I want to add text to body element but I don't know how. Which method will work on the body tag?
Sorry for my english and thanks for replies.
In Watir, you can manipulate a web page (DOM) using JS, just like that:
browser.execute_script("document.getElementById('pageContent').appendChild(document.createTextNode('Great Success!'));")
I assume that the point of the question is:
All users are not just interacting by just clicking buttons and links on the web app, some of them are doing nasty things like altering http requests to make your system do something that it is not supposed to do... or to just have some fun.
To mimic this behavior, you could write a ui-test that alters forms on the web page, so that for example, one could type in anything into any field instead of a limited dropdown.
To do that, ui test has to:
manipulate DOM to set form inputs free of limitations (replace select's with input's, etc.)
ui test has to know, which values to use, in many cases it's pointless to enter random values. Your webapp has to provide some good "unwanted" options.
Why would you want to modify the webpage in Watir? It's for automated testing, not DOM manipulation.
If you want to add something to the DOM element in javascript, you can do it like that:
var txt = document.createTextNode(" This text was added to the DIV.");
document.getElementById('myDiv').appendChild(txt);
Or use some DOM manipulation library, like jQuery.
If you have not worked your way though the watir tutorial, I would suggest you do so. It deals with things like filling in text fields etc.
Learn to use the developer tools for your browser, Firebug for Firefox, or the built in tools for IE and CHrome. They will let you look at things as you interact with the site.
If the element is not a normal HTML input field of some sort, then you are dealing with a custom control. Many exist and they are varied and there is no one set solution for dealing with them. Without knowing which control you are using, and being able ourselves to interact with a sample of it, or at least see the HTML, it is very very difficult to advise you, we basically have to just guess (which is often a waste of everyone's time)
Odds are if you have a place you can enter text, then it is some form of input control, it might not start out that way, you may need to click on some other element, to make the input area appear, but without a sample of HTML all we can do is guess.
If this is a commercial control, see if you can find a demo site that shows the control in action. Try googling things like class names for the elements and often you get lucky
Related
I would like to "customize" my sharepoint wiki by doing something very simple.
I would like to be able to run a regex on wiki pages looking for [math] and [\math] tags, then take the expression written in the middle (assume this value is stored in a variable x) and replace the whole block by
"<img src='http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?" + x +"'/>"
So for example, the shortcode [math]a^2+b^2=c^2[\math] should end up being displayed as an image as follows (thanks to this online tool):
I have never developed anything in sharepoint, and I've been using it for a week.
Can anybody tell me how I should proceed to add such a feature (if it's possible)?
You can use existing solution like ShortPoint.
Sure - this is simmply done via two methods - 1) You could modify the page directly using SharePoint designer - fly in the code where you want it, 2) The better way - add your code to text file, upload the text file to a document library then use the Content Editor web part, drop it on the page, point it (through the properties) to the text file.
Note: The Content Editor part will allow you to modify the background HTML/Script, however, it has a nasty habit of overriding your code and I've had it actually duplicate itself (adding repeat scripts). Using the Text file eliminiates that issue.
If i understand you correctly, I don't think that the content editor web part is the solution you are looking for. I believe you are wanting to implement a shortcodes solution such as that found in WordPress, correct? In that case, the issue becomes a bit more complex. To really get any kind of custom code that would execute at the necessary stages, you would need a custom solution either implementing additional functionality in the existing rich text editor, or roll your own custom rich text editor.
At that point, you would have complete control over how the content is parsed and interpreted, so you could have both server-side and client side processing. You could make use of templating engines like mustache or handlebars.
To do this, you would need to write your own Custom field type, inherit from SPFieldMultiLineText, override the property FieldRenderingControl, and return your custom control. That way you have the option of implementing it in several different places (custom pege fields in a page layout, custom webparts, custom lists, etc.) and you still get the benefits you want from the out-of-the-box control.
