so I'm having this issue where whenever I run the hugo command, only part of my website gets generated. I don't have empty files, they all have some content within. I would like to note that the specific section that isn't getting compiled is the faq section. any suggestions as to how I may fix this?
Site Structure
Generated files
The bug was caused by hugo not recognizing the layout. Although I haven't found a way to fix it, I somewhat patched it by using the default layout for the page given that I had layouts for all other pages.
Related
We have a DNN site and I noticed on our home page that the dev tools show an error with an events.js file that is trying to call "analytics.tiktok.com". It is being blocked. I don't know if this is purposeful and I've searched our DNN modules code but haven't found an such reference.
The other devs can confirm they haven't added such code. I've searched the code folders for a file named events.js but haven't found one. I'm aware that DNN has large portions of it that are data driven but I don't know what tables to query to see if there's code that has that URL.
Is anyone aware if DNN or kendo controls has an references to tiktok?
It is definitely not part of DNN.
Another place to look for these calls are the skin (theme) controls in use, or the default.aspx. Anyway, if no one is aware of this stuff, I would check if you have a security hole (old Telerik libraries, unsafe passwords in FTP accounts...)
I would start by looking at the location in which that is embedded into the source of your webpage. Depending on where it is, that might help you track down "where" it is coming from.
It could be coming from inside source for a module, in the content of a module, in module settings, in a container, in a skin/theme, etc.
I have deployed my react project to GitHub pages. Also, I want to upload the original code to another branch, thereby share the code link and deployed link separately in Linkedin. But when I'm doing this, only HTML is showing as 100% in the languages.
Should I upload the code and the deploying one separately in 2 repositories? How can I solve that language error?
From your question what I understood is, if you want to share your code just make the code branch default one, not the build branch. That should take care of the problem.
And unfortunately, GitHub language option is by default. You can't do anything about it.
I tried to find what these files are used for, but couldn't find anything.
I'm making a theme for Hugo and wanted to know they are required.
Also if they are required what is their purpose?
The files I'm asking about:
themes\[THEME]\_default\list.html
and
themes\[THEME]\_default\section.html
So I found the information that I was searched for, and probably should've waited before asking, but since I already asked let me answer it for the other people.
list.html is used by Hugo to generate a page that displays a list of the pages inside the content folder. It is not required for Hugo to work, but another page would have to replace it. Most commonly this would be index.html in the layouts folder.
section.html I'm still not really sure what this is used for, but it is not required. There is a way to make a separate list.html files for a specific folders in the contents folder, but I still haven't checked out all the details about this.
I found this tutorials on YouTube by Mike Dane which may be useful although they are pretty old.
Currently i am trying to migrate an extjs 5 application to 6.2.
It was a tough time but after couple of hours it runs fine. Also sencha app build works fine with the default configuration. Application works fine.
But we have to change the path to the generated html file. We are doing some processing in our framework and add variables to the extjs index.html
Our file structure looks like
/
/my/app/index.html (generated by server, should load the bootloader from extjs)
/compiled/extjs-app/X.all-extjs-production-build-files.X // like app.json, cache.appcache etc
The problem is that i can't make the micro loader working with this structure. I tried several setting within the app.json in my application workspace but nothing worked. Was tweaking the output.base, output.page.path variables and so on. Trying with included and external microloader but can't get it to work. Was already having difficulties with extjs 5 but now it seems even more unhandy as the whole caching come into play. The documentation on this topic is poor. I think a lot of people generate their application html page over a server side language and then use the loader to make their app working. Why can't we just specify a local path to store the files and independently define a "path" for loading. This would be used by the micro loader to generate the required paths?!
My impression is that the microloader is not aware of the paths. Based on the html page url he tries to determine the resources paths. I was trying a lot and have no further idea.
Has someone solved this struggle? Any hint would be highly welcome.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Note: This question will be changed to eliminate old question with lower rating.
I see AngularJS console errors as follows:
Lexer Error: Unexpected next character at columns 0-0 [#] in expression [#].
The problem now is how to locate the source of this error among thousands of lines of code?
Old Question:
NOTE: This is the old question, please ignore.
I was working with a sample application from ng-flow file upload. I then moved the developed parts to my colleague's environment who is using bootstrap for CSS. I noticed that the look and feel changed on from his environment.
I realized that my colleague is using this css file:
http://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.3.7/css/bootstrap.min.css
and I am using the css file the came with the download:
http://netdna.bootstrapcdn.com/twitter-bootstrap/2.3.2/css/bootstrap-combined.min.css
and both work fine, but they have clear differences on how the look and feel and how layout is presented.
I included both, and it seems the application is still working fine, and the look and feel is now merged.
I am just wondering if there is documentation that explains the differences and how to decide which one to use.
Appreciate your feedback.
The reason they look different is that they're referring to different versions of Bootstrap - version 3.3.7 vs version 2.3.2. (The other difference is where the files are hosted.) 3.3.7 is more recent than 2.3.2.
Generally, you want to use the most recent version available for whatever libraries you're including, unless you need to stay compatible with an older one. You shouldn't include both, though; that's going to have your users downloading a lot of redundant css.