In a project we are working on we have a bunch of boilerplate code that gets copied to a number of projects. We are using GIT for version control.
Currently I am using a .bat file to copy boilerplate files, set the read-only attribute on each file and apply a comment header to .js, .html and .css files waring the user that this file was generated automatically and not bother editing it.
This is working ok but not foolproof. If the boilerplate code is refactored and items deleted client projects will still have the old file hanging around. Git does not remember windows attributes such as read-only.
Is there a better way of doing this to overcome these restrictions?
I'd recommend using a Git subdmodule for this. You can have a clone/checkout hook that will run your script to add file headers. It won't solve the read-only problem, but that can be circumvented anyway. You can then distribute any updates to your boilerplate by doing git submodule update.
The caveat with this method is that your boilerplate must reside in a single folder. You could copy it out with your script but this will cause more problems than it solves.
Related
I'm writting some typescript code and I would like that no other developpers can directly edit compiled files created with Typescript. Is there a way to automaticly make readonly generated files ? Or maybe to encrypt compiled files to force next devs to use typescript original files. I know if I write some comments like "Do not edit this file, use typescript version", they will not necessary be read...
Setting permission to prevent other developers from accessing the typescript files could be a tedious work. I suggest that you add comment on that typescript file that you want to protect from being modified so that other developers would be notified of your intention on that file.
Generally you separate your source files from your build files. Say for example you use Git you would only keep your source files in Git, not your build files. This way whenever another developer wants to work on your project they can only get the source files. They won't be able to change your build files because they do not have access to these.
Encrypting or making the files read only is not the way to go in this scenario. Educate your developers to not edit build files. And only share source files with your developers.
THIS link suggests that /app directory contains all configuration, templates (.html.twig files) and translations, and the /src directory contains PHP code.
However, HERE we can see that .css and .js files are loaded from /src/AppBundle/Resources/public directory and not /app/Resources/public directory. What is the best practice? How should I professionaly approach this problem, and where should I keep all the templates, .js and .css files?
I like to put css and javascript that serve for general purposes in /app/Resources/public and the ones specific to the concerned bundle in /src/YourBundleNameBundle/Resources/public. Like that when I want to see a code specific for a bundle I will just go to that bundle , when it's a general purpose code I would be sure that it's in the root. I have seen expert people doing it and it makes sense for me.
It's a matter of choice and there is no right and wrong answer.
the best practice is to put your css and js files in your bundle particularly in folder that you called "public" (yourBundle/Ressources/public/css/yourStyle.css)
and make sure to run this command before
php bin/console assets:install
and To avoid typing this command each time, I recommend you make a link (a kind of shortcut), by adding the active parameter:
assets:install --symlink
So, the web /bundles/folderBundle actually points to src/yourBundle/Resources/public
On Windows, you must run the command prompt in administrator mode
I have deployed a Laravel 5.3 application to Heroku. However, when loading /login, I noticed a very slow page load time. The problem seems to be a very large app.js file: /js/app.js. Here is a screenshot of the Network resource panel in DevTools: screenshot- Network panel. The 3rd resource from the top is the offending file.
I am not sure why this file has gotten so large. here is a link to the repository: https://github.com/AshMenhennett/Salon-Pricing.
I wasn't able to post anymore links, so do let me know if you would like direct links to specific files.
What should I be doing to mitigate this issue?
The most obvious thing you can do is to run npm run prod. This will compile the assets for production use. But in most cases, you must be looking at other solutions beyond running npm run prod. If your production file is too large, you must check your dependencies. Remove unnecessary dependencies and ensure that you don't use a lot of external libraries. For example, if you are using bootstrap, you should rely on Bootstrap's alerts in order to show alerts rather than using a Vue package to show alerts. I admit that sometimes you will need to use an external library to make your website interactive but to achieve that, you will have to sacrifice the performance. So your best bet in order to reduce the app.js file is to use the minimal external dependencies in your package.json.
The second thing you can do is use minimum HTML in your components' templates. A lot of components with heavy HTML/CSS will contribute to a larger app.js file. This is yet another approach that will result in a smaller app.js file.
Lastly, you should consider using Vue's component slots to pass HTML contents to your components. This will leave the HTML in your static files and only javascript data (API calls, props, etc.) will be compiled in the app.js file. This is an effective approach to build a smaller app.js file.
