My Illustrator ExtendScript produces some XML files and I need to call an executable file WITH these files as parameters at the end of Main(). The solutions I've found have been disappointing at best.
Currently my solution without parameters is just
if (confirm("Would you like to open the NineGridViewer utility?", false)) {
// Temporary: prompt user to manually find path to executable
File.openDialog( 'Select path for NineGridViewer utility executable file.', '*.exe' ).execute();
}
I understand that I could produce a file which contains the .\executable [params] that I want and call that file as an executable. But I'd really like a nicer solution if possible.
Edit: This post and page 180 of this documentation reference a system class with convenient methods that do exactly what I need. But the interpreter seems to have no clue what I'm talking about when I use that. What am I misunderstanding here?
Related
Sorry for this beginner question, I never used js server-side before.
here is my problem:
I have some javascript downloaded from a remote page (it's encrypted, I can't convert it to php), I need to execute it and read its output.
How can I do it? I'm thinking about something like this:
shell_exec('nodejs code...')
but how to pass the code? It's quite long, about 10 lines of javascript.
Another way would be to store the js to a file and run nodejs script.js, but that would be a useless and slow disk IO...
Important caveat about using exec/shell_exec
I feel the need to prepend a caveat about security to this answer. Always be careful when using exec or shell_exec. You almost always should not be taking data over the network to inject into a shell command for security reasons. Writing the script to a file would be much safer because there is no risk of command injection. If you are confident that this approach is required then I strongly advise you to.
Use the PHP function escapeshellcmd which will try to escape shell control characters.
Really ask yourself how much you trust the source? And how much you trust their security?
Having said that. Here's my original answer to the question as asked:
It sounds like the missing piece for your puzzle is the -e parameter for node. This will allow you to pass a script as part of the command invocation.
E.g.
C:\Users\Cmonahan>node -e "console.log('hello world');"
hello world
You can then use PHP exec or shell exec to get the output.
More information:
PHP shell_exec() vs exec()
Node CLI documentation
Edit: Regarding passing multiline arguments to the command line. This can be a bit of a minefield. For example: It depends on whether it is a Unix-like or Windows environment and then, if Unix-like, what shell is parsing the command.
See for example:
Windows: How to specify multiline command on command prompt?
End of line (new line) escapes in bash
I would recommend just making sure the argument is a single line. In the case of JS you can try minification first, which typically strips out all newlines, and see if that works for you.
Here's a popular PHP based minifier https://github.com/mrclay/minify I believe you should be able to install via composer.
dont know am not that at home with php, with isnt it true that php serves html files to the user at home, so why would it be any different from using a javascript file in a normal html page?
cant you just use:<script src="myscripts.js"></script>"
or <script>"with here your script"</script>
in the file that need to load this javascript?
Uncompressed jQuery file: http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.0.3.js
jQuery Source code: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/core.js
What are they doing to make it seem like the final output is not using Require.js under the hood? Require.js examples tells you to insert the entire library into your code to make it work standalone as a single file.
Almond.js, a smaller version of Require.js also tell you to insert itself into your code to have a standalone javascript file.
When minified, I don't care for extra bloat, it's only a few extra killobytes (for almond.js), but unminified is barely readable. I have to scroll all the way down, past almond.js code to see my application logic.
Question
How can I make my code to be similar to jQuery, in which the final output does not look like a Frankenweenie?
Short answer:
You have to create your own custom build procedure.
Long answer
jQuery's build procedure works only because jQuery defines its modules according to a pattern that allows a convert function to transform the source into a distributed file that does not use define. If anyone wants to replicate what jQuery does, there's no shortcut: 1) the modules have to be designed according to a pattern which will allow stripping out the define calls, and 2) you have to have a custom conversion function. That's what jQuery does. The entire logic that combines the jQuery modules into one file is in build/tasks/build.js.
