I've been messing around a lot with oeis.org, I found a module on Hackage that provides an interface to oeis.org (Math.OEIS), but it displays its results on the command line. I was wondering if anyone knew how to go about opening a url in the default browser from ghci.
Thanks
Here's what I use:
-- | Attempt to open a web browser on the given url, all platforms.
openBrowserOn :: String -> IO ExitCode
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/hledger-1.22.2/docs/src/Hledger.Cli.Utils.html#openBrowserOn
20110630: see wai-handler-launch (blog post) for more robust code.
Related
I'm working on a python (3.5) program that use a PyQt5 GUI. In the GUI, I need to add some help links to the documentation on a website. I manage to make it work with:
QDesktopServices.openUrl(QUrl("my_url"))
It works fine but I want to be sure that it will always be the case.
A quick and dirty unittest is to call the function and simply notice that there is no error. I would like to make a test that will check that the correct website page did show up. What should I use?
Checking for an error is not going to work at all, because Qt itself never raises errors (of course, Python or PyQt might do, but for completely unrelated reasons). The best you can do is check the return value of openUrl, which will simply return True or False depending on whether it was "successful". But note the following from the Qt docs for openUrl:
Warning: A return value of true indicates that the application has
successfully requested the operating system to open the URL in an
external application. The external application may still fail to
launch or fail to open the requested URL. This result will not be
reported back to the application.
If you want more control, I suggest you use Python's webbrowser module instead. This would, for example, allow you to register your own mock-browser class for the purposes of testing. The webbrowser module is written in pure Python and the code is quite straightforward.
Is this the only SO question about listing drives ??
I'm on Windows, I'm a newbee in addon developement, I (currently) use Firefox Addon SDK with Node.js/jpm, but not Web Extensions (yet), nor the XPCOM/XUL thing. Seems like some are mixing the whole thing..
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of May 2016, Web Extensions can't parse File System (otherwise I would be very happy to have access to the documentation allowing that too ^^.) And it appears that the Require chrome is now deprecated along with XUL/XPCOM things. As I guess everyone is pushed forward (looks like) to go Web Extensions (that is out of the scope of the subject), there's no way I would go Require chrome as I would have to drop it anyway next year...
So how do we list drives in Firefox Addon SDK without importing the deprecated libraries ?
My answer below, but would like to have a better option if any. The MDN page about is :
either talking about deprecated methods
or just showing you how to manipulate a directory you already know the whereabout.
Here is what I could do with the Addon SDK (or initially jetpack if I'm not mistaken), and yeah, that's a kind of hack because I don't know how to do it in a cleaner way, and I don't want to use Require Chrome.
Minimal version :
// index.js or main.js
// declare the io/file API :
var ioFile = require('sdk/io/file');
// array to make attempts :
let drivesIds = ["c", "d", "e", "f", "g", .... "z" ]; // hack isn't it ? :/
for (let i = 0; i < drivesIds.length; i++) {
let driveName = drivesIds[i] + ":\\";
if (ioFile.exists(driveName)) {
console.log(driveName + " is a drive and is ready !");
}
}
And you're done ! Okay, that was pretty obvious, but I failed to find that code anywhere I searched, or a code that does it better (again, without require('chrome'))
Extended versions can :
put the whole thing in a function getDrives() that returns array of drives objects like { path: "c:\\", hasChildren: true, etc: "etc" }. (check for child directories by combining ioFile.isFile() with ioFile.list() in a for loop that breaks the moment a subdir is encountered.
port the code to another addon module, with exports implementations
even encapsulates io functions and properties as members of a global object in a module (you can monitor filesystem changes like unplugged dir, store filesystem tree in memory, etc.)
All that making your index.js file lighter. Can this be adapted to other OS ? I don't know. The title is misleading while this is the only question about listing drives Addon SDK tagged.
Never ever try to build an entire drive tree, that would bring the computer to a halt, and fail at a point or another because io/file is limited to 250-260 chars in path length on Windows.
