: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 12:58 AM
To: Pradeep Murugesan
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
Some minor issues I have noticed at a quick glance:
- You have added some unused special-variable constants
- You are using a mutable List as EMPTY_LIST constant (you could use
___
> From: Pradeep Murugesan
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:50 PM
> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org; Daniel Dekany
> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> I did the merge with the branch gae-2.3. Once I build and r
@freemarker.incubator.apache.org; Daniel Dekany
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
Hi Daniel,
I did the merge with the branch gae-2.3. Once I build and run the tests I am
getting the following error message
Caused by: java.lang.RuntimeException: Clashing FreeMarker versions
(2.3.24-rc01
: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
If you believe it's complete and is well tested, then yes. For
"freemarker", it's "2.3-gae" branch. For "docgen", it's the "master"
branch. (See also:
http://freemarker.incubator.apache.org/sourcec
d a formDataModel in /manual/dgui_quickstart_template.html
>>>
>>> Kindly check and let me know if its fine.
>>>
>>> Also should we need to add a datamodel section for all the template section
>>> in the manual ?
>>>
>>> Pradeep.
>>&g
t;
>> Also should we need to add a datamodel section for all the template section
>> in the manual ?
>>
>> Pradeep.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________
>> From: Daniel Dekany
>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015
datamodel section for all the template section
> in the manual ?
>
> Pradeep.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Daniel Dekany
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 2:39 AM
> To: Pradeep Murugesan
> Cc: dev@freemarker.
> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 12:07 AM
> To: Pradeep Murugesan
> Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>
> I guess you get it right. We have to ignore text that's white-space
> only, and wether it's CDATA or not we will do th
> To: Pradeep Murugesan
> Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>
> I guess you get it right. We have to ignore text that's white-space
> only, and wether it's CDATA or not we will do the same.
>
>
> Satu
@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
I guess you get it right. We have to ignore text that's white-space
only, and wether it's CDATA or not we will do the same.
Saturday, December 12, 2015, 7:45:17 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> So we
hat difference even where you can tell it.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Daniel Dekany
>
>> Eg:
>>
>> Software Engineer
>>
>> 12345678
>>
>>
>> doing a doc.person.phone.@@previous returns the node type as text with value
>> as tes
, December 11, 2015 12:44 AM
To: Pradeep Murugesan
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
Thursday, December 10, 2015, 9:28:31 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Done the changes
> https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freem
sure which is the criteria to check the CDATA node. Am i missing
> something here ?
>
> Pradeep.
>
>
>
> ____________________
> From: Daniel Dekany
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:07 AM
> To: Pradeep Murugesan
> Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.a
dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 10:11:04 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> you got a chance to review this ?
>
> Pradeep.
>
>
> From: Pradeep Muruges
t; To: Daniel Dekany
> Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>
> Hi daniel,
>
> I have a question on the @@previous and @@next being null. So we
> will return the previous significant node if exists but will return
> an empty set of nodes if
Daniel,
you got a chance to review this ?
Pradeep.
From: Pradeep Murugesan
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 10:15 AM
To: Daniel Dekany
Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
Hi daniel,
I have a
adeep
From: Daniel Dekany
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 4:05 AM
To: Pradeep Murugesan
Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
Sunday, December 6, 2015, 4:28:11 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
>sorry
r 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.
>>
>
.
Pradeep.
From: Daniel Dekany
Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 2:34 AM
To: Pradeep Murugesan
Cc: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
Friday, November 20, 2015, 8:51:31 AM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>
> From: Daniel Dekany
> 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,
>&g
From: Daniel Dekany
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 w
>
>
>
> From: Pradeep Murugesan
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 7:46 AM
> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>
> oh now I got it.
>
> So we can also expect somet
@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
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
!!.
Pradeep.
From: Pradeep Murugesan
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 7:46 AM
To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
oh now I got it.
So we can also expect something like
there is some text here
Now
Daniel Dekany
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 ar
ion loss.
--
Thanks,
Daniel Dekany
> Pradeep.
> ________________
> From: Daniel Dekany
> 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
e about what is a better logic though. Kindly let me know if I am
not getting something which you are telling.
Pradeep.
From: Daniel Dekany
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:33 PM
To: Pradeep Murugesan
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
ill 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
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:45 AM
> To: Pradeep Mu
; 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 n
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
> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:36 AM
> To: Pradeep Muruge
on the Junit test cases.
Pradeep.
From: Daniel Dekany
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 ord
From: Daniel Dekany
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:41 AM
To: Pradeep Murugesan
Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
Monday, October 26, 2015, 3:01:56 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
> HI Daniel,
>
> You got a chance to re
From: Daniel Dekany
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):
your commits there.
> When you find time Kindly check and let me know if we can proceed?
>
> Pradeep.
>
>
>
>
> From: Pradeep Murugesan
> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 1:39 AM
> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousS
he 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: ddek...@freemail.hu
>> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
&g
me know if we can proceed?
Pradeep.
From: Pradeep Murugesan
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 1:39 AM
To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
Hi Daniel,
https://github.com/pradeepmurugesan/incubator-freemarker/commit/465ed1bd768e8a5bee91bea7d3b291
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: ddek...@freemail.hu
> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - pre
ent skipping few .
> Pradeep.
>> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:15:57 +0200
>> From: ddek...@freemail.hu
>> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>
>> Saturday, October 17, 2015, 7:09:49 PM, Pradeep Muruges
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: ddek...@freemail.hu
> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - pre
pecial 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: ddek...@freemail.hu
>> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Adding a
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: ddek...@freemail.hu
> >> To: de
; Pradeep.
>> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:32:33 +0200
>> From: ddek...@freemail.hu
>> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Adding a new BuiltIn - previousSibling
>>
>> Thursday, October 15, 2015, 4:13:18 PM, Pradeep Murugesan wrote:
>>
&g
e 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: ddek...@freemail.hu
> >> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
> &
use, if you have cdata, then surely you
don't want to say that is preceded bu , 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
2:40 +0200
> From: ddek...@freemail.hu
> To: dev@freemarker.incubator.apache.org
> 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? Tha
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
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 {
@Overr
47 matches
Mail list logo