This file defines a custom configuration that it passes to r.js. The important option are:
out which is set to "dist/jquery.js". This is the single
file produced by the optimization.
wrap.startFile which is set to "src/intro.js". This file
will be prepended to dist/jquery.js.
wrap.endFile which is set to "src/outro.js". This file will
be appended to dist/jquery.js.
onBuildWrite which is set to convert. This is a custom function.
The convert function is called every time r.js wants to output a module into the final output file. The output of that function is what r.js writes to the final file. It does the following:
If a module is from the var/ directory, the module will be
transformed as follows. Let's take the case of
src/var/toString.js:
define([
"./class2type"
], function( class2type ) {
return class2type.toString;
});
It will become:
var toString = class2type.toString;
Otherwise, the define(...) call is replace with the contents of the callback passed to define, the final return statement is stripped and any assignments to exports are stripped.
I've omitted details that do not specifically pertain to your question.
You can use a tool called AMDClean by gfranko https://www.npmjs.org/package/amdclean
It's much simpler than what jQuery is doing and you can set it up quickly.
All you need to do is to create a very abstract module (the one that you want to expose to global scope) and include all your sub modules in it.
Another alternative that I've recently been using is browserify. You can export/import your modules the NodeJS way and use them in any browser. You need to compile them before using it. It also has gulp and grunt plugins for setting up a workflow. For better explanations read the documentations on browserify.org.
never done this before.
I'm using https://github.com/codius/codius-host. Codiu§ development has been abandoned, but I want to salvage part of it to use for my own project. I really need to be able to run codius commands from browser, so I need to develop a library or what you call it.
var codius = require('codius')
codius.upload({host: http://contract.host}
codius-host comes packed with command-line integration,
$ CODIUS_HOST=https://codius.host codius upload
How do I make a .js script do what the command-line command does ?
also posted on https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31126511/if-i-have-a-npm-tool-that-uses-comman-line-commands-how-can-i-create-a-javascri
hard time asking this questions since don't know where to start. help.
Assuming that you have access to the codius-host source code you should find the piece of code which manages the command line arguments. I am sure that they do handle the command and the command line arguments from an entry module/function and than later delegate the real job to a different module/function. What you need to do is to provide correct parameters to the functions which the function/module that handles command line argument calls with command line parameters.
In addition to that there are some nodejs libraries that might imitate a command line call from the program itself. One of those I know is shelljs:
https://www.npmjs.com/package/shelljs
You might want to check this out as well. With this one without bothering with the source code you might be able to imitate command line behaviour.
Using Google Closure Compiler to minify a bunch of javascripts. Now I'd like to also add source maps to those to debug out in the wild.
Thing is, I want to keep the original (and preferrably also the map files) on a completely different place, like another server. I've been looking for a solution to this, and found out about the sourceRoot parameter. But it seems as it's not supported?
Also found this --source_map_location_mapping parameter, but no documentation whatsoever. Seems as it wants a pipe-delimited argument (filesystem-path|webserver-path). Tried a couple of different approaches to this, like local filename|remote url but without prevail. That just gives me No such file or directory and java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
Has anyone succeeded to place the minified/mapped source files on a remote machine?
Or does anyone know of any documentation for --source_map_location_mapping?
Luckily Google Closure Compiler's source code is available publicly
https://gist.github.com/lydonchandra/b97b38e3ff56ba8e0ba5
REM --source_map_location_mapping is case SENSITIVE !
