Related
I am using a command line tool (ng-xi18n) to extract the i18n strings from an angular 2 app I wrote. The output of this command is a messages.xlf file. Coming from a .po background, and being not familiar with .xlf, I assumed that this file is the equivalent to the .pot file (correct me if I am wrong).
I then assumed that if I want to translate my app, I had to cp messages.xlf messages.de.xlf to have a copy (messages.de.xlf) of the template file (messages.xlf) where I can translate each message into German (hence the .de.xlf).
After translating some dummy texts and running the app, I saw that it worked as expected, so I quit translating and continued developing the app. After some time, I added more i18n strings, and eventually thought that I had to update my template. And this is where things got hardly maintainable. I updated the template messages.xlf file, and quickly was wondering how I could update the new strings to my already translated messages.de.xlf file without loosing my progress.
When I was developing using .po files, this was no problem thanks to good tools like poEdit, but I didn't find anything comparable for .xlf. After trying some tools, I thought that the best choice would be Lokalize, but I didn't find a possibility to merge the template file to already translated (but outdated) files either.
Up to now, this was rather an essay than a question, so here's a quick summary:
Is the workflow of dealing with .xlf files really comparable to .po as I initially thought (described above), or is it completely different?
How am I suppose to update my already translated files?
What are the best practices dealing with .xlf files?
What are proof of concept tools to work with .xlf?
Sidenotes:
The Lokalize handbook was not helpful at all. I see a lot of functions that sound promising, like:
"File" > "Update file from template". I did not find anything in the handbook to explain this function. If I click on this, nothing happens.
"Sync" > "Open file for sync/merge". This seems to be a function to merge two similar files (by multiple translators) rather than a tool to update the translation file from a template. Even though there is a tooltip in Lokalize's primary sync tab, notifying me about "x unmatched entries", I just couldn't find anything to append those unmatched entries to my .de.xlf file.
[Update] Turns out, I had similar issues as in this question. After downgrading my version of Lokalize to the suggested one, many issues (including the ones mentioned in the question) disappeared. However, now the "Update file from template" option is greyed out, and I don't know why.
I also tried OmegaT, which does not work at all on my platform (Ubuntu 16.04).
[Update] Virtaal works great for merging new strings from a template, but the UI in general is very poorly designed...
Googling did not help, as every hit seems to be related to XCode or something.
Thanks for any help in advance, I really appreciate it
I wrote a small npm command line tool called xliffmerge.
In principle it does the same, that Roland Oldengarm does with his gulp tasks described in his blog article.
It is free and you can have a look at it at https://github.com/martinroob/ngx-i18nsupport#readme
The best workflow automation solution I have seen described so far is from Roland Oldengarm's blog entry "Angular 2: Automated i18n workflow using gulp". To summarize, in a few dozen lines of Gulp code he created the tooling to handle some of the challenges you faced. Specifically it runs ng-xi18n to extract the messages; creates an English translation with sources copied to targets; updates existing translations by adding new trans-units, keeping existing ones, and removing missing ones; and then exposes all xlf files as TypeScript string constants. These last strings can then be imported to supply the bootstrapModule with its translation provider options.
Caveat: I have not used this exact solution (and code) myself, but I was able to expose generated xlf as TypeScript strings and use them in an app in a manner similar to what he described. As for maintaining translations, I have leveraged IntelliJ IDEA (WebStorm) file comparison features and Counterparts Lite (for Mac) for that. My own efforts are still in early stages but are working end to end for an application that is in active development.
Official Angular docs are now updated for Internationalization (i18n) at https://angular.io/docs/ts/latest/cookbook/i18n.html including a section specifically for creating a translation source file with the ng-xi18n tool.
I've always backed up all my source codes into .zip files and put it in my usb drive and uploaded to my server somewhere else in the world.. however I only do this once every two weeks, because my project is a little big.
Right now my project directories (I have a few of them) contains a hierarchy of c++ files in it, and interspersed with them are .o files which would make backing up take a while if not ignored.
What tools exist out there that will let me just back things up efficiently, conveniently and lets me specify which file types to back up (lots of .png, .jpg and some text types in there), and which directories to be ignored (esp. the build dirs)?
Or is there any ingenious methods out there that people use?
Though not a backup solution, a version control manager on a remote server responds to most of your needs:
only changes are saved, not the whole project
you can filter out what you don't want to save
Moreover, you can create archives of your repository for true backup purposes.
If you want to learn about version control, take a look at Eric Sink's weblog, in particular:
Source Control HOWTO, for the basics of source control
Mercurial, Subversion, and Wesley Snipes for the links to articles on distributed version control systems
I use dropbox, im a single developer developing software. In some projects I work out from my dropbox which means they synchronize every time i build. Other projects i copy the source code there my self. But most important is that i can work on all my computers with dropbox installed on them... works for my simple needs
Agree with mouviciel. If you do not want that, consider rsync or unison to efficiently keep an up-to-date copy, be it on the same or a different machine.
Note: I've tried searching, Stackoverflows near useless. I am not sure what kind of tool I need.
At my organization we need to keep track of the software configuration for many types of computers including the binary installers and automation scripts. Change is infrequent but the size of latest version of the configuration is several gigs.
