Friday, November 20, 2015, 8:51:31 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Took a long break due to some personal reasons. Sorry for the same. I have a > question in your email. > > What do you mean by > > "Also I guess inside the testPreviousSibling you don't really need > output capturing, nor ?trim. " > > I am not sure what you are coming to say there. We need to assert somehow the > expected o/p right ? > > so we can't assert against empty spaces since we don't know how > many spaces , So I thought of asserting the same after trimming the o/p.
We don't need capturing for sure, I guess you see that now. As of trimming, that's a minor issue really, but in fact we know how many spaces are there, since we provide the XML. > Let me know if I am missing something. > > Pradeep. > ________________________________________ > From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 2:44 AM > To: Pradeep Murugesan > Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling > > Tuesday, November 3, 2015, 7:19:17 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> I have made the changes you have said and writing unit tests. I >> have written an unit test and need to check whether can I proceed in >> the same fashion. One important question I have is accessing the >> (XML) datamodel required for the testcase. >> >> Now I am overriding the function getDataModel() and read the xml >> from a file. Kindly let me know if that is acceptable. > > You don't need to override getDateModel(). Just add "doc" to the data > model with the TemplateTest.addToDataModel. > > Loading the XML file via java.io.File API is not entirely correct, > especially not with that relative path ("build/test-classes/..."). You > don't know what the current directory will be on the CI server for > example. Also, though an extreme case, but it can also occur that a > test suite is ran from an unexploded jar (i.e., you don't even have > real files anywhere). Just like outside tests, the correct solution is > using Class.getResource or Class.getResourceAsStream to read > class-loader resources. > > Also I guess inside the testPreviousSibling you don't really need > output capturing, nor ?trim. > >> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/42132df19b6f8e53f66ff3f6cbbce459376c65a6 >> >> >> P.S : I have removed the author name in next commit. Intellij adds >> it and I am missing it everytime. Sorry!!. >> >> Pradeep. >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Pradeep Murugesan <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 7:46 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >> >> oh now I got it. >> >> So we can also expect something like >> <a/> there is some text here <b/> >> >> Now when the user do a @@previous on node 'b' he will get node 'a' >> but he might expect "there is some text here" which is still a valid text >> node. >> >> I thought there can be no such scenario so kept hanging on with >> blindly skipping all till we get a node. So I will do the following . >> >> 1. rename to @@previous_significant >> 2. skip the siblings when its in any of the blacklisted candidates. >> ( whitespaces, CDATA, \n(ofcourse)) >> >> Pradeep. >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:12 AM >> To: Pradeep Murugesan >> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >> >> Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 6:21:19 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >> >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> I agree with that but I have a question kindly don't take it as an >>> argument. Just curious to know >>> >>> 1. <a/>cdata<b/> >>> 2. <a/> \n<b/> >>> 3. <a/>comments<b/> >>> 4. <a/>some PI's<b/> >>> >>> In all the above 4 scenarios when we do a @@previous on node 'b' we expect >>> node 'a'. >> >> With what you have implemented so far, that is. >> >>> I am suggesting we will keep iterating until we find a node type >>> ELEMENT_NODE and return it. >>> you are suggesting to keep iterating until we find a node that is not in >>> \n, CDATA, PIs etc. >>> >>> I think both will work. Do you think any of it which should be >>> skipped will also have node type ELEMENT_NODE. >> >> Nope. >> >>> I am not sure about what is a better logic though. Kindly let me >>> know if I am not getting something which you are telling. >> >> Silently skipping non-whitespace text is dangerous. But if you call >> this @@previous_element, then the user will expect it to happen, so >> then what you have implemented can be OK. >> >> As of my @@previous definition, the name is problematic even there, as >> it doesn't just return the previous sibling (?previousSibling does >> that). It does some magic, by skipping whitespace and such. So >> certainly it should be called @@prevous_significant or >> @@previous_non_ws, so that it's clear that some trickery is involved. >> As of the semantic, the motivation is simply to return what many >> naturally expect to be the previous node. Like remember your case; >> getting some text instead of the preceding programlisting element was >> unexpected at first, I assume. Yes, your definition of @@previous >> fixes that too. But if you had some non-whitespace text between those >> two programlisting elements, certainly you expect to get that text, >> not the element before it. People don't see non-whitespace text as >> ignorable, because in fact it hardly ever is. >> >> So after renaming both operations are OK, but I think >> @@previous_significant is a safer operation than @@previous_element, >> because you won't unintentionally skip non-whitespace text with it. >> Surely @@previous_element is quite clear about what it does (that it >> will skip text), but then, what can the users do about it? They will >> have to hope that there won't be any non-whitespace text before the >> target element, ever. Because when there is, they won't know about it, >> they can't give an error or something. With @@prevous_significant, >> when that assumption fails, they will get the text node and the >> template that expects an element can fail or take some special action, >> so there's no silent information loss. >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Daniel