REM need extra escaped double quote --source_map_location_mapping="\"C:/tools/closure/^|httpsa://bla/\"" as per http://stackoverflow.com/a/29542669
java -jar compiler.jar --compilation_level=SIMPLE_OPTIMIZATIONS --create_source_map=C:\tools\closure\latest\maplayer.js.map --output_wrapper "%output%//# sourceMappingURL=maplayer.js.map" --js=C:\tools\closure\mapslayer.js --js_output_file=maplayer.min.js --source_map_location_mapping="\"C:/tools/closure/^|httpsa://bla/\""
The flag should be formatted like so:
--source_map_location_mapping=foo/|http://bar
The flag should be repeated if you need multiple locations:
--source_map_location_mapping=foo/|http://bar --source_map_location_mapping=xxx/|http://yyy
But what I expect that you are running into is that the "|" might be interpreted by your command shell. For example:
echo --source_map_location_mapping=foo/|http://bar
-bash: http://bar: No such file or directory
(The choice to use "|" was unfortunate). Make sure it is escaped appropriately. like:
--source_map_location_mapping="foo/|http://bar"
I submitted a pull request to report an error for badly formatted flag values:
https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/pull/620
which will at least you know that your flag value is incorrect (so you won't see the out of bounds exception).
John is correct functionality-wise, but I think I can clear it up a bit (as this was super confusing for me to get working).
I suspect many people have the same issue as I:
source map urls are generated relative to your current directory
they don't necessarily match up to relative urls on your website/server
Even if they did match up directly, the strangely-defined pseudo-spec found here means that Chrome/Firefox are going to try to load your paths relative to your sourcemap. i.e. the browser loads /assets/sourcemaps/main.map, sees assets/js/main.js, and loads /assets/sourcemap/assets/js/main.js (yay). (Or it might be relative to the original js file actually, I just happened to have them in the same directory).
Let's use the above example. Say we have assets/js/main.js in our sourcemap, and want to make sure that loads mywebsite.com/assets/js/main.js. To do this, you'd pass the option:
--source_map_location_mapping="assets|/assets"
Like John mentioned, quotes are important, and repeat the arg multiple times for multiple options. The prefixed / will let Firefox/Chrome know you want it relative to your website root. (If you're doing this in something like grunt-closure-tools you'll need to escape more:
config:{
source_map_location_mapping:"\"assets|/assets\"",
}
This way, we can essentially map any given sourcemap path to any given website path. It's not really a perfect replacement for some sort of closure source root, but it does let you map each section of your sources individually to their own roots, so it's not that bad a compromise, and does give some additional flexibility (i.e. you could specify some cdn paths for some of your assets but not for other).
An additional thing you might find helpful, you can automatically add the sourceMappingURL via an output_wrapper. (Though, if you want the ability to debug in production, you should probably prefer some ability to make the server return X-Sourcemap: blah.js.map headers instead, inaccessible by the public)
--output_wrapper="(function(){%output%}).call(this); //# sourceMappingURL=/assets/js/my_main_file.js.map"
jade permits you to simply write
include folder/file
to include code from another file.
Is it possible to add simply cut - copy style code from another file in node for javascript files?
Its for development purpose, to isolate some code and work on it seperately.
PS:- I'm aware of require('jsfile.js') and export.x = function(){..
The accepted answer is wrong.
Depending on whether node fs and eval were available at the time this question was written, the accepted answer was probably always wrong.
While not recommended, what you want to do is essentially possible:
Use node's built-in filesystem functions to read the file you want to "copy-paste" into the current file.
Use eval() to "paste" that file into your current file and run it as if it was part of the current file.
https://github.com/dennishall/node-require-without-require
Update 6 Oct 2020: Embarrassingly, the answer I've provided below is false.
I am not certain what were the circumstances for my writings below, as I was familiar with eval at the time (and a very long time before then), however, it is what it is :)
Read the answer that #Dennis wrote for the correct one.
You cannot merge (or include) a script file into another script file during runtime. Utilizing require is your best option to separate your application logic into multiple files.
JavaScript is an object oriented language, and what you are asking for is a solution to a problem that exists in procedural programming languages.
I suggest that you design your application in such a way that would allow you to separate its files into object types that take on different responsibilities instead of treating each file as a script within some global state.
To answer your other question, Jade is actually parsing its source files and therefore can provide its own file merging. If we apply this to our scenario, Jade is to jade source files as V8 is to JavaScript source files. Since the jade language is procedural, it makes sense to allow this kind of feature where in JavaScript (which is object oriented) it doesn't.