Related
I'm working on a website with Visual Studio Code.
Is there a way to save only the files being used by a project into a separate folder?
Basically what I'm looking for is a tool which would scan all the local resources linked by all html files (meaning linked images, videos, files), and then it would save them all in a separate folder.
The reason why I'm asking this is because at the moment I'm testing things out, meaning I'm using image A, then image B, C and so on so forth. These images live in subfolders, so now I ended up with some images which I'm actually using in the html pages and some which I'm not. The thing is, is not simple to check which images I'm using.
You'll find the same principle in 3d applications, such as 3ds Max for instance, where, once you're done with the project, you can use a Resource Collector tool to strip out all the unused assets and save only the ones used by the project.
I've looked for an extension or a solution to this without any luck, so I guess an extension does not exist yet, but I think it would be a nice tool.
I don't understand why someone downvoted my post.
Either what I'm asking is already possible, although like I said I searched and I didn't find anything, or who downvoted consider my request stupid.
Whatever the reason, I believe it would be more mature to give a proper answer, even if whoever downvoted did it for either one of the two possible reason above.
In fact:
The solution already exists: like I said, I didn't find it, so if someone knows the solution why not simply posting it here?
The solution doesn't not exist but someone thinks it's a stupid idea. Well, it is not and it would be polite and civilized to discuss it.
In the current era it became so easy to express opinions without actually doing anything, by simply pressing a button to say nothing valuable, as a "I like".
I never stop feeling amazed where the social media behavior it's taking us.
I need to implement a memory cache with Node, it looks like there are currently two packages available for doing this:
node-memcached (https://github.com/3rd-Eden/node-memcached)
node-memcache (https://github.com/vanillahsu/node-memcache)
Looking at both Github pages it looks like both projects are under active development with similar features.
Can anyone recommend one over the other? Does anyone know which one is more stable?
At the moment of writing this, the project 3rd-Eden/node-memcached doesn't seem to be stable, according to github issue list. (e.g. see issue #46) Moreover I found it's code quite hard to read (and thus hard to update), so I wouldn't suggest using it in your projects.
The second project, elbart/node-memcache, seems to work fine , and I feel good about the way it's source code is written. So If I were to choose between only this two options, I would prefer using the elbart/node-memcache.
But as of now, both projects suffer from the problem of storing BLOBs. There's an opened issue for the 3rd-Eden/node-memcached project, and the elbart/node-memcache simply doesn't support the option. (it would be fair to add that there's a fork of the project that is said to add option of storing BLOBs, but I haven't tried it)
So if you need to store BLOBs (e.g. images) in memcached, I suggest using overclocked/mc module. I'm using it now in my project and have no problems with it. It has nice documentation, it's highly-customizable, but still easy-to-use. And at the moment it seems to be the only module that works fine with BLOBs storing and retrieving.
Since this is an old question/answer (2 years ago), and I got here by googling and then researching, I feel that I should tell readers that I definitely think 3rd-eden's memcached package is the one to go with. It seems to work fine, and based on the usage by others and recent updates, it is the clear winner. Almost 20K downloads for the month, 1300 just today, last update was made 21 hours ago. No other memcache package even comes close. https://npmjs.org/package/memcached
The best way I know of to see which modules are the most robust is to look at how many projects depend on them. You can find this on npmjs.org's search page. For example:
memcache has 3 dependent projects
memcached has 31 dependent projects
... and in the latter, I see connect-memcached, which would seem to lend some credibility there. Thus, I'd go with the latter barring any other input or recommenations.
I am looking for a good way to keep a design document up to date with the latest decisions.
We are a small team (two developers, game designer, graphic designer, project manager, sales guy). Most of our projects last a couple of months. At the start of the project a design is made but we generally find ourselves making changes or new decisions throughout the project. Most of these changes are improvements, so we want to keep our process like that. (If the changed design results in more time needed this is generally taken care of, so that part is OK)
However, at the moment we have no nice way of capturing the changes to the initial design document and this results in the initial design quickly being abandoned as a source while coding. This is of course a waste of effort.
Currently our documents are OpenOffice/Word, and the best way to track changes in those documents will probably be adding a changelist to the top of the document and making the changes in the text in parallel — not really an option I'd think as ideal.
I've looked at requirements management software, but that looks way to specialized. The documents could be stored in subversion but I think that is a bit too low level to give insight in the changes.
Does anyone know a good way to track changes like these and keep the design document a valuable resource throughout the project?
EDIT: At the moment we mostly rely on changes to the original design being put in the bugtracker, that way they are at least somewhere.
EDIT: Related question
Is version control (ie. Subversion) applicable in document tracking?