Security issues ! That's probably why it's undocumented, why WebExtensions disallows io operations ? But, I use that to inject a nice windows explorer (select a dir to save whatever you want in there, shortcutting save as or download dialogs). That's the only relevant reason why I use Firefox. I would go back to dotNet and reinvent the wheel with again lots of security holes if io is not flexible enough (or missing) in WE, or try Chrome instead (if no deprecated API in the next 10 years). Fact is, the moment you can automate io parsing, there will be security issues, but the moment you disallow that, Addon extensions is not the way to go with filesystem.
I am a beginner to Haskell.
I have some code that uses xml-conduit, and it's all working well, I am able to transform it as I want.
let src_file = "blah.xhtml"
Document prologue root epilogue <- readFile def{psDecodeEntities=decodeHtmlEntities} src_file
let root' = transform root
-- And now we write out. Let's indent our output
writeFile def
{ rsPretty = True
} "output.xhtml" $ Document prologue root' epilogue
The problem I have is that my input comes from html (from the web). I want to feed this into my function. Currently to do this, I have to run the commandline utility 'tidy' to normalise it to XHTML:
tidy -output blah.xhtml -asxhtml blah.html
This is working but is not obviously not ideal. I don't want to write a commandline wrapper around 'tidy' and I am sure that this must have been solved already! I have found the html-conduit package, but couldn't work out how to connect one to the other.
If someone could shed some light about how to go about this, or another library that would do what I want, I would be grateful. I tried reading the documentation for html-conduit but couldn't work out how the two libraries interoperate.
You should be able to use the readFile function from html-conduit. What problems have you run into when trying to integrate the two libraries?
I'm trying to automate uploading an image file to a server to which I don't have a better form of access (FTP, etc.). I'm using Node.js with Selenium and Chromedriver, and everything is going well until I need to simulate special keys. I've researched a bit, and have found nothing so far. Mac specific answers are ok for this.
I tried this from another answer somewhere, but it's not working for me:
driver.findElement(webdriver.By.name(uploadName))
.click()
.sendKeys(Keys.COMMAND + Keys.SHIFT + 'g')
.sendKeys(imgPath)
.sendKeys(Keys.RETURN);
It fails out because Keys is undefined, but I haven't run across any other ways to get at the commands.
After further research, it seems that this is the wrong way to do this. Selenium and Chromedriver don't really support OS level interaction, but there is an easier way.
driver.findElement(webdriver.By.name(uploadName)).sendKeys(imgPath);
This will target uploadName and then give it the file path passed into sendKeys. This bypasses the messy OS file dialogs.
I have tried to mess with xulrunner before, and now I'm trying once again :)
The "real" tutorial (Getting started with XULRunner - MDN) does, in fact, show that one is supposed to have application.ini and other files (possibly zipped as .xpi, which then requires --install-app ...), and then the call should be like:
xulrunner `pwd`/application.ini
... however, I'd like an easier way to start up - and hence, my hope for single-file XUL application approach :) (A good note here is that one also cannot use the zipped .xpi as an argument to xulrunner, see XULRunner question - DonationCoder.com)
The thing is, I am almost 100% certain that at some point in the past, I have used a simple single-file XUL application, as in (pseudocode):
xulrunner my-xul-app.extension
... but I cannot remember how it went :) So, was that possible with xulrunner, or only with firefox?
As far as I can remember, I used something like a 'my-xul-app.xul' file (as the single-file application), which would specify only, say, a window with a single button (that couldn't really do anything due to lack of javascript) - and I'd like to repeat the same thing now, to refresh my memory (unless I confused something from back then :))
First of all, I found HOWTO: Getting Started with Linux Standalone Apps using XUL - Ubuntu Forums (2007), and I modified the example.xul file used there as:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="chrome://global/skin/" type="text/css"?>
<window
id = "myapp"
title = "SQLite Example"
height = "420"
minHeight = "420"
width = "640"
minWidth = "640"
screenX = "10"
screenY = "10"
sizemode = "normal"
xmlns = "http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul" >
<spacer style = "height: 4px; cursor: default;" />
</window>
and I'm trying to "run" this as recommended in link, with:
firefox -no-remote -chrome file:$PWD/example.xul
... and what happens is that Firefox opens, with window size being like 1x1 pixels; if you can find the handle, you can stretch the window, and read:
Remote XUL
This page uses an unsupported technology that is no longer available by default in Firefox.