We are trying to use Mercurial to store changes but it is just too slow, even without many revisions at all. I did an hg status but killed it after it took 10 minutes without finishing.
We are looking for a way to store the current configuration as well as having the old configurations there just in case. I have never done anything like this before and do not know what tools are available or even suitable for such tasks. Can someone point me in the right direction or tell me how the are solving this problem? Thanks
Since hard disk space is cheap and being able to view binary differences isn't very helpful, perhaps the best option you have is to store each configuration in a new directory that is indexed somehow. Example below:
/software/configs/2009-03-15
/software/configs/2009-09-28
/software/configs/2009-09-30
Given the size of your files and the infrequent number of changes, this would allow you to pick a configuration from a given 'tag' without the overhead of revision control.
If you pack your files into a single tar file and generate a SHA-512 hash, then you can be reasonably sure that no one has tampered with your files since they were archived.
While I don't know specific details about how to implement this strategy in mercurial, I have been working with git and git-fat. It sets up a general procedure that is likely to be feasible on mercurial as well. Basically the idea is whenever you add a binary file to the repository, under the hood, the repo creates a symlink to the file that is actually stored in another location as a checksummed object.
This allows large files to be tracked by the repo, without storing the actual data inside. It requires the data to be stored in some other location (perhaps in a binary management system).
It might take some configuration to do it in mercurial, but I think it's an elegantly simple solution.
I'm writing a new document-based cross-platform chemistry application (Win, Mac, Unix), which saves files in its own format (no standard format exists for this field). I'm trying to decide on a file extension for the saved files. My questions are:
How important is it nowadays to stick to 3 characters?
Where can you check how much this file extension is already used? (Google helps, of course, but it does not tell me how much a given app is popular)
Do I really need to use a file-specific extension? My save format is gzip'ed XML, so I could name it .xml.gz, but I fear it would confuse beginning users (i.e. when you see it, it does not immediately "ring a bell").
Finally, do you have other important guidelines when choosing for your own programs?
PS: I tried to keep the right balance between "giving too little information" and "being too specific to be really useful to others". I'll happily provide more information in comments if the need arises.
FileInfo.com lists a lot of file extensions along with their own estimation of how much it is ued.
I suggest a unique extension (rather then xml.gz) so that the OS can identify the file type to users when looking at a file listing or whatever. 'Ringing a bell' is important, especially if you will have less sophisticated users.
I don't see any need to stick to 3 characters, but I wouldn't go bigger than 5 (I don't suppose I have a real reason for this, other than personal preference).
How important is it nowadays to stick to 3 characters?
It's not unless you have to support older operating systems. All current OSes handle >3 char file extensions without any problems. Think of .html, .config, .resx, and I'm sure there are more.
Where can you check how much this file extension is already used?
check out FileExt.
Do I really need to use a file-specific extension? My save
format is gzip'ed XML, so I could name
it .xml.gz, but I fear it would
confuse beginning users (i.e. when you
see it, it does not immediately "ring
a bell").
Remember that windows (and windows users) associate files with applications by extension, so using something too generic like .xml.gz may cause problems. You are probably better coming up with something that is more specific to your file type or application. Users don't care weather your format is gzipped xml internally, they care about what is in the file. Think about abstraction layers, your users will think of it as a file containing chemistry info not gzipped xml, so .chem is far more appropriate than .xml.gz
Some suggestions of things to thing about:
Obviously, don't clash with anything big - Don't use .doc, .xls, .exe, etc.
Don't clash with anything common in your industry domain that your user demographic is likely to have installed. For example, if you are writing a programming tool, don't use .cs or .cpp. You probably know your domain best, so write a list of all the apps you and your users are likely to have installed, and any of their competitors and avoid them.
Make sure your app includes the options to register and unregister the extension. don't just automatically do it in the installation, make sure it's an option.
Remember unix/linux and Mac are case sensitive, so consider sticking to always all lower case by default.
Remember CD/DVD file naming rules are stricter, so don't use non alpha numeric characters.
Finally, remember that most non-tech users are going to have file extensions turned off, so don't stress about it too much.
There is more info here.
Wikipedia has lists of files extensions here (by type) and here (alphabetical), and also some general information
Depends on the platform, but in general, not very important for newer Operating Systems. Check the documentation for the platforms you're targeting.
I'm not aware of better alternatives to Google. Hopefully someone else has a better suggestion for this one.
Not unless you have some reason to do so. Examples would be "I want to ensure that Windows always opens this program with my app". I'm not sure that your users need to be concerned with the extension anyway. The default configuration on Windows, for example, is to hide extensions for known file types. BUT if you have a compelling reason (such as allowing your program to easily identify files it should be able to handle, for example) then you could use the extension, or you could come up with something else.
I have only ever once written a program where I thought I needed to come up with my own extension. I used my initials. Then later I realized I didn't really need a special extension and reverted to ".xml". However, most extensions seem to be something that seems to mean something. (.doc for documents, etc.) so something meaningful is a good idea if you do need to go this route.
