The goal is to run the build_website.sh script in the doc/ dir
(for local testing purposes only, not on the server)
added to doc/.gitignore because:
/broken_links
the linkchecker generates it
/documentation
symlink to ./ to fix links
/css
/js
/page.conf
/images
symlink to some local copy of the
lumiera-website checked out
/menu.html
fill with (to create a fake empty page):
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
<TITLE>no menu</TITLE>
.*
*~
ignore hidden and backup files
Then from the 'doc' dir:
python -m SimpleHTTPServer 8010 &
echo http://localhost:8010 >.baseurl
/path/to/build_website.sh
to generate the documentation. Other build_website.sh options work as well.
Paragraph ordering was somewhat confusing: you talk about
transport controls before defining what they actually are. Better
to define them first so that the reader knows what you are talking
about.
The important page on contacting Lumiera was buried below
somewhere in Contributing to Lumiera. This information must
be provided top-level and easily accessible. So I've added it,
maybe not terribly suitably, to the tutorials page. However its
position there is saved and justified by placing it under the
tutorial on contributing to Lumiera.
Maybe someone has a better idea.
Greedy wildcard match .+ is unnecessary, since in case of a positive match,
the next given expression always follows immediately. We just want to skip
over some "syntactic noise"
This change makes the matching time linear in the size of the log.
But unfortunately, I still occasionally see an Segmentation Fault.
It seems to arise when compiling the regular expresions
e.g. the following RegExps cashed (right in the middle of the test)
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 57 ≺358.gen010≻.+?mut.+?53 of 57 ≺358.gen010≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?358.+?emu.+?53 of 57 ≺358.gen010≻
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 63 ≺178.gen028≻.+?mut.+?53 of 63 ≺178.gen028≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?178.+?emu.+?53 of 63 ≺178.gen028≻
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 59 ≺498.gen038≻.+?mut.+?53 of 59 ≺498.gen038≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?498.+?emu.+?53 of 59 ≺498.gen038≻
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 60 ≺223.gen003≻.+?mut.+?53 of 60 ≺223.gen003≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?223.+?emu.+?53 of 60 ≺223.gen003≻
after.+?_ATTRIBS_.+?ins.+?53 of 78 ≺121.gen015≻.+?mut.+?53 of 78 ≺121.gen015≻.+?ins.+?borgID.+?121.+?emu.+?53 of 78 ≺121.gen015≻
right now this will just end up in the log, since not even the
notification display is implemented beyond the GuiNotification-facade.
Anyway, we get some kind of communication now for real, in the actual application
...because due of #211, we usually don't execute commands yet.
For now there is only the backdoor to prefix the command-ID with "test"
With this change, the TODO message appears now immediately after GUI start!
In the end, I decided against building a generic service here,
since it pretty much looks like a one-time problem.
Preferrably UI content will be pushed or pulled on demand,
rather than actively coding content from within the UI-Layer
- activation signal is a facility offered and used solely by Gtk::Application
- we do not need nor want an Gtk::Application, we deal with our own application
concerns as we see fit.
Gio::Application holds a signal_activation(), which seems to be used for
precisely that task we need here: to do something right after the UI is operative
...and while doing so, also re-check the state of the GTK toolkit initialisation.
Looks like we're still future-proof, while cunningly avoiding all this
Gnome-style "Application" blurb
I will abandon work on the ViewSpec DSL in current shape (everything fine with that)
and instead work on a general UI start-up and content population sequence.
From there, my intention is to return to the docks, the placement of views
and then finally to the TimelineView
This finishes the first round of design drafts in this area.
Right now it seems difficult to get any further, since most of
the actual view creation and management in the UI is not yet coded.
looks like I'm trapped with the choice between a convoluted API design
and an braindead and inefficient implementation. I am leaning towards the latter
looks like we're hitting a design mismatch here....
...and unfortunately I have to abandon this task now and concentrate
on preparation of my talk at LAC.2018 in June
it seems apropriate to move the base definition of gui::idi::Descriptor<VIEW>
into view-spec-dsl.hpp and only retain the actual DSL definitions in id-scheme.hpp
this is a (hopefully just temporary) workaround to deal with static initialisation
ordering problems. The original solution was cleaner from a code readability viewpoint,
however, when lib::Depend was used from static initialisation code, it could
be observed that the factory constructor was invoked after first use.
And while this did not interfer with the instance lifecycle management itself,
because the zero-initialisation of the instance (atomic) pointer did happen
beforehand, it would discard any special factory functions installed from such
a context (and this counts as bug for my taste).
indicates rather questionable behaviour.
The standard demands a templated static field to be defined before first odr-use.
IIRC, it even demands a static field to be initialised prior to use in a ctor.
But here the definition of the templated static member field is dropped off even after
the definition of another static field, which uses the (templated) Front-end-class
in its initialiser.
The boost::hash documentation does not mention a significant change in that area,
yet the frequent collisions on identifiers with number suffix do not occur anymore
in Boost 1.65
seemingly this code was brittle: GCC-7 treats int64_t as long,
which leads to preferring the template specialisation over the
explicit version of the operator* -- which means the template
instantiation invokes itself.
This warning is only relevant when object files compile with and without
C++17 language level are to be linked into a single executable; starting
with C++17, new style 'noexcept' specifications will become part of the
function signature and thus part of the mangled function name. Linkiing
mixed object files might fail in such a situation.
Obviously this warning is not relevant for us; moreover we plan to
upgrade to C++17 soon
On rare occasions, the test thread itself consumes faster than the producer threads feed new test data.
Make sure the test does not hangin such a situation
The original goal for #1129 (ViewSpecDSL_test) is impossible to accomplish,
at least within our existing test framework. Thus I'll limit myself to coding
a clean-room integration test with purely synthetic DSL definitions and mock widgets
usually the ID is hard coded, but when re-throwing errors, it might be
from "somewhere else", which means it is possibly a NULL ptr.
In those cases we fall back to the cannonical ID of the error class.
...still quite braindead, but allows at least to cover the standard case as well.
A better mock element access service would at least traverse a GenNode-Tree,
and thus emulate the behaviour of the real service; yet both seems way beyond
scope right now, and all I need is some basic coverage of the Interface