I've found a wiki with revision logging works well as a step-up from Word documents, provided the number of users is relatively small. Finding one that makes it easy to make quick edits is helpful in ensuring it's kept up to date.
Both openoffice and word include capaiblities for showing/hiding edits to your document. Assuming there's resistance to changing, then that's your best option - either that or export to text and put it into any source control software.\
Alternatively, maintain a separate (diffable using the appropriate tool) document for change-description text, and save archive versions at appropriate points in time.
This problem has been a long standing issue in our programming shop too. The funny thing is that programmers tend to look at this from the wrong optimization angle: "keep everything in one place". In my opinion, you have two main issues:
The changes' descriptions must be easy to read ("So what's new?")
The process should be optimized for writing of the specification to agree upon, and then get to work already!
Imagine how this problem is solved in another environment: government law making. The lawbook is not rewritten with "track changes" turned on every time the government adds another law, or changes one...
The best way is to never touch a released document. Don't stuff everything into the same file, you'll get the:
dreaded version history table
eternal status "draft",
scattered inconsistencies,
horribly rushed sentences, and
foul smelling blend of authors' styles
Instead, release an addendum, describing only the changes in detail, and possibly replacing full paragraphs/pages of the original.
With the size of our project, this can never work, can it?
In my biggest project so far, I released one base spec, and 5 consecutive addenda. Each of around 5 pages. Worked like a charm!
I don't know any good, free configuration management tools, but why not place your design under source control? Just add it to SVN, CVS, or whatever you are using. This is good because:
1) It is always up to date (if you check it in, of course)
2) It is centralized
3) You can keep track of changes by using the built-in compare feature, available in almost any source control system
It may not be the 'enterprisish' solution you'd want, but you are a small team of developers anyway, so for that situation, it is more than perfect.
EDIT: I see now that you already mentioned a source control system, my mistake. Still, I think it should work well.
Use Google Docs. Its free, web based, muti-user in real time, you can choose who has access to your documents, and keeps versioning. You can also upload all your word documents and it will transform them for you.
For more information: http://www.google.com/google-d-s/intl/en/tour2.html
Recently I've been doing lots of weekend coding, and have began to really need a bugtracker as things are gaining speed. This is probably the worst case scenario because I basically have to let things cool down over the week,so I simply can't remember the bugs in my head. So far I've been using a text file to jot down bugs,but I'd rather use something a bit better.
The biggest points here are ease of use and very little setup time.Don't want to spend more than an hour learning the basics and trying to install something. Also in my case I'm on a Mac so that would help, but solutions for other platforms are welcomed as they will likely help others.
FogBugz has a student/startup edition that's free indefinitely, for 2 or less users.
Personally, I use Excel. (Wait, come back, I'm not crazy!) For a bigger / team project, I've gotten a ton of mileage out of Bugzilla, but that tends to be kind of overkill for a one-person project.
But, a well-organized spreadsheet, with columns for things like "status", "description", "code module", "resolved date," etc, gets you pretty close to what you'd need for a small project. Sorting a spreadsheet by column isn't anywhere near a search, but its a whole lot better than "find in text file."
Heck, if you use Google docs rather than excel, you can even publish the thing as an RSS feed and get it anywhere.
And, the major advantage is that the setup time and learning curve are both effectively nil.
Addendum: And of course, the instant your "One-Person Bug Tracker" becomes a "Two-Person Bug Tracker" you must switch to something better. Bugzilla, FogBugz, anything. Trust me, I've been there.
Trac or Redmine are both pretty good. I don't know how easy they are to set up on a Mac.
It's worth mentioning that FogBugz also has a free version for up to 2 users, which would suit you. It is hosted so there is no installation and you can use something like Fluid to access it in its own window.
I don't think you need a full blown bugtracker for your scenario.
Try tiddly wiki, store each bug in a tiddler and give them tags like 'open' or 'closed'.
There is no installation required (only one html file), and it's very easy to use.
And platform neutral.
If you're working on a LAMPP stack, then for ease of setup and use I would probably recommend Mantis. It's written in PHP / MySQL and the only installation involved was specifying where the database should be created and what credentials should be used.
Oh, and its FOSS.
I would suggest Omnigroup's Omnifocus - it's an excellent task tracker, and if you just make the mental leap from bug to task, I think it works famously for one man projects as well as being an excellent way to organize your no doubt burgeoning task queue.
Eclipse has a really interesting system--I don't know why so few people seem to know about it.
It's tied in with their to-do list. It gives you the ability to enter bugs with as much or as little info as you like. You can tie it to versioning or an external bug tracker if you like. It's a decent bug tracker in itself.
The real trick is how it works with your source code.