It sure depends on the OSes you want to support, but people have globally moved over the 3-characters extension limit these days: .html is well used for webpages, for example.
Of course, if you go to much longer extensions, people will stop visually recognizing it as a file extension, I think...
Barring your needing to be compatible with a specific OS that you know still has the three-letter limitation, no need to keep it to three characters. It may be useful to have a three-character version of it if you end up supporting those platforms.
The Wikipedia list of file formats is pretty good. Some mime mapping lists will list common extensions associated with those mappings. Ray already mentioned FileInfo.com.
It's a convenience thing; I'd probably go with your own but document the fact that they're just gzipped XML files conforming to a specific DTD and make it easy for users to use .xml.gz instead. Be sure that your software doesn't care about the extension, so that users could even choose their own if they wanted, although I'd tend to avoid encouraging them to by providing a reasonable default.
I'd go for typeability, clarity, uniqueness, and brevity -- in that order. For instance, .config is a lot easier to type than .q2z but it falls down on uniqueness. (I'm not suggesting it for your app; it's an example.) Similarly, .q2z is just a pain. :-) So for instance, .chemstuff is easy to type and probably not in wide use elsewhere. (Again, not a suggestion, just an example.)
Have it as document_name.app_name.xml.gz where document_name and app_name are variables, the latter some easily readable and recognisable short string of your application's title.
Modern systems are quite flexible, and there is absolutely no need to drag the 3-character extensions further along in time with us.
I agree that .xml.gz would confuse users, however keep in mind that modern systems are moving into recognizing files not based on extensions but by probing their headers and even contents instead. In fact, users do not often even see the extensions. For gzipped XML files, a system may decide to first unpack the file stream in memory, then find out it is a literal XML file, then it may take its 'xmlns' as the application identifier. However, such systems are not yet widespread use. In any case, don't make the mistake of only opening files by extension - be smart and raise the bar - do exactly the above to find out if the file can be considered a document for your application.
The organization I currently work for an organization that is moving into the whole CMMI world of documenting everything. I was assigned (along with one other individual) the title of Configuration Manager. Congratulations to me right.
Part of the duties is to perform on a regular basis (they are still defining regular basis, it will either by quarterly or monthly) a physical configuration audit. This is basically a check of source code versions deployed in production to what we believe to be the source code versions in production.
Our project is a relatively small web application with written in Java. The file types we work with are java, jsp, xml, property files, and sql packages.
The problem I have (and have expressed but seem to be going ignored) is how am I supposed to physical log on to the production server and verify file versions and even if I could it would take a ridiculous amount of time?
The file versions are not even currently in the file(i.e. in a comment or something). It was suggested that we place visible version numbers on each screen that is visible to the users also. I thought this ridiculous also, since the screens themselves represent only a small fraction of the code we maintain.
The tools we currently use are Netbeans for our IDE and Serena Dimensions as our versioning tool.
I am specifically looking for ideas on how to perform this audit in a hopefully more automated way, that will be both accurate and not time consuming.
My idea is currently to add a comment to the top of each file that contains the version number of that file, a script that runs when a production build is created to create an XML file or something similar containing the file name and version file of each file in the build. Then when I need to do an audit I go to the production server grab the the xml file with the info, and compare it programmatically to what we believe to be in production, and output a report.
Any better ideas. I know this has to have been done already, and seems crazy to me that I have not found any other resources.
You could compute a SHA1 hash of the source files on the production server, and compare that hash value to the versions stored in source control. If you can find the same hash in source control, then you know what version is in production. If you can't find the same hash in source control, then there are untracked modifications in production and your new job title is justified. :)
The typical trap organizations fall into with the CMMI is trying to overdo everything. If I could suggest anything, it'd be start small & only do what you need. So consider any problems that you may have had in the CM area peviously.
The CMMI describes WHAT an organisation should do, but leaves the HOW up to you. The CMMI specification, chapter 2 is well worth a read - it describes the required, expected, and informative components of the specification - basically the goals are required, the practices are expected, and everything else is informative. This means there is only a small part of the specification which a CMMI appraiser can directly demand - the goals. At the practice level, it is permissable to have either the practices as described, or acceptable alternatives to them.
In the case of configuration audits, goal SG3 is "Integrity of baselines is established and maintained". SP3.2 says "Perform configuration audits to maintain integrity of the configuration baselines." There is nothing stated here about how often these are done, or how long they may take.
In my previous organisation, FCA/PCA was usually only done as part of the product release process, and we used ClearCase as the versioning tool, with labels applied across the codebase to define baselines. We didn't have version numbers in all the source files, nor did we have version numbers on all the products screens - the CM activity was doing the right thing & was backed up by audits, and this was never an issue in any CMMI appraisal.
We could use the deltas between labels to look at what files had changed, perform diffs to see the actual code changes. An important part of the process is being able to link those changes back to either a requirement/bug report/whatever the reason was which initiated the change.
Our auditing did use scripts to automate the process, but these were in-house developed scripts are specific to ClearCase - basically they would list all the files, their versions in the CM system, and the baseline/config item to which they belonged.
can't you use your source control for this? if you deploy a version and tag your sourcecontrol with that deployment, you can then verify against the source control system