Hi Daniel,
I've tested it again after building/installing locally for both "2.3"
and "2.3-gae".
The problem of splitting with empty string doesn't happy any more. That's good.
But, I still need to check the nullability of the return of
.get_optional_template('some_non_existing.ftl') like the following:
<#assign optTemp = .get_optional_template('some.ftl')>
<#if optTemp?? && optTemp.exists>
I got an exception message starting with "Error when trying to include
template ...", which seems to come from this code:
-
https://github.com/apache/incubator-freemarker/blob/2.3-gae/src/main/java/freemarker/core/GetOptionalTemplateMethod.java#L140-L145
I suppose it shouldn't have returned a null value nor thrown an
exception as the .exists seems useful in that use case.
Regards,
Woonsan
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Woonsan Ko <woon...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Saturday, March 24, 2018, 2:44:17 PM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Saturday, March 24, 2018, 3:13:06 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When I tested with freemarker-2.3.28-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar, which I
>>>>> built and install it to my local maven repo from the latest "2.3"
>>>>> branch myself, in my applications, I haven't found any regressions.
>>>>> My applications are rather simpler probably than others as they simply
>>>>> render model objects passed from request attributes through
>>>>> FreeMarkerServlet.
>>>>> But when I tried the new features and bug fixes [1], I think I found
>>>>> somethings (perhaps there could be my misunderstandings):
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The template example in
>>>>> https://freemarker.apache.org/builds/fm2.3.28/ref_specvar.html#ref_specvar_get_optional_template
>>>>>
>>>>> <#assign optTemp = .get_optional_template('some.ftl')>
>>>>> <#if optTemp.exists>
>>>>>
>>>>> But if the 'some.ftl' doesn't exist, optTemp.exists fails as it's
>>>>> null. So I ended up changing it to this:
>>>>>
>>>>> <#assign optTemp = .get_optional_template('some.ftl')>
>>>>> <#if optTemp?? && optTemp.exists>
>>>>
>>>> That's bizarre. It works for me. Also for the test suite... that
>>>> passes there, right? (It can't even be explained by accidentally using
>>>> 2.3.27, as there .get_optional_template is parsing (syntax) error.)
>>>
>>> Perhaps my build might be wrong. I did the following locally to build
>>> fresh and install it to my local maven repo. (Yesterday, I used my
>>> forked/forked GitHub branch, which could have caused the issue.)
>>
>> OK, I see the problem. I haven't pushed the last merge commit in the
>> 2.3 branch... sorry! So only the 2.3-gae branch was up to date on Git.
>> (The linked binaries were fine though.)
>>
>>> (move to a temp folder)
>>> $ git clone
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-freemarker.git
>>> $ cd incubator-freemarker/
>>> $ git checkout 2.3
>>> (edit build.properties)
>>> $ git log --oneline | head -n 2
>>> edefaa2f Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/2.3-gae' into 2.3
>>> 01294537 Cleaned up more lexer/parser logic ...
>>> $ ant clean maven-install
>>> (confirm the log installing the jar and pom files to my maven repo to
>>> compare with deployed jar later)
>>>
>>> When I tested with this today, ${.version} printed: "version:
>>> 2.3.28-nightly_20180324T130919Z-incubating".
>>>
>>> Could this local build cause a problem? (I saw differences between
>>> "2.3" and "2.3-gae". See below. So I probably should have built
>>> "2.3-gae" branch?)
>>
>> But should work, except if I screw up and forgot to push one of them,
>> like now...
>>
>>> Anyway, in my testing with "2.3" build, I needed optTemp?? additionally.
>>>
>>>>> 2. Square bracket syntax through ftl directive
>>>>>
>>>>> It reads, "This directive also determines if the template uses angle
>>>>> bracket syntax (e.g. <#include 'foo.ftl'>) or square bracket syntax
>>>>> (e.g. [#include 'foo.ftl']). Simply, the syntax used for this
>>>>> directive will be the syntax used for the whole template, regardless
>>>>> of the FreeMarker configuration settings." [2]
>>>>>
>>>>> I applied it to an included .ftl template like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> [#ftl output_format="HTML"]
>>>>> [="Hello"]
>>>>> ${"Hello"}
>>>>>
>>>>> It prints: [="Hello"] Hello,
>>>>> not: Hello ${"Hello"}
>>>>
>>>> There are two independent settings here: tag syntax and interpolation
>>>> syntax. It's mere coincidence that both has "square bracket" in their
>>>> names. [#ftl] only sets the first. I will clarify that in the
>>>
>>> I see. When I tried this now,
>>>
>>> [#ftl output_format="HTML"]
>>> [#assign a=[1,2,3]]
>>> [#list a as i]${i}[#sep],[/#list]
>>> [="Hello"]
>>> ${"Hello"}
>>>
>>> I got: 1,2,3 [="Hello"] Hello
>>> Thanks for clarification!
>>
>> Note that the square bracket *tag* syntax and that it can be activated
>> with [#ftl] exists for a very long time.
>>
>> I will update the related Manual page in a minute...
