> On 05 Sep 2016, at 16:13, Paul Libbrecht <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Vincent Massol wrote: >> So I guess what I’m saying is that for me what would help the most the >> current workflow used by the xwiki core dev team is: >> * the introduction of the xar:fetch and xar:deploy mojos >> * the validation (to help prevent mistakes) >> * the extraction of the attachments as standard files on the file system so >> that they can be replaced easily > Plus at least extract the JS-extensions and CSS-extensions as JS and CSS > files at least or?
Yes those are content for me (what I meant by content is doc content + all xproperties of type textarea). > And the same holds for velocity and groovy code or? > But here, I cannot find a way that would make it clear that a given > object property or page content is in velocity, groovy, or xxxx. > Is there a way? They’re not in groovy or velocity, they’re in some markup syntax (e.g. XWiki Syntax 2.1). You’ll need an editor that knows how to understand that syntax if you wish syntax hilighting or autocompletion (same as what xwiki does already with the related extensions! ;)). > Paul > > PS: while it seems like there's been rules set so that one shouldn't > fiddle the XML to break XAR parsing, I am really surprised that there's > not been rules defined to avoid gross JS, CSS, velocity, or groovy > errors. Is that true? We have automated tests (integration, functional) to verify that something works. If you’re talking manual then the process I’ve listed ensures that it works (ie that it’s been tested at least manually). There’s no static analysis. Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
