So, I know it's possible to specify a specific javascript engine with react for server side rendering. I just can't seem to find any info on it. Here's a blurb from one of their Github issues that confirms that it's possible:
Have you tried running it with the V8 engine instead? The MS one can be flakey (we had similar issues with it but much early on in our dev cycle). The fact it works on 3 other enviros means there has to be a difference between those and the 4th one. Could be its got a different version IE on the production server for instance? Tricky one to track down hence switching to V8 might be a quicker option.
https://github.com/reactjs/React.NET/issues/188
Anyone know how to do this? I'm seeing inconsistencies between different machines and I think (like, 90%) the cause is different JS engines being used. I'd like to lock it down so only v8 gets used so things are consistent.
You need to call .SetAllowMsieEngine(false) on your ReactJS.NET configuration. For ASP.NET 4, that's in App_Start\ReactConfig.cs by default. For ASP.NET Core, it's in the UseReact call in Startup.cs.
This will force it to use V8, or throw an exception if it fails to load V8 (rather than falling back to MSIE). The most common issues is the ClearScript.V8 directory missing from bin. This should be automatically copied across for ASP.NET 4 sites, but for ASP.NET Core you need to manually modify your build to do it (see http://reactjs.net/2016/08/protected-memory-exceptions-and-dotnet-core.html)
Related
I'm developing an application in ReactJS where I quite often push new changes to the the application.
When the users load upp the application they do not always get the newest version of the application causing breaking changes and errors with the express backend I have.
From what I have researched you can invalidate the cache using "cache busting" or a similar method. Although from all the questions I have seen on stackoverflow they have no clear consensus on how to do it, and the latest update was sometime in 2017.
How would one in a modern day ReactJS application invalidate the browsers cache in an efficient and automatic way when deploying?
If it's relevant, I'm using docker and docker-compose to deploy my application
There's not one-fits-all solution. Pretty common is adding some random hash to the bundle file, which will cause browser to process the file again from server.
Something like: app.js?v=435893452 instead of app.js. Most modern bundle tools like Webpack can do all of that automatically but it's hard to give you direction without knowing your setup.
I have just started a new site where I am using 2sxc version 11.11.4 (started with 11.7.3 and upgraded to see if that would fix it). I have the data and views set up just like I have done on another site using version 10.25.2. On the newer version though, I'm unable to use the remove button/action. I did some searching and found a few references to adding lines to the web config file (https://github.com/2sic/2sxc/issues/1654, https://github.com/2sic/2sxc/issues/2205). I tried this and it worked great.
So, my question: will a fix be implemented for this or will we have to add these lines of code to the web config file on any site we use 2sxc on?
Also, could these lines of code affect any other DNN features, other modules, etc.?
I think you are talking about my solution here
https://github.com/2sic/2sxc/issues/2205#issuecomment-705647892
This is specific to a server where the WebDAV features have been added/enabled in Windows. I do not think its an issue that can or will be fixed in 2sxc.
I do know that it is safe to add those two items in web.config. All its doing is telling ASP.NET to NOT make WebDAV available in this application's (DNN's) context. I am not aware of any DNN feature or modules that need or use WebDAV. Its just something handed down from the server because its installed and its causing a weird change in behavior that makes the DELETE (and other) command types get ignored (IMHO, presumably because they are handled before they get to DNN).
I have a website on AppEngine that is 99% static. It is running on Python 2.7 runtime. Now the time has come to evolve this webapp, and since I have almost none Python code in it, I'd prefer to write it in Go instead.
Can I change runtime from Python 2.7 to Go, while keeping the project intact? Specifically, I want to keep the same app-ID, the same custom domain attached to it, the same SSL certificate, and so on.
What do I have to do in order to do that? I surely have to change runtime in the app.yaml. Is there anything else?
Bonus question: will such change happen without a downtime?
I'd be grateful for any links to documentation on exactly that (swapping runtime on a live app). I can't find any.
Specify a runtime as well as a new value for version. When deployed you'll have an older version that is Python and a newer version that is Go. There won't be any downtime (same as when deploying a newer version of Python).
Rather than trusting links/docs (that may be out of date or not 100% exactly what you're trying to do), why not create a new GAE-Std project for testing purposes and try it yourself. Having a GAE-Std test project is good for testing new function (especially by other testers who won't have access to the dev environ on your laptop).