Edit: You can remove JQuery and Bootstrap scripts from the bootstrap.js file and can include these dependencies separately. It is always a good idea to have a few more scripts rather than having a very large script. i.e. browsers do parallel downloading and thus using JQuery and Bootstrap dependencies separately is a good idea.
From the looks of your link you've not created a production version of your assets, and currently all the source maps are in your app.js file, which will be adding a lot of the file size, the css and js output are also not compress/minified either.
Assuming you're using laravel elixir, you just need to run gulp --production and this will remove the source maps, compress the js and css outputs, etc.
For people that are using Laravel Mix you just need to run npm run prod to compress and remove source maps from app.js itself.
You need to load the components asynchronously
Webpack has an awesome feature to create chunks of code. The key to this is to use async components. These components get loaded completely asynchronously whenever the component is present on the page you just loaded.
Let's do it.
In resources/js/app.js
I changed
Vue.component('jobs', require('./pages/employer/jobs/Index.vue').default);
To
Vue.component('jobs', () => import('./pages/employer/jobs/Index.vue'));
and in webpack.mix.js
mix.webpackConfig({
output:{
chunkFilename:'js/vuejs_code_split/[name].js',
}
});
Now by running npm run watch or prod each component file is saved public/js/vuejs_code_split/[name].js
And the main app.js is automatically calling those components when required.
I'm trying to implement some cache busting on my angular application in a way that it will still allow caching but break it anytime we push new code to production. My setup so far involves using grunt cache-breaker https://www.npmjs.org/package/grunt-cache-breaker to dig through my concatenated angular app.js file and append query params to any string ending in a .html file extension. I also do this for any template files I have that are using an ng-include. One complication this creates is that now I need to first copy my template files to a dist/ directory so I can safely .gitignore the cache-busted versions and not have to commit all of my templates everytime the cache is busted (and create conflicts).
My question is not how to do this but more of a sanity check as to if this is a practical way of avoiding template caching on new code? I have seen examples of disabling template caching in angular but it seems like it is something I would want to use in between code pushes when files are not changing.
How do other navigate this issue?
I think a popular approach is to use something like ng-templates (with a grunt plugin) to generate a JS file that pre-caches all of your templates. Then use the usemin grunt workflow along with an asset versioning task to version the JS file.
I use Visual Studio 2013 and .NET 4.5 for an MVC project.
I've learning to use AngularJS via several videos on Pluralsight and one of them walks through the process of using Grunt to clean the output directory, then use ngmin to min-safe the Javascript files.
My process is using a gruntfile.js to clean and run ngmin against the javascript files in my solution, then put them in a directory called app_built. This is executed via a batch file in the pre-build for the project and then I include it via a ScriptBundle with IncludeDirectory pointing to the app_built directory. My intent is to use the Bundling features of .NET 4.5 to do the rest of the minification and concatenation of the Javascript after all the files have been min-safed via Grunt.
I specify the path to the min-safed files with the following:
bundles.Add(new ScriptBundle("~/bundles/minSafed")
.IncludeDirectory("~/app_built/", "*.js", true));
If I run this on my local machine, it runs fine without a hitch. The Javascript is minified and bundled as I'd expect and the resulting web application runs fine as well.
If I publish the website to a remote server, I get a server error that the "Directory does not exist. Parameter name: directoryVirtualPath". I assume this error is saying that it's unable to find the directory populated with my many *.js files. I also assume this is because they weren't published since they aren't part of the solution, even though the folder they reside in is a part of the solution (it's just empty within the solution explorer in Visual Studio).
If my assumption is correct, what can I do to add these files to my solution so they'll be published with the rest of my web application with minimal effort on my end each time?
And if I'm incorrect in the assumption, what I can I do to resolve this otherwise?
Thanks!
I never did find a great way of going about this. I found information at http://sedodream.com/2010/05/01/WebDeploymentToolMSDeployBuildPackageIncludingExtraFilesOrExcludingSpecificFiles.aspx that seems related, but I was unable to make it work.
Rather, since I knew the name of the outputted file, I simply created such an empty file in my project and referenced that where I needed to. I then had the pre-build task replace the contents of that file with the externally minified version and it would be packaged with the project as necessary, so it works well enough.