I've found this on github that shows how to add github login to the accounts. https://github.com/Jabbslad/accounts-github
Instead of installing the package with "mrt add accounts-github", I'm downloading the sources, and trying to make them work with a simple app. The goal of this is to make a few changes to the code to understand how it works and finally make my own extension to accounts.
But I get errors "Cannot read property 'github' of undefined at app/accounts-github/github_common.js:1:36".
Thx for your help.
Because you added the package yourself you need to ensure the dependencies are also installed. You can find the dependencies in package.js
If you want to make the package from scratch ensure you also use a package in your meteor app. This means that you put your stuff in a directory called accounts-github in a directory called packages in the root directory of your meteor app.
You can also add these dependencies in yourself if you don't want to use a package:
meteor add accounts-base
meteor add accounts-oauth2-helper
meteor add http
Some dependencies should be in with meteor (i.e templating)
So the problem was the git for accounts-github was not updated with the latest evolutions from meteor. So I replaced "Meteor.accounts" with "Accounts" in all files and now it works.
Related
I have a NPM package with a small user base, yesterday I created a new version and wanted to release it. I thought that I might as well make use of the new GitHub Packages and so I setup everything as GitHub suggested and released!
Now the problem is that I still have the old NPM page running on version 2.0.2 while everyone currently uses this as their dependency while the new GitHub package is on 2.0.4, Is there a way to 'synchronize' these two. Of course the GitHub Packages uses the <USER>/<PACKAGE> labeling while NPM just uses <NAME>.
Is the only thing I can do to publish on GitHub Packages and on NPM and just try to move users away from the NPM page?
If your publishing a public package, your better off just publishing it on NPM, as that is what most developers are used to.
I use GitHub Packages at work and the only advantage is that is effective free for hosting internal packages, as we are already paying for GitHub anyway. If it wasn’t for the zero price we wouldn’t be using it.
If you really want to force all your users to migrate to GitHub packages, and have to set up npm to work with it you could mark you old version npm deprecated and use that to point people to the new version.
https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v6/commands/npm-deprecate
Here is another solution, but there is a catch.
Change your registry.npmjs.org package content to
index.js
export * from '#schotsl/my-package';
Now your registry.npmjs.org package is (almost) pointing to your npm.pkg.github.com package.
Only almost because any development directory for a project downstream of registry.npmjs.org/my-package, must configure the scope-to-server mapping for #schotsl/my-package to npm.pkg.github.com in a package manager config file.
In the case of package managers 'npm' and 'yarn' (v1) that can be done in
an .npmrc file at the same level as package.json.
The required .npmrc content is
#schotsl:registry=https://npm.pkg.github.com
# Github PAT token, packages:read authorization only ok
//npm.pkg.github.co/:_authToken="ghp_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"
The first line is the scope to server mapping.
The second line is a Github personal authorization token (PAT) with at least package:read permission. It is actually pretty liberal. A PAT with package:read issued from any github account will allow read access to every github accounts packages.
For the 'yarn' v2 package, the .npmrc file does not work, and instead a couple of keys need to be set in .yarnrc.yml.
Unfortunately there is no way to set the scope-to-server mapping and the token inside the registry.npmjs.org/my-package package itself.
Putting the .npmrc file in there doesn't work, it is ignored. And that wouldn't be a good solution anyway, because not all package managers read .npmrc files.
That is the 'catch' - using npm.pkg.github.com packages requires package manager specific config settings to be made by every downstream developer.
In addition, what if two different upstream packages have colliding scope names, each mapping to a different server? The current config methodology fails in that case.
Feature Proposal not current behavior
Ideally, there would be a common interface agreed upon by all package managers inside package.json - and the scope-to-server mapping would be defined in the package that directly references the scope. For example, in the package.json of my-package on registry.npmjs.org
{
dependencies:{
"#schotsl/my-package":"1.0.0"
},
registries:{
"#schotsl/my-package":"https://npm.pkg.github.com",
},
auths:{
"https://npm.pkg.github.com":"ghp_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
},
}
Then downstream users would not need to config for each scope, and predictable (and risky) problems with scope name or package name collisions would not occur.
But that is not the way it is. Therefore Github Packages (npm.pkg.github.com) doesn't really seem to be a feasible way to provide public packages which may become dependencies of other public packages. No problem for private packages though.
In recent days, it has become impossible to update the modules. I receive an error such as "this is not a valid module name".
Is it possible to manually update the modules by retrieving the latest files from Github? I tried to replace the files with those of the latest version but, it doesn't change anything at all.
I precise that I try to update official modules that are pre-installed in Prestashop.
Yes you can do this.
Grab the moduble from GitHub, wrap the whole module (the ps_xxxxxx directory) in a zip file then install the module from the admin interface.
Don't replace the files manually by using the filesystem (or at least try not to).