The GAE services offer complete code isolation. So it should be possible to simply deploy a new version of the service, which can be written in a different language or even use a different GAE (standard/flex) environment. Personally I didn't go through a language change, but I did go through a split of a single-service app into a multi-service one, I see no reason for which the same principles wouldn't apply.
Maybe develop the new version as a separate app first, to be able to test it properly without risking an accidental impact on the old version and only after that bring the code as a new version in the old app. That'd be using the GAE project isolation. You can, in fact, test the entire version migration as a separate app if you so desire without even touching the existing app. I am using this technique - a separate app ID - to implement a staging environment for my app, completely isolated from my production app, see How to copy / clone entire Google App Engine Project
Make sure to not switch traffic to the new version at deployment time. This keeps the app working with the old version. Test first that the new version works as expected using Targeted routing. Then maybe use Splitting traffic across multiple versions to perform A/B testing with just a small percentage of the traffic going to the new version. Finally, when happy with the results, switch all traffic to the new version.
You need to pay special attention to the app-level configs (dispatch, cron, queue, datastore indexes), shared by all services/versions. They need to be functionally equivalent in the 2 versions. The service isolation doesn't apply to them, only project isolation can ensure no impact to the old version.
There should be no need to make any change to the app ID, custom domain mapping or SSL config. The above mentioned tests should confirm that.
A few potentially interesting posts related to re-working services/modules:
Converting App Engine frontend versions to modules
Google App Engine upgrading part by part
Migrating to app engine modules, test versions first?
Advantages of implementing CI/CD environments at GAE project/app level vs service/module level?
I have been looking at the various Meanstack frameworks out on the net - and whilst impressed with what they achieve I have one serious concern - the number of files used in a typical stack - meanstack.js uses over 15000 files whilst the bmean example has a modest 1900 in comparison.
The question I am asking myself is would I be happy to put my trust is such a system from a production view point - what happens when something goes wrong how easy is it going to be to find the answer? You can almost bet that when your most important customer logs on it is going to go haywire. Also what happens when Angular version 2 comes along it could require a complete rewrite but by then the stack your using has been customised and difficult to change?
Am I getting over concerned about the technology - my intended approach is to strip the client side code out of the bmean example and rewrite it with my own - at least that way I know (and control) what goes on in the client. Do you think this is the correct way to proceed?
With most systems there is a bit of preparation required before going to production. The same is true with mean.io (using multiple cpu's, improved aggregation, caching, etc etc)
The large number of files is essentially a product of the way npm handles dependencies. Each module is able to define independent versions of the same dependencies thus creating a bit of bloat but at the same time allowing a lot of flexability in nodejs code.
We currently have a number of mean.io projects in production phase and have been very happy with performance and the overall experience.
New releases of the project are scheduled every couple of months, upgrading should not be too much of a problem if you use the package system correctly.
Issues with the project are handled and managed through github issues additional support can be found on our irc (freenode #mean_io) channel as well as on facebook.
For commercial support have a look at the support page
I want to test my thick client against my RESTful appengine application. I regularly increment the appengine version number so I need to keep updating my test config. Is there the equivalent of http://latest.application.appspot.com that I could point my config too?
Thanks
Skirting around your question, but in my head, I've stopped thinking of the "version" in the typical software release version (which like you, I started out thinking), but rather, it's "a different application using the same datastore".
I found out the software release version (1.0, 1.1, 1.2 etc) doesn't make much sense because 1) I don't tend to use older versions 2) my main usage would be to regression test, but this doesn't work well, because it's quite possible for a change in your model in v1.1 to break the code in v1.0.
The versions feature comes in hand to have different functional versions. For example, maybe the default application.appspot.com runs production level code, but debug.application.appspot.com has more logging enabled. Perhaps a third version has administrator functionality enabled, etc.
No, there's no way to do this. Versions aren't sequenced - they're all entirely distinct deploys, only one of which is set as the default.
What you are likely looking for is the CURRENT_VERSION_ID environment variable. It stores the deployment revision as dot-separated string: version_name.deployment_revision, e.g. staging.12345678910111213141516. You could just use it directly in your config:
import os
API_VERSION = os.environ['CURRENT_VERSION_ID'].split('.')[1]