I'm relatively new to Expression Engine, and as I'm learning it I am seeing some stuff missing that WordPress has had for a while. A big one for me is shortcodes, since I will use these to allow CMS users to place more complex content in place with their other content.
I'm not seeing any real equivalent to this in EE, apart from a forthcoming plugin that's in private beta.
As an initial test I'm attempting to fake shortcodes by using delimited strings (e.g. #foo#) in the content field, then using a regex to pull those out and pass them to a function that can retrieve the content out of EE's database.
This brings me to a second question, which is that in looking at EE's API docs, there doesn't appear to be a simple means of retrieving the channel entries programmatically (thinking of something akin to WP's built-in get_posts function).
So my questions are:
a) Can this be done?
b) If so, is my method of approaching it reasonable? Or is there something stupidly obvious I'm missing in my approach?
To reiterate, my main objective here is to have some means of allowing people managing content to drop a code in place in their content that will be replaced with channel content.
Thanks for any advice or help you can give me.
Here's a simple example of the functionality you're looking for.
1) Start by installing Low Replace.
2) Create two Global Variables called gv_hello and gv_goodbye with the values "Hello" and "Goodbye" respectively.
3) Put this text into the body of an entry:
[say_hello]
Nice to see you.
[say_goodbye]
4) Put this into your template, wrapping the Low Replace tag around your body field.
{exp:low_replace
find="[say_hello]|[say_goodbye]"
replace="{gv_hello}|{gv_goodbye}"
multiple="yes"
}
{body}
{/exp:low_replace}
5) It should output this into your browser:
Hello
Nice to see you.
Goodbye
Obviously, this is a really simple example. You can put full blown HTML into your global variable. For example, we've used that to render a complex, interactive graphic that isn't editable but can be easily dropped into a page by any editor.
Unfortunately, due to parse order issues, EE tags won't work inside Global Variables. If you need EE tags in your short code output, you'll need to use Low Variables addon instead of Global Variables.
Continued from the comment:
Do you have examples of the kind of shortcodes you want to support/include? Because i have doubts if controlling the page-layout from a text-field or wysiwyg-field is the way to go.
If you want editors to be able to adjust layout or show/hide extra parts on the page, giving them access to some extra fields in the channel, is (imo) much more manageable and future-proof. For instance some selectfields, a relationship (or playa) field, or a matrix, to let them choose which parts to include/exclude on a page, or which entry from another channel to pull content from.
As said in the comment: i totally understand if you want to replace some #foo# tags with images or data from another field (see other answers: nsm-transplant, low_replace). But, giving an editor access to shortcodes and picking them out, is like writing a template-engine to generate ee-template code for the ee-template-engine.
Using some custom fields to let editors pick and choose parts to embed is, i think, much more manageable.
That being said, you could make a plugin to parse the shortcodes from a textareas content, and then program a lot, to fetch data from other modules you want to support. For channel entries you could build out of the channel data library by objectiveHTML. https://github.com/objectivehtml/Channel-Data
I hear you, I too miss shortcodes from WP -- though the reason they work so easily there is the ubiquity of the_content(). With the great flexibility of EE comes fewer blanket solutions.
I'd suggest looking at NSM Transplant. It should fit the bill for you.
There is also a plugin called Shortcode, which you can find here at
Devot-ee
A quote from the page:
Shortcode aims to allow for more dynamic use of content by authors and
editors, allowing for injection of reusable bits of content or even
whole pieces of functionality into any field in EE
I need to divide long content to sub-pages.
Rule for dividing: Heading1 (H1)
Cms-system: MODX Evolution
As far as i know, there is nothing in modx to use for this kind of problem.
I probably got to do this manually anyway, but i still would like to know if there is a way to do this in MODX Evo / Revo.
Edit:
I need to do this in MODX; sub-pages got to be actual subpages, and original page becomes to container.
Navigation will be done with wayfinder.
