I have : "play.lua" and "menu.lua" and and it works perfect. in "menu.lua": local play = require('play').
I made a button that takes you back to menu, so i wrote in "play.lua": local menu = require('menu') and that shows me error. and when I require just 'menu' in play.lua every thing is ok?
so what is the problem?
I can't two modules to require each other?
You can's have two modules that require each other; if you try that you are likely to get loop or previous error loading module 'X' error. The situation is the same as you get with recursive functions when a calls b, which calls a: the recursion requires some stopping criteria, otherwise it will continue indefinitely. Lua authors implemented a check to detect this situation for require and generate the error you see.
You need to restructure your code to avoid this. You can, for example, extract shared code from play into core and instead of requiring play from menu, require core from both of them, which will eliminate the issue.
Related
Background:
I'm using DataTables in conjunction with a JS library called "Turbolinks", which basically turns your application into a Single Page Application (SPA) without all the overhead of using a true client-side framework. It is extremely useful for Ruby on Rails application performance.
There's a couple of headaches it introduces though - one is compatibility with DataTables. I've got it working pretty well by basically destroying any DataTable on a Turbolinks navigation, and then re-initializing it on turbolinks page load again. This method works well and seems to be the all-around accepted answer as to the best practice to get DataTables to work with Turbolinks.
Question:
On of the last features / finishing touches I'm trying to add to some of my applications is DataTable state saving. The issue I'm facing is that every time a table is destroyed/re-initialized on a page navigation, the...I'm actually not quite sure what to call it, but it looks like from inspecting the settings object on the stateSaveCallback - it looks like its the sInstance and/or the sTableId:
DataTables_Table_0
Then the localStorage key gets set as:
DataTables_DataTables_Table_0_/current_path: "{data: data}"
where current_path is whatever path/page you're on.
Then when it get re-initialized upon returning to the page, it gets set as DataTables_Table_1, and so on and so forth - so the state never gets correctly loaded.
Is there a way to override that ID (or some way to set the name of it in the stateSaveCallback / stateLoadCallback) so that it doesn't increase the last '0', '1', etc at the end of it? That way when the table is re-initialized, it will pull the saved state from just DataTables_Table/current_path?
The answer is to simply give the table an ID! Then DataTables won't assign it its own ID with the incrementing number and the saveState option just works.
Also, the destroy/re-init actually causes the server to get hit twice in the case of an AJAX table.
The better way to do it is to disable the turbolinks cache for any index pages with datatables. If not, you'll end up doing two requests to the server when only one is needed.
I've tried to implement one of our app modules by using PageFactory (for iOS)
Most of the elements are located by name and others by classname
In general everything works (more or less) but the thing is that the appium server has tons of logs , it seems that each time I'm trying to use some page control , and all the declared controls within that page are being update (?) which cause to longer time execution.
In case and I'm trying to debug my test , it takes a lot of time to move step by step (the appium server works extra hours ...)
I do use "CacheLookup" whenever it possible ...
Where my mistake is, or it's just should be like that ?
Thanks
Updated
Not enough info provided to say for sure. If you have a bunch of cucumber steps and each step is creating a new page instance then yes, you could create a class variable to communicate between cucumber steps
Class variables get thrown out at the end of each scenario so no cross scenario contamination. However, if a single scenario leaves a page and comes back you would need to explicitly set the class page handle to nil/null so that it is reinitialized upon reentry to that page. You want to avoid stale element errors.
Worklight 6.1 on both Windows (colleague) and Mac (me), building an a Hybrid app destined for Android device but to speed up development we do initial testing as Mobile Web App in Chrome browser on desktop.
We get a weird symptom that I'm trying to fine-down to a reproducible test case. I think I see different behaviours when stepping in debugger and just letting it run. Want to check whether a certain coding pattern could be the cause of the symptom before I go any further.
Fundamental question: should we wait for the resolution of a promise returned by a JSONSTore request for an action on a collection before issuing another request? more explanation below.
The overall intent is to load some data into the JSONStore, with some intelligent replace/merge action if a record is already present. Pseudo code:
for each record retrieved from back-end
if ( record already present in Store )
do some data merging
replace record
else
add record
The application code actually works like this, just considering the add() case, the problem manifests when the store is empty, all records need to be added
for each record to add
addPromise = store.get().add(record);
listOfPromises.insert(addPromise);
examine the list of promises recording any errors
That is there is no "wait" for add to finish before issuing the next add request. Hence in effect we've initiated a set of adds "in parallel" whatever that might mean in JavaScript in Chrome.
The code appears to run just fine, no errors reported. On android device it works reliably. In Chrome under normal running (no stepping in debugger) we end up with no reported errors but only one record inserted - indeed as though a snapshot of the initial "empty" store had been taken and each add is working on that "empty" copy.
After writing this I'm now pretty convinced that the coding pattern described above is vulnerable to a kind of race and that the better approach is build a list of documents to be added and insert them in a single operation.
