When PlantUML console tool encounters syntax error in a diagram it generates an image with error traceback like the following:
Is there a way to disable generating error images and possibly output the traceback into stderr instead?
I generate images from several source files with PlantUML CLI like this:
$ plantuml diag1.puml diag2.puml diag3.puml
Some of these diagrams may have faulty syntax, I need the faulty ones to be skipped.
I could parse the stderr and get faulty diagram names from there, but that's the last resort. I believe there should be a native option for mentioned behavior.
Update 07.07.2021
since Plantuml version 1.2021.8 there's a new option -noerror which does exactly this: skips faulty diagrams and writes info about errors in them into stderr.
$ plantuml -noerror diag1.puml diag2.puml diag3.puml
Error line 5 in file: diag2.puml
Some diagram description contains errors
only two images were generated.
Pro tip: Plantuml has a wonderful forum where creator promptly responds to all issues and pushes changes into the new version within few days.
Old answer
Seems that it's impossible in normal mode, but it is possible in -pipe mode. The sought paramter is -pipeNoStderr.
If you run PlantUML in pipe mode in console, you can type diagram code and after each diagram it will output the binary code for image right away. You can also use it in scripts to input code in stdin and get results in stdout.
You should run plantuml like this:
$ plantuml -pipe -pipeNoStderr -pipedelimitor ___sep___
Here:
-pipe means start plantuml in pipe mode. It will accept diagram code in stdin, immediately process it and return result in stdout in binary format;
-pipeNoStderr tells plantuml not to render error images. Instead it will return the error traceback in text format;
-pipedelimitor tells plantuml to add separators between diagrams if you send several diagram sources into the pipe. This way you can determine where one image ends and another starts;
___sep___ is a string which I've chosen for separator, it may be anything you like, but unique enough.
The pipe workflow enforced me to completely rewrite our tool that generates diagrams. Concrete examples in Python are out of the scope of this question, but general steps were:
Collect all diagram sources which you want to render.
Check that each source starts with #startuml and ends with #enduml (otherwise such faulty source may corrupt adjacent diagrams).
Put all sources into one string variable, separated by several newlines.
Run Plantuml subprocess in the pipe mode.
Feed the combined source string to it.
Get response from stdout and split it by the separator (___sep___ in my case)
Cycle through the result list and alert user about elements which start with ERROR and save in binary format elements which don't.
This article was of great help. It has an example project on JavaScript which solves the problem (unlike me) asynchronically.
Related
I am building a log parser for ProFTPD and have a question regarding the ExtendedLog config directive.
Official ProFTPD documentation has the following ExtendedLog spec:
ExtendedLog [ filename [[command-classes] format-nickname]]
There are a couple of valid command-classes, but they are mostly consisted of groups of commands. For me, this is a problem because if a user uploads large file and if there are many users and many uploads, a WRITE command in extended log occurs for portions of the actual upload, meaning if a file is large, for that file WRITE occurs many times. This may fill up the log space fairly easily for large uploads. In comparison to this, STOR command can be visible only at the end of the actual file upload.
I can't explicitly find WRITE as one of the commands in the write command class but I was wondering if there is a way to omit this specific WRITE command from log as I'm only interested in a portion of commands from the write command class. The commands that I'm particularly and only interested in logging are STOR, DELE and RMD.
Many thanks.
At the end I did not found any flags in ProFTPD that could handle this but rather implemented log rotation.
The log rotation restarts ProFTPD and sends interrupt to the log parser. Log parser then detects the interrupt, reads the current log file and then stops processing. Log rotate program then empties out the original log file.
We are using ClearCase UCM INTEROP setup in our organization.
We are facing a strange issue where the file content in put on one line while doing a merge and hence causing the build to fail.
Does anyone know why this is happening?
There is another thing that can sneak up and bite you here.
View text modes -- there are 3 for ClearCase, and you can get unexpected results if you use the wrong 2.
Those modes are:
insert_cr (also known as msdos). This inserts carriage returns on cleartext creation (file open/edit/etc.) and strips them at checkin.
transparent. Doesn't make any changes to the line terminations.
strip_cr. This converts Windows line terminations to Unix ones on cleartext creation. It then re-inserts them on checkin.