Edit2:
All done.. manually. Question still open, though.
This is not possible out of the box and I don't know of any extra that archieves what you want. You would have to write a plugin that acts everytime you save a resource and split up the content, create/delete sibling resources as needed etc. Sounds like a lot of work for what you want to archieve to me.
I suppose you have a look at the MIGX extra. It provides you with a TV with the possibility to store an indefinite amount of distinct TV content sets. Have a look at the documentation and Mark Hamstra's tutorial (with screenshots) to see how it is done. You should define one MIGX entry to consist of a text field for the <h1> and a rich text field for the content of the "subpage".
Afterwards, you can use form customization to hide the original content field and display your MIGX Tv instead.
I think, this is a much easier way to archieve, what you want, and can't think of any way, where you would benefit from actual subpages.
Edit: Sorry, I just recognized that you were asking about Evolution, not Revolution. My solution would work in Revo, but I don't think there's something like MIGX for Evo. Sorry, my mistake.
not 'out of the box' you will have to run your content through a snippet to parse it into separate divs or something that you can run some javascript on to possibly 'tab' the content.
If you need to show the 'subpages' in your navigation, you will probably have to use the gatResources extra to parse your content ~ which will be very expensive on resource usage.
You can (depending on how you're using the tree) just create actual sub resources under the parent resource, using Ditto or Wayfinder to build navigation for it.
If you can't use the tree like that (though from your description I think you can), you could also set up a number of template variables ("content1", "content2", "content3" etc) and show that with a simple snippet or so.
I've been rewriting my (fairly simple) website using Yesod as a way to get familiar with the framework. Part of that involves serving some simple static (but formatted) content. To do that I decided to use the nicHtml field that is described in the Yesod book:
http://www.yesodweb.com/book/forms
It allows simple formatting and, as the book says, "thanks to the xss-sanitize package, all user input is validated and ensured to not have XSS attacks."
However, all is not well. Some formatting seems to work when you enter it into the field, but gets wiped out somewhere between entry and submission. In particular, the form uses css embedded in 'style' attributes to do things like center text, and it is these css based formatting elements that seem to get wiped out.
I used print statements to check that it wasn't my code which was somehow messing it up. Since it doesn't seem to be, I assume that xss-sanitize doesn't like any embedded css and removes it. Modifying Yesod.Form.Nic to remove the call to sanitizeBalance appears to fix the problem, so that would seem to be the cause.
Now, I can just leave it like that, since editing these static pages requires being a trusted user anyway (i.e. me at the moment), so I don't care too much about validating out nastiness. But it feels like what it is, a hack, so my question is - is there any other way around this? Or is there another package I don't know about that provides a non-broken HTML editor field for Yesod?
Will you file a bug on the Yesod issue tracker for this? I think we are going to have to allow basic css through the editor no matter which editor we use. In your case of a trusted user, right now you could find the NicEdit field type and create a similar type that won't get filtered at all. Perhaps we should create such a field.
We're actually looking at other possible rich text editors right now for use in the Yesod website, so most likely whatever we use there will end up with a module in yesod-form. Most recently Greg pointed out Aloha editor which on first glance looks pretty cool.
How can we restrict a user from saving the page?
Please provide some tips to disable File->Save and View Source options
EDIT: Obviously it can't be done, and probably shouldn't be attempted. But possibly a more interesting variant on this question is how can we make is sufficiently hard for a user to save a page in a usable format such that it is not worth their while doing so? The question doesn't pose a value, but say we were protecting an article subscription site where the user is paying a few hundred dollars per annum for continued access to text.
Since the page has been sent to the client, there will always be a way to get that information. Trying to stop a user from doing this will only frustrate them.
The only way to have a user not be able to save a file is to not send it to them.