If you replace the modules in the modules directory you won't trigger the module "install" method, so if the new version needs some initialization it won't work properly.
EDIT:
Some modules have dependencies, for example ps_facetedsearch will require you to install composer and run 'composer install --no-dev' before you can pack it into a zip.
Alternatively you can get a json list of native prestashop modules here (replace [VERSION] with the version of prestashop you want, ex 1.7.6.4) :
https://api-addons.prestashop.com/?format=json&iso_lang=en&iso_code=all&version=[VERSION]&method=listing&action=native
Then you can download the module with its id with this URL (replace [VERSION] and [MODULE_ID] :
https://api-addons.prestashop.com/?format=json&iso_lang=en&iso_code=EN&version=[VERSION]&method=module&id_module=[MODULE_ID]
In my app, I have these dependencies:
TypeORM
typeorm-linq-repository AS A LOCAL INSTALL ("typeorm-linq-repository": "file:../../../IRCraziestTaxi/typeorm-linq-repository"), who has a dev dependency AND a peer dependency of TypeORM
The reason I use a "file:" installation of typeorm-linq-repository is that I am the developer and test changes in this app prior to pushing releases to npm.
I was previously using node ~6.10 (npm ~4), so when I used the "file:" installation, it just copied the published files over, which is what I want.
However, after upgrading to node 8.11.3 (npm 5.6.0), it now links the folder rather than copying the published files.
Note, if it matters, that my environment is Windows.
The problem is this: since both my app and the linked typeorm-linq-repository have TypeORM in their own node_modules folders, TypeORM is being treated as a separate "instance" of the module in each app.
Therefore, after creating a connection in the main app, when the code that accesses the connection in typeorm-linq-repository is reached, it throws an error of Connection "default" was not found..
I have searched tirelessly for a solution to this. I have tried --preserve-symlinks, but that does not work.
The only way for me to make this work right now is to manually create the folder in my app's node_modules and copy applicable files over, which is a huge pain.
How can I either tell npm to NOT symlink the "file:" installation or get it to use the same instance of the TypeORM module?
I made it work pretty easily, although I feel like it's kind of a band-aid. I will post the answer here to help anybody else who may be having this issue, but if anybody has a more proper solution, feel free to answer and I will accept.
The trick was to link my app's installation of TypeORM to the TypeORM folder in my other linked dependency's node_modules folder.
...,
"typeorm": "file:../../../IRCraziestTaxi/typeorm-linq-repository/node_modules/typeorm",
"typeorm-linq-repository": "file:../../../IRCraziestTaxi/typeorm-linq-repository",
...
I am trying to use Aurelia bundle --force command with an Aurelia app hosted within a page of my MVC application.
When i try to run the command, I keep getting the following error:
info: Creating bundle ...
fs.js:549
return binding.open(pathModule._makeLong(path), stringToFlags(flags), mode);
Error: ENOENT: no such file or directory, open 'C:\Users\...\WebFrontend\index.html'
How do you change the location where aurelia bundle looks up for the index.html? My index.html is not in the root of the website. Furthermore, my aurelia 'index.html' is actually named settings.cshtml
UPDATE:
I finally got it working by putting my entire Aurelia app within a sub folder of my MVC app. Using post build events in my project, I got Aurelia-CLI to bundle my app. Within my setting.cshtml, I basically just reference the config.js and system.js.
This works great, but I need to rebuild the app each time I make a change which is not ideal. Still need to figure this one out.
Steve Sanderson made a template for Aurelia (that is no longer supported by Microsoft). https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/webdev/2017/02/14/building-single-page-applications-on-asp-net-core-with-javascriptservices/
You can also use the Aureali cli to create one.
This should work better now then in 2015.
I'm trying to install this pagination module for my Play! application, but can't get it to work. I've extracted the zip file inside /play/modules/paginate-head/ and I an example here on SO, to change my dependencies.yml file into:
# Application dependencies
require:
- play
- pagination -> paginate-head
repositories:
- My modules:
type: local
artifact: ${application.path}/../[module]
contains:
- paginate-head
But I still don't think the module is being loaded. I'm assuming it's documentation should appear on http://localhost:9000/#documentation/home or are there other ways to see if a module was loaded? It's not telling me anything in the console neither.
Any ideas how to get this installed?
You don't need to extract a zip file, just running the command
play install paginate-head
should work fine. But unzipping will also work. You also don't need that "repositories" section in your dependencies.yml file. Play! knows where to find modules.
The real issue is that your require should look like this:
require:
- play
- play -> paginate head
Notice play to the left of the '->' which signifies that it's a module. Also no dash between 'paginate' and 'head'. That's because 'paginate' is the module name and 'head' is the version and these should be separated by a space.
Also, for modules that are hosted in the main Play! modules repo, you don't even have to install them. You can just add the require above and start Play! and it will install it automatically. Though it will install under the applications modules directory, not the play modules directory.
Hope that helps!