Ouch :( Answers to this (like How do I fix the Remote XUL error I get when using Firefox 4.x and the Webmail Advanced Interface?) seem to be related to actual remote xul (and recommend a plugin to handle that); but what I want is simply to run a file locally?! Where did the "remote" part come from?
Also, seeing the firefox switch '-app' (Using Firefox 3 as a XUL runtime environment); although it refers to an application.ini, I tried this:
firefox -no-remote -app $PWD/example.xul
... and Firefox just started as usual.
Btw, I cannot see neither -app nor -chrome command line options in firefox --help ;)
But actually, I do not really want to use firefox as an engine - just the xulrunner; and I tried the Firefox approach because I thought it is more-less the same as xulrunner; turns out it isn't (even if you use application.ini: Why does 'firefox -App application.ini' and 'xulrunner application.ini' behave differentely? | Firefox Support Forum):
In any case, if I run just xulrunner (as I wanted to), I get:
$ xulrunner example.xul
Error: App:Name not specified in application.ini
So, I can see everything points to "single source file" app not being possible with xulrunner - but I just wanted to make sure (in case I missed some obscure tutorial :) ). And if it isn't - does anyone remember if it was possible at a previous point in time?
PS:
$ firefox --version
Mozilla Firefox 7.0.1
$ xulrunner --version
Mozilla XULRunner 2.0 - 20110402003021
$ uname -r
2.6.38-11-generic
$ cat /etc/issue
Ubuntu 11.04 \n \l
I don't believe you could ever create single-file XULRunner applications. The -chrome <...> parameter probably used to work, I guess the "Remote XUL" error comes from the fact that the URL is file://, not chrome://.
You could use something like the Live XUL Editor in the Developer Assistant (formerly Extension Developer's extension) to test XUL quickly.
The general idea I hear these days is that you should write HTML5 instead, whenever you can, since it is more actively developed, more well-known technology with less incompatible changes and better tooling...
Here is the answer I wrote for another related question, reproduced here because it may help someone who want to know how to package their XUL application.
It is too bad that xulrunner can not run a zipped .xpi or .xulapp directly, but it is possible to package most of your .js, .xul, .css and .png files into a jar and wrap everything up with a private copy of xulrunner, without having to run --install-app
These are the steps I went through to package our XUL application.
The first step is to put all your files (except application.ini, chrome.manifest, and prefs.js) into a .jar file like this (all of this was carried out under Windows, make appropriate adjustments for Linux and OSX)
zip -r d:\download\space\akenispace.jar * -i *.js *.css *.png *.xul *.dtd
Then in d:\download\space, layout your files as follows:
D:\download\space\akenispace.jar
D:\download\space\application.ini
D:\download\space\chrome.manifest
D:\download\space\defaults
D:\download\space\defaults\preferences
D:\download\space\defaults\preferences\prefs.js
The content of the files are as follows
application.ini
[App]
Vendor=Akeni.Technologies
Name=Akeni.Space
Version=1.2.3
BuildID=20150125
Copyright=Copyright (c) 2015
ID=space#akeni.com
[Gecko]
MinVersion=1.8
MaxVersion=35
chrome.manifest
content akenispace jar:akenispace.jar!/chrome/content/
skin akenispace default jar:akenispace.jar!/chrome/skin/
locale akenispace en-US jar:akenispace.jar!/chrome/locale/en-US/
resource akenispace jar:akenispace.jar!/chrome/resource/
prefs.js
pref("toolkit.defaultChromeURI", "chrome://akenispace/content/space.xul");
Now you can put these files into your .wxs for WiX and produce an MSI file for Wndows.
Of course you need to include all the files for XULRunner as well.