If you use strip_cr for unix views, and insert_cr for Windows ones, you will have all kinds of line termination issues. And in some cases this can break builds.
You need to use the 2 that are adjacent to one another on the list above. With Windows using either insert_cr and unix "transparent". Or Windows "transparent" and unix strip_cr.
You may want to look at the problem file in another editor (notepad++ is one that handles both line termination styles well) and see whether you have Unix or Windows line terminations.
It would also help to know the platform where the merge was attempted. If it was done on Windows, then #VoC's steps will work as they call the Windows GUI text merge tool. You may want to try the same thing using the Windows/Unix CLI merge tool (cleardiff) if the files are "text_file" elements. We have seen cases where the 2 CLI and GUI merge tools behave differently.
It depends on:
what "put on one line while doing a merge" means (extra line added, or the all text is in one line, which would mean \n isn't treated as a newline character)
the type of file being merge (text, xml, binary, ...), as the merge manager involved would differ.
Start by trying to reproduce the issue, as explained in this technote:
Copy the "base" version into base.txt.
Copy the "from" version into from.txt and copy the "to" version into to.txt.
Run the following command:
cleardiffmrg -out foo.out -base base.txt from.txt to.txt
See if ignoring whitespaces helps:
cleardiffmrg -blank_ignore -out foo.out -base base.txt from.txt to.txt.
Check your text modes associated with the view in which you are doing the merge.
Try and make sure the newline sequence used in both versions of the file is the same (\n for instance, both in Windows and Unix)
SITUATION:
My instructor for my micro-controller class refuses to save sample code to a text file and instead saves it to a word document file instead. When I open up the doc file and copy/paste the code into my IDE "CodeWarrior" it causes errors upon compile time.
I am having to rewrite all the code into a text editor and then copy/paste it into my IDE.
MY UNDERSTANDING:
I was told to always save code as a text file because when you save code as a word document file it will bring in unwanted characters when your copy/pasting the code into your IDE for compiling.
MY QUESTIONS TO YOU:
1.)
Can someone explain this dilemma to me so I can understand it better? I would like to present a better case next time when I receive errors and to also know more about what is happening.
2.)
Is it possible to write a script that will show me all the characters that are being copied and pasted into a file when the code is coming from a word document vs. a text file? In otherwords is there a program that will allow me to see what is going on between copying/pasting code from a word doc file versus a txt file?
Saving source code as a Word document is just silly. If your instructor is insisting on this, chances are no matter how well-reasoned and thorough your argument, they're not going to listen. They're beyond help.
However, to answer your questions: 1) It depends on what you're pasting the thing into. Programs that copy onto the clipboard usually make the data available in several different formats, ranging from their own internal format to plain ASCII text, to maximize compatibility so that the data can be pasted into pretty much any target program. Most text editors will only accept the plan-text version, in which case no extra characters should be transferred. However if your text editor supports RTF or HTML, this may not be true. I'm not sure what CodeWarrior supports but it is certainly possible.
A workaround if this is the case: First paste into a PURE text editor like Notepad. Then copy from Notepad into CodeWarrior. This should eliminate any hidden formatting. As shoover said above, make sure double-quotes " are really double-quotes and not the fancy left- and right-specific quotes that Word sometimes uses.
Use a hex editor like XVI32 to see the raw contents of the file, including nonprinting characters. Or use a text editor with support for showing nonprinting characters (vi/vim, etc.).
I'm studying C and I've just had the same problem. When coping a piece of code from a PDF file and trying to compiling it, gcc would return a serie of errors. Reading the answer above I had an idea: "What if I converted the utf8 into ascii?". Well, I found a website that does just that (https://onlineutf8tools.com/convert-utf8-to-ascii). But instead of also converting the utf8 characters into ascii, it showed them as hexadecimals (Copying from the website to the text editor you can see it better). From there i realised that the problem were mostly the quote marks "".