While the best answer is "Don't do this," there are ways to make it more difficult for them. And since the point of this site is actually answer the question even if it's bad, here is the best way:
First you'll need to have the page open in a new window where you turn off the address bar and toolbar and everything else. That will make it so the user can't easily get to the File menu at all. To do this you'll need a "splash" page that the user loads to and then when they click a link, it opens the popup that serves the main content of your page. Details on how to create popups without things like the toolbar are here:
http://blazonry.com/javascript/windows.php
Then you'll want to add some javascript to each page that prevents the user from right clicking. Here is one method:
http://javascript.about.com/library/blnoright.htm
Finally, if it's your Javascript code that you don't want to be seen, then obfuscating your code is a pretty effective way to do that. They can still see the code if they have much know-how, but the obfuscated code would be a gigantic pain to actually interpret. There are lots of obfuscators out there; here is a free web-based one:
http://www.javascriptobfuscator.com/
This is far from foolproof. It will stop all "casual" users, but any power user will probably be able to easily figure out a way around it. Still if the idea is to at least prevent a good majority of it then this should suffice.
Update for updated question:
To address your new expanded question, I would say the best way to accomplish what you're saying is to use a format that supports DRM. Adobe Acrobat would probably be the best choice because almost everyone has the reader installed. You can prevent PDF files from being saved to the computer so that they can only be loaded from the webpage by a logged in user. The user could still do a screen capture of the document itself which I don't believe is preventable (unless Adobe Reader has some security in place for this, which they might) but it should be sufficient security for most uses.
Don't do it.
Seriously, if the user can see the page in their browser they can see the source code and/or save it to their computer.
You are fighting a losing battle here.
What about the browser's cache? It can be saved from there.
What about a print screen? That could also save the page.
The only way to prevent a user from saving something is to not show it to them in the first place.
It's really a waste of time and resources to try and do this in html as any method you use can be trivially circumvented.
Instead I would use some other technology to display the data - you can never get around a screen capture. but if you're for instance displaying text and you want to make it hard for the use to save that text for use elsewhere then possible options include
PDF - which can disable save and print. There are extensions to most popular web languages that will write a pdf on the fly. Indeed you might be as well just to go down the DRM route with Adobe and embed a document
Flash - most probably via Flex which could be used to write a general-purpose app to display text and images. The advantage of Flash is that it's easier to set up links than pdf.
Or something else, a custom java applet, or even a vrml plugin and display the text in 3D!
In all cases you could display text against a disruptive background to make OCR more difficult, and images could be watermarked. However nothing is going to stop a determined and resourceful viewer, although you can possibly make it sufficiently hard that it's not worth their time.
The least you can do is... the content is generated dynamically by Javascript. In that way, they cannot simply save it. Of course, in FX, they can still view the generated code and then copy&paste. however, normally people cannot save the page.
It shouldn't be an issue, but if you really don't want a user from seeing your code (javascript, css or html) for some reason, than you could use some obfuscation tool which makes the code less readable.
Try javascript "encoding" and obfuscation.
Something like
if(document.location == 'mydomain.com') {
content = getAjax('mycontent.xml');
// content will hold something like 72, 94, 81, 99, ... - encoded ASCII codes
document.write(String.fromCharCode(content));
}
It will always be possible to save the page, but for non-technical guys it will be harder to make it work.
There are 2 protections
domain name
converting ASCII
It's only pseudocode, but I think you get the idea.
add these to code sets in script tag
document.addEventListener('contextmenu', function (e) {
e.preventDefault();
});
document.onkeydown = function (e) {
return false;
};
I'd like to add one more method which, imho, is hard to circumvent: Ctrl+S! (for me, Apple+S)
how can we make is sufficiently hard for a user to save a page in a usable format such that it is not worth their while doing so
Nothing hard: add on every page: "Personal property of John Stealer, company Zetabeta, paid with credit card 756890987654, billing address ..., subscription expires 12/20".
This is an "extended text format" that I just invented... it has an amazing property: though it looks like a regular text, user is much less willing to print it out and give to others...