Before you begin work you select a bug from the list. All the time you're coding, it tracks what files you are editing. It can close old tabs for you, and will also highlight areas of the source tree that you have modified a lot.
The nice thing is, you can go back to any bug you've edited an you will get your "Environment" back. Not only all your notes and stuff, but the same tabs will open up and the same sections of code in the navigator will be highlighted.
Also eclipse works with virtually any language, it's not just restricted to Java...
let me put in a good word for ditz - it's a bit bare-bones, but it has the invaluable feature that bugs are checked into your repository. it's also very easy to use once you get used to its way of doing things
You can use fogbugz for free if you're a one man team.
It's super easy to use and quick to learn.
They made it so that bugs are really easy to enter, no mandatory fields.
I'm the author of BugTracker.NET mentioned in another post. If I were looking for a tracker for JUST ONE PERSON with MINIMUM hassle, I'd use FogBugz, because it's hosted. No installation, no need to worry about backups.
But, what are you doing about version control? Don't you have to worry about that too, and backing that up? If so, consider something like Unfuddle or CVSDude where you can get BOTH Subversion and Trac, or Subversion and Fogbugz.
I use Mantis at home and I'm happy with it. It can be a pain in the arse to get it working so you can choose to download a free and ready-made VM installation. Cannot be easier than that,
Maybe a spreadsheet would be the next logical step? I know it sounds really un-sexy, but if you're the only user, you don't have to worry much about others mucking it up, and it adds a few basic features over a text file like sorting. Then if you later need to graduate to something RDBMS-backed, you would likely have a feasible import path. I just know that for me, when working by myself, I don't tend to get around to putting bugs in anything that requires more care and feeding than that (of course when working with others the collaborative needs make a more defined repository a requirement, but that's a different story).
EDIT: After noting the availability of free, hosted access to FogBugz, I'm re-thinking the bar for care and feeding...
RT from BestPractical is great.
I also get a lot of mileage out of just keeping a list of items in a text file with vi, if I can express them all in one line. This is usually for many small todo items on a single component or task.
I've tried bugtracker.net and even though it's a little bit rough on the edges, it's free and was built with ASP.NET:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=66812
Are you using a source control repository as well? If not, you really should, even though you're only a one-man team.
My personal preference is to use a VMWare Virutal Application (free) that offers no-hassle setup gives you access to both Trac and Subversion. You can find many different virual appliances through searching. Here is one example of getting a Trac/SVN virtual appliance up and running:
http://www.rungeek.com/blog/archives/how-to-setup-svn-and-trac-with-a-virtual-appliance/
Trac is an excellent project management tool that sports a bug tracker, wiki, and integrated source control management. It's adaptable to your needs, and fits me very well personally.
I use bugzilla for this purpose. Plus for me was that it has integration with Eclipse (precisely with Mylyn). FogBuzz has it to but AFAIK it is nonfree.
Plus it sits on my laptop so I can code and add/remove bugs when offline (it was biggest disadvantage of hosted solutions for me)
Installation was not a problem in Ubuntu (and any debian-based distro I suppose).
I dig ELOG in those cases, it's more of a personal blog, but it's easy to handle and install, the data is local on your computer and you can search all entries via fulltext. Always sufficed for me.
If you have a Windows box with IIS and MSSQL (including SQL Server Express), you should look at Bugtracker.net. It is free and open source (you get the source code), and it is extensible.
Even if you are a one man shop, having a free bug tracking system with this much power will allow you to grow over time, because it is fairly easy to add future users into the system.
You can also customize it for the look of your organization, business or product.
Ontime 2008 by Axosoft is free for a single user licence. It's industrial strength and will give you alot more that just bug tracking!
http://www.axosoft.com
Jira which now has free personal licenses.
I am using leo for this purpose. To be more specific, its cleo plugin.
Of course you might need to spend some time to get used to leo, but it will pay off.
A flat text file is just a list, an Excel spreadsheet is a two-dimensional list.
leo lets you keep the data in a tree! And it also has clones.
this is a bit of a philosophical question. I am adding a small feature to my software which I assume will be used by most users but only maybe 10% of the times they use the software. In other words, the software has been fine without it for 3 months, but 4 or 5 users have asked for it, and I agree that it should be there.
The problem is that, due to limitations of the platform I'm working with (and possibly limitations of my brain), "the best I can do" still has some non-critical but noticeable bugs - let's say the feature as coded is usable but "a bit wonky" in some cases.
What to do? Is a feature that's 90% there really "better than nothing"? I know I'll get some bug reports which I won't be able to fix: what do I tell customers about those? Should I live with unanswered feature requests or unanswered bug reports?
