMakeCache.txt is different than the directory /old-path where CMakeCache.txt was created. This may result in binaries being created in the wrong place. If you are not sure, reedit the CMakeCache.txt
What is the best approach to deal with this? It seems that deleting the cache works. Why might I want to edit CMakeCache.txt, rather than just delete it?
I think your best bet is indeed to delete the cache and re-create it. In fact, I tend to go further and remove the entire build tree if I need to move the source, but this is probably overkill.
The CMakeCache.txt file can be edited via the CMake GUI or by hand if you're sure what you're doing, but I find it's not usually worth the effort compared to re-running cmake from scratch. I guess if running CMake takes a significant amount of time (e.g. if you use ExternalProject_Add which could involve downloading and building a third-party resource), it may be preferable to modify the CMakeCache.txt.
This article provides a bit more detail about the CMakeCache.txt file and editing it. In particular it says:
The main reason for editing the cache would be to give CMake the location of a native library such as JPEG, or to stop it from using a native library and use a version of the library in your source tree.
CMake will not alter an existing entry in the cache file itself. If your CMakeLists.txt files change significantly, you will need to remove the relevant entries from the cache file. If you have not already hand-edited the cache file, you could just delete it before re-running CMake.
I applied below two command and worked for me.
flutter clean
flutter pub get
flutter clean + flutter pub get is the easiest solution
I ran into same error while running a CGAL code (which I had already compiled sometime ago) . All I did was create a new directory and copy the ".cpp" file there and run " CGAL_create_CMakelists " and then run cmake command.It worked this way. I don't exactly know but I think the error comes when you run the code which was already compiled and has its build files already in the folder(due to previous compiling).
I started using sass scss stylesheets. These generate *.css files from *.scss files. My question is, which files do you check into version control? Right now I check in both main.scss and the generated main.css. I wonder though if there is a way to just check in the *.scss file and to ensure that the *.css files get generated on deployment.
I prefer to check them in. We deploy to our staging and production environments from git and I prefer not to rely on yet another tool/compilation when deploying to production. This way, its absolutely clear what is being pushed out.
In general, you usually don't need to check generated files into source control. As long as your code generation works consistently, and you use it consistently to update your target .css files, I don't think you would need to put them in source control.
That said, the suggestion to not put generated files into source control is usually intended more for binary files (i.e. libs or executables generated from a build). The main reason for this is that binary files cannot be easily diffed/merged, so if multiple people try to checkin changes to the same binary, you may end up with merging issues that cannot be easily resolved. Since you're dealing with plain text css files, I don't think it's that big of a deal to just put them in source control too, just so you have a backup of the actual target file.
I like to borrow from the conventions used by server side developers when handling compiled front-end code like sass. I keep all of my source separate from compiled code. Here's how I set it up:
Put your source in a src directory, under main/language-name, in this case:
/path-to-my-app/src/main/sass/my-syntactically-awesome-file.scss
Then put tests in an identical test directory (you shouldn't need any tests for sass, though:
/path-to-my-app/src/test/sass/my-syntactically-awesome-test.whatever
Then put your compiled code in a publish-ready directory, like so:
/path-to-my-app/publish/css/my-syntactically-awesome-file.css
Then commit the whole shebang (!)
You can make sure you are always putting your css in the right place like so:
$ cd /path-to-my-app
$ sass --watch src/main/sass/*.scss:publish/css/
Now you're a mother effing programmer, baby!