>>
>>>> documentation. Or, it's a warning sign that we should rather use
>>>> {{exp}}, as that doesn't have "square brackets" in it.
>>>
>>> Perhaps. ;-)
>>> I recently had a chance to look around other templating libraries
>>> using the mustache as I have seen people loving it.
>>> I didn't like the usages there in directives. For example, {{#if
>>> user}} {{user.name}} {{/if}}. It's hard for me complete the if, ending
>>> with {{/if}}, which is too much. ;-)
>>> But the interpolation part (e.g, {{user.name}}) seems okay to me.
>>> So, yes, I'm fine with mustache expression for interpolation and it
>>> might be less confusing in this specific case.
>>>
>>> What do others think?
>>
>> Let's not forget digging up the thread where it was decided. I mean,
>> there are some pro/cons mentioned there.
>>
>>>>> 3. split with an empty string
>>>>>
>>>>> It says, "Bug fixed: When string?split(separator) is called with "" as
>>>>> the argument, the string will be split to characters now. Earlier it
>>>>> has thrown an IllegalArgumentException (unless the r flag was
>>>>> specified)."
>>>>> But when I tried it, it throws an IllegalArgumentException:
>>>>>
>>>>> <#assign a="hello"?split("l")>
>>>> ==>>
>>>>> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: The separator string has 0 length
>>>>> at freemarker.template.utility.StringUtil.split(StringUtil.java:752)
>>>>
>>>> Huh? "l" isn't even 0 long! Or you meant to copy-paste `?split("")`
>>>> there? And yet again, it works for me here. Though this at least can
>>>> be that you are accidentally using 2.3.27 (try ${.version}).
>>>
>>> It was a copy-paste error.
>>> Still I got the error: "java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: The
>>> separator string has 0 length at
>>> freemarker.template.utility.StringUtil.split(StringUtil.java:752)"
>>>
>>> Now I realize that "2.3" branch is different from "2.3-gae" branch:
>>> -
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-freemarker/blob/2.3/src/main/java/freemarker/template/utility/StringUtil.java#L752
>>> -
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-freemarker/blob/2.3-gae/src/main/java/freemarker/template/utility/StringUtil.java#L753
>>>
>>> Perhaps, should I have built/test from "2.3-gae"?
>>
>> In theory you should test both, but the differences are so tiny (GAE
>> has a little change so that it can run on Google App Engine), it
>> shouldn't mater. (See also:
>> https://freemarker.apache.org/sourcecode.html)
>
> Right. Will do.
>
> Regards,
>
> Woonsan
>
>>
>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Woonsan
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if I miss or misinterpret somethings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://freemarker.apache.org/builds/fm2.3.28/versions_2_3_28.html
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> https://freemarker.apache.org/builds/fm2.3.28/ref_directive_ftl.html
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:08 AM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Friday, March 23, 2018, 3:33:39 AM, Woonsan Ko wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great to see the real release without "incubating" mark soon!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In theory it was decided 2 days ago, but I saw nothing about the board
>>>>>> meeting so far. I guess they are overburdened with the May elections
>>>>>> and all that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also ! I've just read the Change log and everything is awesome!
>>>>>>> I'll just try out the snapshot binary tomorrow in our applications to
>>>>>>> see if there's any regression just in case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great, thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Woonsan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Before we start a VOTE on releasing 2.3.28, it would be good if more
>>>>>>>> of you can test it, or otherwise review the upcoming 2.3.28! The main
>>>>>>>> point in this phase is to catch technical issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you intend to help, but won't have time for it in the coming few
>>>>>>>> days, please indicate that, so that I know that I should wait!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Change log (so far, but I don't plan to add more):
>>>>>>>> https://freemarker.apache.org/builds/fm2.3.28/versions_2_3_28.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Binary release artifacts:
>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.28-incubating-SNAPSHOT/binaries/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Source release artifacts:
>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/freemarker/engine/2.3.28-incubating-SNAPSHOT/source/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Maven artifacts are available from the Apache snaphsot repository:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <repository>
>>>>>>>> <id>apache-snapshot-repository</id>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <url>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/</url>
>>>>>>>> <releases><enabled>false</enabled></releases>
>>>>>>>> <snapshots><enabled>true</enabled></snapshots>
>>>>>>>> </repository>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> under the coordinates:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <groupId>org.freemarker</groupId>
>>>>>>>> <artifactId>freemarker</artifactId>
>>>>>>>> <version>2.3.28-incubating-SNAPSHOT</version>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and for the Google App Engine compatible (GAE) version:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <groupId>org.freemarker</groupId>
>>>>>>>> <artifactId>freemarker-gae</artifactId>
>>>>>>>> <version>2.3.28-incubating-SNAPSHOT</version>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ASF Board will decide tomorrow (21th) if FreeMarker can graduate.
>>>>>>>> If everything goes well, this release won't have "incubating" in its
>>>>>>>> version number. This will be the first such release since mid 2015
>>>>>>>> (2.3.23).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Daniel Dekany
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel Dekany
>>
