Hi Daniel,
sorry for this huge gap.. Actually got caught up in Chennai floods (
Chennai, India). Just back to home town and safe.
I have done the unit tests and the renaming of the files you suggested
previously. Please review and let me know the changes.
https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/1db672a2ba3db1f08c594df663b4dd7e68d36d4a
I need to cover a case for which I need your inputs.
Lets say we are in the last sibling and trying to access the next, same applies
for previous as well what should we return ? null ? Kindly let me know your
thoughts.
Pradeep.
________________________________________
From: Daniel Dekany <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 2:34 AM
To: Pradeep Murugesan
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
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