A more detailed answer will be coming later, but I now know that this
the coding pattern described above is vulnerable to a kind of race and
that the better approach is build a list of documents to be added and
insert them in a single operation.
is true. In the browser the JSONStore does require that we wait for the result of one request before issuing another one. The recommended approach is
var dataToAdd = buildArrayOfDataToAdd(responseFromServer);
var dataToReplace = buildArrayOfDataToReplace(responseFromServer);
jsonstore.add( dataToAdd ).then( function() { jsonstore.replace( dataToReplace); })
I'm working on something that needs to install files periodically into a folder in /Library.
I understand that in the past I could have used one of the Authenticate methods but those have since been deprecated in 10.7.
What I've understood from my reading so far:
I should create a helper that somehow gets authenticated and have that helper do all of the moving tasks. I've taken a look at some of the sample code, including some involving XPC and one called Elevator but I'm a bit confused.
A lot of it seems to deal with setting up some sort of client / server model but I'm not sure how this would translate into me actually installing my files into the correct directories. Most of the examples are just passing strings.
My question simply: How can I create my folder in /Library programmatically and periodically write files to it while only prompting the user for a password ONCE and never again? I'm really not sure how to approach this and there doesn't seem to be much documentation.
You are correct that there isn't much documentation for this. You'll basically write another app, the helper app, which will get installed with SMJobBless(). Not surprisingly,
the tricky part here is the code signing. The least obvious part for me was that the SMAuthorizedClients and SMPrivilegedExecutables entries in the info plist files of each app are dependent on the identity/certificate that you used to sign the app with. There is also a trick with the compiler/linker to getting the info plist file compiled into the helper tool, which will be a single executable file, rather than a bundle.
Once you get the helper app up and running then you have to devise a way to communicate with it since these are two different processes. XPC is one option, perhaps the easiest. XPC is typically used with server processes, but what you are using here is the communication side of XPC only. Basically it passes dictionaries back and forth between the two apps. Create a standard format for the dictionary. I used #"action", #"source", and #"destination" with 3 different action values, #"filemove", #"filecopy", and #"makedirectory". Those are the 3 things that my helper app can do and I can easily add more if necessary.
The helper app will basically setup the XPC connection and event handler stuff and wait for a connection and commands. The commands will just be a dictionary so you check for the appropriate keys/values and do whatever.
I can provide more details and code if you need more help, but this question is 9 months old so I don't want to waste time giving you details you've already figured out.
We have some strange problem here. We have feature event receiver, where we are creating custom fields -> content type -> list. After that, one default item is added. On my VM it was working just fine, but after moving into pre-prod environment, we got this strange behavior with no exception or error in logs.
First thing, item was created only sometimes, with no trace what happened. Mostly it was not created. I even experienced this: when I activated feature, I went to the list and so item there, but after refresh it was gone!
We tried to put there some Thread.Sleep() cycle (while debugging, item was in Items collection, but ItemsCount property of the list was always showing 0).
Now I am out of ideas what is wrong. It's not about execution time (maybe). Looks like, for some reason, SP is killing SPItem.Update before it is created for real and we don't know why. Any help is really welcome!
When you try to access sharepoint items from code and not have admin permissions to update/ delete them then set website website.AllowUnsafeUpdates = true; property
//Set AllowUnsafeUpdates = true to update the database / sharepoint list from code.
FormWeb.AllowUnsafeUpdates = true;
NewItem.Update();
FormWeb.AllowUnsafeUpdates = false;
you code should be like this to make changes in the list.. when you adding item to list.
Use Update statement in same manner when you accessing list and updating its data.
Check whether you updating the list correctly.. There may be some SharePoint security issue.
Reference Link:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/infopath/archive/2010/04/01/add-items-to-a-sharepoint-list-using-managed-code.aspx.
You can check this [SPSecurity.RunWithElevatedPrivileges][1]
[1]: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.sharepoint.spsecurity.runwithelevatedprivileges.aspx , link, link
you can check that what is going over there by adding your events in sharepoint..
Check this post and debug it..
http://developmentsolutionsjunction.blogspot.com/2011/06/adding-events-and-eventhandlers-in.html
so I was finally able to find out where the problem was. After deeper study and trying that and this I found out that there was a third party feature. It was adding event to each created list and was deleting everything what wasn't consistent with CT defined by company. This is weird and I don't really understand why somebody wants this. But ok, they pay, their rules.
So if you encounter such problem, try also this possibility.
However, I also leard few things during this, e.g. if you are working with SP instances from web scope, use web scoped features, not site ones, also, SP has a nasty habit to silent som exceptions. Also, if you e.g. take instance of SPWeb from event properties, it doesn't necessarily means it is already created. It takes some time, also, Update() itself is a thing that DB has to perform. Sometimes it's better to alsways check if you really have instance and if not, threadsleep for a while.
Have you used .Update() method in your code??