I then copied the ascii "translation" into my code editor (I must add that it worked fine with Sublime, while VScode read the same utf8 code as it was in the original file, even after cp from the website) and replaced all the hex with the actual ascii characters that were needed to compile the code properly. I used the function find and replace from my editor to do it. I must say that it wasn't very fast doing it. But I believe that in some cases, if the code you're trying to copying is too long, doing it the way I've just described could be faster than rewriting the entire code.
I'm trying to write a makefile to replace one of the scripts used in building a fairly large application.
The current script compiles one file at a time, and the primary reason for using make is to parallelise the build process. Using make -j 16 I currently get a factor of 4 speedup on our office server.
But what I've lost is some readability of the output. The compilation program for a file bundles up a few bits and pieces of work, including running custom pre-compilers, and running the gcc command. Each of these steps outputs some information, and I would prefer it to buffer the output from the command, and then show the whole lot in one go.
Is it possible to make make do this?
If you upgrade to GNU make 4.0, then you can use the built-in output synchronization feature to get what you want.
If you don't want to upgrade, then you'll have to modify each of your recipes to be wrapped with a small program that manages the output. Or you can set the SHELL variable to something that does it for you. Searching the internet should give you some examples.
A simple way to accomplish this is to send all the log output a to log directory with each file named, say:
log_file_20131104_12013478_b.txt // log_file_<date>_<time>_<sequence letter>.txt
and then simply cat them all together as your last make job in the dependency chain:
cat log_dir/log_file_20131104_12013478_*.txt > log_file_20131104_12013478.txt
With makepp this is the default behaviour as soon as you use -j. All the individual outputs (and entering dir messages) get collected and are output together as soon as the command terminates.
Basically I want to do a program almost like a keylogger. The thing is that I as network admin sometimes I don't remember what I did to a machine on certain case, or same times I make howto's and tutorials for linux. I want to record what have i done.
So basically the idea of this program is:
you type the name of the program, (I call it rat for the moment)
$ rat
Welcome everything from now on will be recorded
recording $ ls
file1 file2 file3
recording $ quit
Bye bye
Everything you do will go out to an xml file. Something like this
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8' ?>
<rat>
<command>
<input>ls</input>
<output>file1 file2 file3</output>
<err><err>
</command>
</rat>
i am doing some tests with fp_in = popen( input, "w");
and system, but first with popen i cant change directories and with "system i cant properly manage the input and output.
I was also checking if there is something I can do to bash like a plugin but haven't find any information.
At some points if feels like it I should create another shell (which is way beyond my current abilities) or fork bash sh. But it should been that complicated right.
I am open to suggestion where to start.
I am rusty with C, so I am reading again a lot of basic stuff.
With the xml file, later i was thinking on making a program to store this data and/or editing this data so i can create tutials and howto.
I can think of many ways of expanding this up to using printscreen so all the stored images go to a file you can upload to a server (for the moment i am glad to store the data). It could be a usefull tool.
ps. I do know this can be use for evil things too.
There already exists the script command, which will record all input and output into the terminal, writing it into a transcript. I would recommend just using that, unless you have particular needs that it doesn't meet. Actually, the nicest version of script that I've seen has been the NetBSD version, so you may want to look into that if the Linux version doesn't meet your needs.
If you would like to write it yourself, instead of using system, I would recommend that you use fork/exec to create a single shell process, which you copy all input and output into. To get an idea of how this works, I'd recommend looking at the source code for an existing version of script.
Most shells have a script built-in which will simply record the text in- and out- from the command line. Not quite what you're looking for... To my surprise script is not a built in, which means it is a model for building what you want.
The script command does almost what you want: it simply records the text in- and out- from the command line.
If you make your prompt distinctive (so that you can reliably tell the difference between shell commands and everything else) you can post-process the output of script to achieve your goals. Alternately you can hack script to get it to emit the XML you're looking for.
You can also try approaching this from a different angle. Instead of using a regular shell, connect to the machine using ssh or telnet and run your commands that way. Many ssh/telnet clients (PuTTY, for instance) have an option to log all console input and output during the session. You should be able to post-process this log to generate whatever type of logfile that you need.
Depending on your setup, you might not even have to use a second machine (you should be able to ssh into yourself).