Dekany >> >>> Pradeep. >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:33 PM >>> To: Pradeep Murugesan >>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>> >>> Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 3:52:35 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>> >>>>> By that do you mean that you intend to continue it later so that it >>>>> will only skip whitespace, etc., or you think this approach is more >>>>> practical? (If it's the later, why?) >>>> >>>> ---- So by @@previous the user expects the previous node. But >>>> currently it returns the \n , spaces, as you mentioned CDATA etc. >>>> To skip these we need to maintain a list of blacklisted candidates >>>> to skip. Today we have 3 candidates (let's assume) later we may get >>>> lot to skip which we should be adding as blacklisted. >>>> I went for this approach assuming there won't be any scenario >>>> where we skip any nodes of type ELEMENT_NODE to fetch the >>>> previousSibling node. If we will skip ELEMENT_NODE as well then no >>>> other go we need to maintain a list of candidates to skip. >>> >>> I'm not sure what you mean be "maintaining". We just check the node on >>> the fly, and decide if we proceed with its sibling or return it. What >>> we want to skip certainly won't change over time, as the information >>> model of XML won't change any time soon, if ever. It's WS-only text >>> (it doesn't mater if it's plain text or a CDATA section), comments and >>> PI-s. (We never skip elements.) >>> >>>> Kindly let me know if I am wrong. >>>> >>>> Regarding the nullPointer exception I have handled it. But Didn't >>>> commit. Its like parent directive right we will return null if its >>>> the root node, similarly we can return null if its first and last >>>> accessing previous and next respectively. >>>> >>>> Pradeep. >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:45 AM >>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan >>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>> >>>> Tuesday, October 27, 2015, 6:04:19 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>> >>>>> Have fixed the code review comments here. >>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/2e1b0d834e941eaf4ea8aafad720333c7ec1040c >>>> >>>> It's minor issue, but BuiltInsExtForNode and BuiltInExtForNod still >>>> don't follow the same convention as the others. The ...BI classes >>>> should just be inside BuiltInsForNodes (no need for >>>> BuiltInsExtForNode), and BuiltInExtForNode should be called >>>> BuiltInForNodeEx. >>>> >>>>> Regarding the @@previous and @@next we decided to skip the >>>>> whitespaces and other character data. Instead I tried to find first >>>>> occurrence of the node which is of type Node.ELEMENT_NODE >>>> >>>> By that do you mean that you intend to continue it later so that it >>>> will only skip whitespace, etc., or you think this approach is more >>>> practical? (If it's the later, why?) >>>> >>>> Also, I believe that the current implementation will throw >>>> NullPointerException after you have reached the first or the last >>>> node. >>>> >>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/2e1b0d834e941eaf4ea8aafad720333c7ec1040c#diff-a029bb56a7cedf8c6272a6d8b566f446 >>>>> >>>>> I tried few cases and things worked fine there. Kindly let me know your >>>>> thoughts. >>>>> >>>>> P.S : I am working on the Junit test cases. >>>>> >>>>> Pradeep. >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:36 AM >>>>> To: Pradeep Murugesan >>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>> >>>>> OK, let's see. I have ran through the diff and have spotted these >>>>> (just in the order as I find then): >>>>> >>>>> putBI("previousSibling", new previousSiblingBI()), etc. should be >>>>> putBI("previous_sibling", "previousSibling", new previousSiblingBI()). >>>>> >>>>> BuiltInExtForNode: Doesn't follow the naming pattern of the other >>>>> BuiltIns... classes. >>>>> >>>>> TemplateNodeModelExt: Should be TemplateNodeModelEx (as we already >>>>> have other Ex models, we are stuck with that convention...) >>>>> >>>>> BuiltinVariable: You have registered two new names there, but these >>>>> aren't built-in variables. >>>>> >>>>> In ElementModel: @@previous and @@next doesn't yet implement what we >>>>> were talking about. I mean, it doesn't just skip white-space and >>>>> comments and PI-s, but any text nodes. (Also an XPath-based >>>>> implementation won't be very fast. org.w3c.dom.Node-s has >>>>> getPreviousSibling()/getNextSibling() methods. Also, if you will skip >>>>> WS text only, you won't be able to do that with XPath anyway.) >>>>> >>>>> (As a policy, there should not be author comments ("created by") in >>>>> the source code.) >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Friday, October 23, 2015, 9:09:56 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/465ed1bd768e8a5bee91bea7d3b291a5872efae5 >>>>>> I have added the builtIns which will return blindly the previous >>>>>> and next sibling and also the special variables @@previous and >>>>>> @@next which will return the valid node. In the special variable >>>>>> case I have used the xpath to get the required nodes. >>>>>> Kindly review and let me know your thoughts. >>>>>> Pradeep. >>>>>>> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:42:04 +0200 >>>>>>> From: [email protected] >>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Returning the sibling node without skipping stuff is not XML-specific, >>>>>>> so certainly that should be ?previous (and a new method in the new >>>>>>> TemplateNodeModelEx interface), not a hash key that starts with "@". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW, of course all of these has an opposite direction variant, like >>>>>>> "@next". And "@prev" may should be "@previous". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sunday, October 18, 2015, 5:31:50 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > yeah makes sense.. >>>>>>> > so we need to return a valid element node he is looking for >>>>>>> > skipping all the whitespace, CDATA etc... >>>>>>> > I am wondering if the user will have any reason to look for a CDATA >>>>>>> > sibling or any non element sibling which we will skip. >>>>>>> > In that case can we have 2 special cases. >>>>>>> > 1. @prev which will return the immediate sibling2. @prevNode or >>>>>>> > something intutive which will return a valid element skipping few . >>>>>>> > Pradeep. >>>>>>> >> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:15:57 +0200 >>>>>>> >> From: [email protected] >>>>>>> >> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> >> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Saturday, October 17, 2015, 7:09:49 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > hmm then I think @@prev should return the immediate sibling with >>>>>>> >> > the following issues/advantages. >>>>>>> >> > 1. In xml doc its a overhead for user to call it twice to get the >>>>>>> >> > previous element node2. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> It much worse than that, if it just returns the previous sibling on >>>>>>> >> the DOM, as you can't know if you have to call it once, twice, 3 >>>>>>> >> times, etc. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > For less document centric it is not a problem. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> For non-document XML it's similarly desirable. I meant JSON and such, >>>>>>> >> where @@prev doesn't exist anyway... >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > 3. for Non-normalized dom we wont do anything before they >>>>>>> >> > normalize it . >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Actually, we can do a little effort... skipping *all* the >>>>>>> >> white-space-only character date nodes and comments and PI-s. But >>>>>>> >> that's all. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > Let me know If I got that correctly. >>>>>>> >> > If so I will add @@prev as a special case and use >>>>>>> >> > .node.@@prev.@@prev to get to theprevious sibling node. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> You mean, you will use: .node.@@prev >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> > Pradeep. >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:09:36 +0200 >>>>>>> >> >> From: [email protected] >>>>>>> >> >> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> >> >> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> Thursday, October 15, 2015, 10:44:10 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote: >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> > Hi Daniel, >>>>>>> >> >> > So you are saying we need to have it that way and leave the >>>>>>> >> >> > responsibility to the caller. Lets say in case of us to get to >>>>>>> >> >> > check >>>>>>> >> >> > if template is preceded by formDataModel we will do the >>>>>>> >> >> > follwing ? >>>>>>> >> >> > <#local siblingElement = .node.@@prev.@@prev> >>>>>>> >> >> > then check the role attribute of siblingElement ? >>>>>>> >> >> > I assume the semantic for @@prev should return the immediate >>>>>>> >> >> > sibling being it a whitespace , CDATA or \n as in our case. >>>>>>> >> >> > Let me know your thoughts. >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> I think that in almost all cases the user means the previous DOM >>>>>>> >> >> node >>>>>>> >> >> ignoring white-space nodes and comments, and certainly PI-s too. >>>>>>> >> >> (That's also why ?previous or such wouldn't solve the problem you >>>>>>> >> >> ran >>>>>>> >> >> into, while it can be still very useful in some other >>>>>>> >> >> applications, >>>>>>> >> >> like where the tree is not from XML but something less >>>>>>> >> >> document-centric.) (Non-normalized DOM-s, like one with sibling >>>>>>> >> >> cdata >>>>>>> >> >> nodes, could also complicate what we need, but I belive that such >>>>>>> >> >> cases can only be addressed reasonably be ensuring that the whole >>>>>>> >> >> DOM >>>>>>> >> >> is normalized before we do anything with it... so it doesn't mater >>>>>>> >> >> now.) >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> > Pradeep. >>>>>>> >> >> >> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:32:33 +0200 >>>>>>> >> >> >> From: [email protected] >>>>>>> >> >> >> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> Thursday, October 15, 2015, 4:13:18 PM, Pradeep Murugesan >>>>>>> >> >> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > HI Daniel, >>>>>>> >> >> >> > Its not preceeded by white spaces but "\n" is taken as >>>>>>> >> >> >> > sibling. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> \n is whitespace, and it's a sibling in XML. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > In book.xml <programlisting role="formDataModel">dsadsd >>>>>>> >> >> >> > fdfsdfdsf dfds</programlisting> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > <programlisting role="template"><#if cargo.weight < >>>>>>> >> >> >> > <emphasis>100</emphasis>>Light >>>>>>> >> >> >> > cargo</#if></programlisting> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > I am trying to get the programlisting with role >>>>>>> >> >> >> > formDataModel as >>>>>>> >> >> >> > previousSibling. But the "\n" is returned as the sibling. To >>>>>>> >> >> >> > confirm >>>>>>> >> >> >> > the same I just checked it with >>>>>>> >> >> >> > node.previousSibling().previousSibling() and I am able to >>>>>>> >> >> >> > get to formDataModel. >>>>>>> >> >> >> > What should we need to do for this here ? >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> Nothing... it's correct that way. it's that you want the >>>>>>> >> >> >> sibling >>>>>>> >> >> >> *element*, as I said. Actually, it's a bit trickier than that. >>>>>>> >> >> >> You >>>>>>> >> >> >> want to get the sibling element, unless the interfering >>>>>>> >> >> >> character data >>>>>>> >> >> >> is non-whitespace. Because, if you have <a/>cdata<b/>, then >>>>>>> >> >> >> surely you >>>>>>> >> >> >> don't want to say that <b/> is preceded bu <a/>, but "cdata". >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > I have also added a key with @@prev in ElementModel and that >>>>>>> >> >> >> > works fine. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> So what exactly is the semantic of @@prev? >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > Pradeep. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:32:40 +0200 >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> I'm not sure what's improper in the result (I don't know >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> what was >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> expected). Isn't that node preceded by white space? That >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> would explain >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> it. You might rather want the previous *element*. But that >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> will be >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> difficult to express on the TemplateNodeModel level, which >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> is not >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> bound to XML. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> One important point is that you can't add new methods to >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> TemplateNodeModel, as that breaks backward compatibility. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> It can only >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> be added to a new sub-interface, like TemplateNodeModelEx. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> But even >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> that won't solve getting the sibling element node. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> So another approach is instead of adding a built-in, adding >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> a new >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> special key that's specific to freemarker.ext.dom models, >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> like >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> "@@prev" and "@@next". >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> -- >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> Wednesday, October 14, 2015, 9:10:25 PM, Pradeep Murugesan >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Hi Daniel, >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > I tried to add a new built in & of course it DIDN'T work >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > �. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > I did the following. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > 1. added putBI("previousSibling", new >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > previousSiblingBI()); in >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > BuiltIn.java2. added a static class in >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > BuiltInForNodes.java static >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > class previousSiblingBI extends BuiltInForNode { >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > @Override >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > TemplateModel calculateResult(TemplateNodeModel >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > nodeModel, >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Environment env) throws TemplateModelException { >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > return nodeModel.getPreviousSibling(); >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > } >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > } >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > 3. added a method in Interface TemplateNodeModel.java >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > TemplateNodeModel getPreviousSibling() throws >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > TemplateModelException; >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > 4. In package freemarker.ext.dom's NodeModel added the >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > following method >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > public TemplateNodeModel getPreviousSibling() { Node >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > previousSibling = node.getPreviousSibling(); >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > return wrap(previousSibling);} >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Once this is done I tried to access it as >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > .node?previousSibling >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > from template and it reached till the NodeModel class i >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > defined in >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > the 4th step. But the returned previousSibling is not >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > proper. It's >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > not returning the programListingNode with formDataModel >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > instead returns someother node. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > I tried to log the node returned and I got the following >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > o/p >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > [docgen:transform] [#text: >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > [docgen:transform] ] >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > I clearly understand the implementation of >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > getPreviousSibling is >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > not proper, but I couldn't figure out where we have >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > implemented the same. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Please advise. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > Pradeep. >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >> -- >>>>>>> >> >> >> Thanks, >>>>>>> >> >> >> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> -- >>>>>>> >> >> Thanks, >>>>>>> >> >> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> -- >>>>>>> >> Thanks, >>>>>>> >> Daniel Dekany >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Thanks, >>>> Daniel Dekany >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> Daniel Dekany >>> > > -- > Thanks, > Daniel Dekany -- Thanks, Daniel Dekany