Make sure people know, that you know, that there are problems. That there are bugs. And give them an easy way to proide feedback.
What about having a "closed beta" with the "4 or 5 users" who suggested the feature in the first place?
There will always be unanswered feature requests and bug reports. Ship it, but include a readme with "known issues" and workarounds when possible.
You need to think of this from your user's perspective - which will cause less frustration? Buggy code is usually more frustrating than missing features.
Perfectionists may answer "don't do it".
Business people may answer "do it".
I guess where the balance is is up to you. I would be swaying towards putting the feature in there if the bugs are non-critical. Most users don't see your software the same way you do. You're a craftsman/artist, which means your more critical than regular people.
Is there any way that you can get a beta version to the 4-5 people who requested the feature? Then, once you get their feedback, it may be clear which decision to make.
Precisely document the wonkiness and ship it.
Make sure a user is likely to see and understand your documentation of the wonkiness.
You could even discuss the decision with users who have requested the feature: do some market research.
Just because you can't fix it now, doesn't mean you won't be able to in the future. Things change.
Label what you have now as a 'beta version' and send it out to those people who have asked for it. Get their feedback on how well it works, fix whatever they complain about, and you should then be ready to roll it out to larger groups of users.
Ship early, ship often, constant refactoring.
What I mean is, don't let it stop you from shipping, but don't give up on fixing the problems either.
An inability to resolve wonkiness is a sign of problems in your code base. Spend more time refactoring than adding features.
I guess it depends on your standards. For me, buggy code is not production ready and so shouldn't be shipped. Could you have a beta version with a known issues list so users know what to expect under certain conditions? They get the benefit of using the new features but also know that it's not perfect (use that their own risk). This may keep those 4 or 5 customers that requested the feature happy for a while which gives you more time to fix the bugs (if possible) and release to production later for the masses.
Just some thoughts depending on your situation.
Depends. On the bugs, their severity and how much effort you think it will take to fix them. On the deadline and how much you think you can stretch it. On the rest of the code and how much the client can do with it.
I would not expect coders to deliver known problems into test let alone to release to a customer.
Mind you, I believe in zero tolerance of bugs. Interestingly I find that it is usually developers/ testers who are keenest to remove all bugs - it is often the project manager and/ or customer who are willing to accept bugs.
If you must release the code, then document every feature/ bug that you are aware of, and commit to fixing each one.
Why don't you post more information about the limitations of the platform you are working on, and perhaps some of the clever folk here can help get your bug list down.
If the demand is for a feature NOW, rather than a feature that works. You may have to ship.
In this situation though:
Make sure you document the bug(s)
and consequences (both to the user
and other developers).
Be sure to add the bug(s) to your
bug tracking database.
If you write unit tests (I hope so),
make sure that tests are written
which highlight the bugs, before you
ship. This will mean that when you
come to fix the bugs in the future,
you know where and what they are,
without having to remember.
Schedule the work to fix the bugs
ASAP. You do fix bugs before
writing new code, don't you?
If bugs can cause death or can lose users' files then don't ship it.
If bugs can cause the application to crash itself then ship it with a warning (a readme or whatever). If crashes might cause the application to corrupt the users' files that they were in the middle of editing with this exact application, then display a warning each time they start up the application, and remind them to backup their files first.
If bugs can cause BSODs then be very careful about who you ship it to.
If it doesn't break anything else, why not ship it? It sounds like you have a good relationship with your customers, so those who want the feature will be happy to get it even if it's not all the way there, and those who don't want it won't care. Plus you'll get lots of feedback to improve it in the next release!
The important question you need to answer is if your feature will solve a real business need given the design you've come up with. Then it's only a matter of making the implementation match the design - making the "bugs" being non-bugs by defining them as not part of the intended behaviour of the feature (which should be covered by the design).
This boils down to a very real choice of paths: is a bug something that doesn't work properly, that wasn't part of the intended behaviour and design? Or is it a bug only if if doesn't work in accordance to the intended behaviour?
I am a firm believer in the latter; bugs are the things that do not work the way they were intended to work. The implementation should capture the design, that should capture the business need. If the implementation is used to address a different business need that wasn't covered by the design, it is the design that is at fault, not the implementation; thus it is not a bug.
The former attitude is by far the most common amongst programmers in my experience. It is also the way the user views software issues. From a software development perspective, however, it is not a good idea to adopt this view, because it leads you to fix bugs that are not bugs, but design flaws, instead of redesigning the solution to the business need.
Coming from someone who has to install buggy software for their users - don't ship it with that feature enabled.
It doesn't matter if you document it, the end users will forget about that bug the first time they hit it, and that bug will become critical to them not being able to do their job.