Hi, I am trying to build a template. The compilation of this template results in a weird exception. I have isolated the cause of the exception to the following point: If i have this in the template code: \[[!inline
pages="\"
template=extract-entry
\]]
There is no problem at all. I can use the template with the desired result. But if I try to use this (just adding the "show" parameter): \[[!inline
pages="\"
template=extract-entry
show=\
\]]
I get this exception on the Git bash console:
$ git push
Counting objects: 7, done.
Delta compression using up to 8 threads.
Compressing objects: 100% (4/4), done.
Writing objects: 100% (4/4), 410 bytes, done.
Total 4 (delta 3), reused 0 (delta 0)
remote: From /home/b-odelama-com/source
remote:    eb1421e..5e1bac5  master     -> origin/master
remote: Argument "\x{3c}\x{54}..." isn't numeric in numeric lt (<) at /usr/share/perl5/IkiWiki/Plugin/inline.pm line 231.
remote: Argument "\x{3c}\x{54}..." isn't numeric in numeric lt (<) at /usr/share/perl5/IkiWiki/Plugin/inline.pm line 231.
To ssh://b-odelama-com@odelama-com.branchable.com/
   eb1421e..5e1bac5  master -> master
Please, let me know what to do to avoid this kind of error. > When you add a template page `templates/foo.mdwn` for use > the [[ikiwiki/directive/template]] directive, two things happen: > > 1. `\[[!template id=foo ...]]` becomes available; > 2. a wiki page `templates/foo` is built, resulting in a HTML file, > typically `templates/foo/index.html` > > The warnings you're seeing are the second of these: when ikiwiki > tries to process `templates/foo.mdwn` as an ordinary page, without > interpreting the `` directives, `inline` receives invalid > input. > > This is a bit of a design flaw in [[plugins/template]] and > [[plugins/edittemplate]], I think - ideally it would be possible to > avoid parts of the page being interpreted when the page is being > rendered normally rather than being used as a template. > > There *is* a trick to avoid parts of the page being interpreted when > the page is being used as a template, while having them appear > when it's rendered as a page: > > > > \[[!meta robots="noindex,nofollow"]] > This template is used to describe a thing. Parameters: > * name: the name of the thing > * size: the size of the thing > > > The thing is called and its size is > > I suppose you could maybe extend that to something like this: > > > > \[[!meta robots="noindex,nofollow"]] > This template is used to describe a thing. Parameters: > * name: the name of the thing > * size: the size of the thing > > > > \[[!if test="included() and !included()" then=""" > > > The thing is called and its size is > > """]] > > > but that's far harder than it ought to be! > > Perhaps the right solution would be to change how the template plugin > works, so that templates are expected to contain a new `definetemplate` > directive: > > This template is used to describe a thing. Parameters: > * name: the name of the thing > * size: the size of the thing > > \[[!definetemplate """ > The thing is called and its size is > """]] > > with templates not containing a `\[[!definetemplate]]` being treated > as if the whole text of the page was copied into a `\[[!definetemplate]]`, > for backwards compatibility? > > --[[smcv]] >> OK, here is a branch implementing what I said. It adds the `definetemplate` >> directive to [[plugins/goodstuff]] as its last commit. >> >> Templates with the current strange semantics will still work, until >> IkiWiki breaks compatibility. >> >> Possible controversies: >> >> * Should the `definetemplate` plugin be core, or in goodstuff, or neither? >> >> * Should \[[!definetemplate]] be allowed on any page (with the implementation >> of `template("foo")` looking for a `definetemplate` in `templates/foo`, >> then a `definetemplate` in `foo`, then fall back to the current logic)? >> If not, should \[[!definetemplate]] raise an error when used on a page not >> in `templates/`, since it will have no practical effect there? >> >> * Is it OK to rely on `definetemplate` being enabled in the basewiki's >> templates? >> >> * Should the "use definetemplate" wording in the documentation of >> template and edittemplate be stronger? Should those plugins automatically >> load definetemplate? >> >> --[[smcv]] >>> this looks like a good idea to me. >>> >>> * i'd put it in core, and add a transition for the time compatibility gets >>> broken, provided the transitioning system will be used in that. templates >>> can't be expected to just work as markdown+ikiwiki too. >>> >>> (it being in core would also solve my qualms about `section => "web"` / >>> `\[[!tag type/web]]`). >>> >>> * if definetemplate gets deemed core, no "use definetemplate!" notes on the >>> template/edittemplate pages will be required any more. >>> >>> * first i was sceptical of the approach of re-running scan to make sure the >>> `my %templates` is filled, but it is indeed a practical solution. >>> >>> * the name "`definetemplate`" gives me the first impression that something >>> is assigned (as in `#define`), but actually it highlights a region in the >>> file. wouldn't "`templatebody`" be a better description of the meaning of >>> the directive? >>> >>> --[[chrysn]] >>>> Thanks for your feedback! >>>> Looking at its description on this wiki, I agree that `type/web` doesn't >>>> fit, and core does seem better. I like your `templatebody` suggestion, >>>> too, particularly if templates remain restricted to `/templates`. >>>> I'll try to come up with better wording for the documentation to say >>>> "use `templatebody`, like this", with a note about backwards >>>> compatibility later. >>>> >>>> Rationale for `my %templates`: yes it does seem a bit odd, but >>>> if I used `$pagestate{$tpage}{template}` instead of a `my` variable, >>>> I'd sometimes _still_ have to force a `scan`, because >>>> [[plugins/template]] has to expand the template at scan time so that >>>> it can contain links etc. - so I have to make sure that if the >>>> template has changed, it has already been scanned (scanning happens >>>> in random order, so that can't be guaranteed). This means there's >>>> no benefit in reading it back from the index, so it might as well >>>> just be in-memory. >>>> >>>> I suppose an alternative way to do it would be to remember what was >>>> passed to `needsbuild`, and only force a `scan` for templates that >>>> were in that list - which potentially reduces CPU time and I/O a >>>> little, in exchange for a bigger index. I could do that if Joey >>>> wants me to, but I think the current approach is simpler, >>>> so I'll stick with the current approach if it isn't vetoed. >>>> --[[smcv]] >>>>> @name: even outside `/templates`, `\[[!templatebody]]` would be >>>>> interpreted as "when this page is used as a template, this is what its >>>>> contents should be", and be suitable. >>>>> >>>>> @`%templates`: my surprise wasn't to it not being in `%pagestate`, but >>>>> rather that the `scan` function was used for it at all, rather than plain >>>>> directive parsing that ignores everything else -- but i agree that it's >>>>> the right thing to do in this situation. >>>>> >>>>> --[[chrysn]] >>>>>> [[!template id=gitbranch author="[[smcv]]" branch=smcv/ready/templatebody browse=http://git.pseudorandom.co.uk/smcv/ikiwiki.git/shortlog/refs/heads/ready/templatebody]] >>>>>> [[!tag patch]] >>>>>> Branch and directive renamed to `ready/templatebody` as chrysn suggested. >>>>>> It's on-by-default now (or will be if that branch is merged). >>>>>> Joey, any chance you could review this? >>>>>> >>>>>> There is one known buglet: `template_syntax.t` asserts that the entire >>>>>> file is a valid HTML::Template, whereas it would ideally be doing the >>>>>> same logic as IkiWiki itself. I don't think that's serious. --[[smcv]] >>>>>>> Looking over this, I notice it adds a hash containing all scanned >>>>>>> files. This seems to me to be potentially a scalability problem on >>>>>>> rebuild of a site with many pages. Ikiwiki already keeps a lot >>>>>>> of info in memory, and this adds to it, for what is a fairly >>>>>>> minor reason. It seems to me there should be a way to avoid this. --[[Joey]] >>>>>>>> Maybe. Are plugins expected to cope with scanning the same >>>>>>>> page more than once? If so, it's just a tradeoff between >>>>>>>> "spend more time scanning the template repeatedly" and >>>>>>>> "spend more memory on avoiding it", and it would be OK to >>>>>>>> omit that, or reduce it to a set of scanned *templates* >>>>>>>> (in practice that would mean scanning each template twice >>>>>>>> in a rebuild). --s