Search Results

Search found 13817 results on 553 pages for 'browser sniffing'.

Page 83/553 | < Previous Page | 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90  | Next Page >

  • How to replace href using javascript regex in Firefox?

    - by Andrei
    I try to change some links on a webpage using the following code for jQuery on Rails $(function () { $('#lesson a').live('click', function () { $.getScript(this.href.replace(/^(http...[^\/]+)?\/+(.*)$/,'/ajax/\\$2')); return false; }); }) This trick works for Chrome and Safari, but fails (nothing happens on click) for Firefox and Opera. What can be wrong with the code? EDIT1: The webpage contains: <div id="lesson"> <a href="/subj1">Subject 1</a> ... </div> On click, a browser (i.e. Firefox and Opera) should make an ajax-request of /ajax/subj1.

    Read the article

  • Can you tell me why my webpage displays differently in IE and how to fix it.

    - by b-rad
    I've been browsing through all of the CSS related cross-browser questions trying to troubleshoot my IE styling issues with no luck. Can anyone tell me how to fix my homepage styles so that it displays the same in IE as it currently does in Firefox? I've used Firebug (probably why it looks good in Firefox) but I can't find any tools for IE that will let me change the stylesheet real time. I'm just as interested in the process of figuring out this answer as I am in the answer itself so posting the steps you took to figure it out would be beneficial. (want to be able to do this myself next time!!!) Website is AppQandA.com. Scroll down to the bottom in IE and notice the footer. It's not like this on every page.....just the main page and the questions page.

    Read the article

  • Javascript form validation only works in firefox

    - by Logic Artist
    Hello, I am relatively new to Javascript so I'm hoping this is a simple mistake. I building a generic form validation function that is called on the form's onSubmit. The function loops through all the form's child elements, looks for certain classes, and analyzes the contents of the appropriate fields. If it finds something missing or erroneous, it displays the appropriate error message div and returns false, thus preventing the form from being submitted to the php page. It works well in firefox 3.6.3, but in every other browser I've tested (Safari 4.0.4, Chrome 4.1, IE8) it seems to ignore the onSubmit and jump straight to the php processing page. HTML CODE: <form name='myForm' id='myForm' action='process_form.php' method='post' onSubmit="return validateRequired('myForm')"> <fieldset class="required radioset"> <label for='selection1'> <input type='radio' name='selection' id='selection1' value='1'/> Option 1 </label> <label for='selection2'> <input type='radio' name='selection' id='selection2' value='2'/> Option 2 </label> <label for='selection3'> <input type='radio' name='selection' id='selection3' value='3'/> Option 3 </label> <label for='selection4'> <input type='radio' name='selection' id='selection4' value='4'/> Option 4 </label> <div class='errorBox' style='visibility:hidden'> Please make a selection </div> </fieldset> <fieldset class="required checkset"> <label> Choice 1 <input type='checkbox' name='choices' id='choice1' value='1'/> </label> <label> Choice 2 <input type='checkbox' name='choices' id='choice2' value='2'/> </label> <label> Choice 3 <input type='checkbox' name='choices' id='choice3' value='3'/> </label> <label> Choice 4 <input type='checkbox' name='choices' id='choice4' value='4'/> </label> <div class='errorBox' style='visibility:hidden'> Please choose at least one </div> </fieldset> <fieldset class="required textfield" > <label for='textinput1'> Required Text: <input type='text' name='textinput1' id='textinput1' size='40'/> </label> <div class='errorBox' style='visibility:hidden'> Please enter some text </div> </fieldset> <fieldset class="required email textfield"> <label for='email'> Required Email: <input type='text' name='email' id='email' size='40'/> </label> <div class='errorBox' style='visibility:hidden'> The email address you have entered is invalid </div> </fieldset> <div> <input type='submit' value='submit'> <input type='reset' value='reset'> </div> </form> JAVASCRIPT CODE: function validateRequired(id){ var form = document.getElementById(id); var errors = 0; var returnVal = true; for(i = 0; i < form.elements.length; i++){ var elem = form.elements[i]; if(hasClass(elem,"required")){ /*RADIO BUTTON or CHECK BOX SET*/ if(hasClass(elem,"radioset") || hasClass(elem,"checkset")){ var inputs = elem.getElementsByTagName("input"); var check = false; for(j = 0; j < inputs.length; j++){ if(inputs[j].checked){ check = true; } } if(check == false){ errors += 1; showError(elem); } else { hideError(elem); } } /*TEXT FIELD*/ else if(hasClass(elem,"textfield")){ var input = elem.getElementsByTagName("input"); if(input[0].value == ""){ errors += 1; showError(elem); } else { hideError(elem); /*EMAIL ADDRESS*/ if(hasClass(elem,"email")){ if(isValidEmail(input[0].value) == false){ errors += 1; showError(elem); } else { hideError(elem); } } } } } } if(errors > 0){ returnVal = false; } else { returnVal = true; } return returnVal;} I know this is a lot of code to look at, but any help would be appreciated. Since it works fine in one browser, Im not sure how to start debugging. Thanks Andrew

    Read the article

  • How to automate IE/Firefox to download some files from a https: website with Javascript links?

    - by Horace Ho
    Some of my users download several pdf files from an internet website regularly. They'd like to automate the process to save a few minutes every day, and most importantly, to minimize errors. I tried mechanize but failed as mechanize does not process javascripts. Since the download links in the remote site are all triggered by javescript, I am looking for solutions to automate the browser itself. Any recommendations? https remote server login and search are FORM POST file download link are JavaScripts on win32 IE or Firefox thanks!

    Read the article

  • WebGL on older Mac OS X versions (say 10.4)

    - by rotoglup
    Not really a programming related question but... I'd like very much to experiment with WebGL on my spare time. My current 'spare time' machine is a MacBook running Mac OS X Tiger (10.4.xx) and I'm unable to find a new browser supporting this OS. Firefox dropped support, Chrome too, and Safari idem. I read somewhere that this is due to a Quicktime bug that Apple won't fix. Does anyone have more information on this issue ? Does anyone have a clue or track to find a running implementation of WebGL on Mac OS X 10.4 ? Cheers,

    Read the article

  • require.js - How can I set a version on required modules as part of the URL?

    - by Ovesh
    I am using require.js to require JS modules in my application. I need a way to bust client cache on new JS modules, by way of a different requested URL. i.e., if the file hello/there.js has already been cached on the client, I can change the file name to force the browser to get the new file. In other words, for the module hello/there, I'd like require.js to request the url hello/there___v1234___.js (the file name can look different, it's just an example), according to a version string which is accessible on the client. What is the best way to achieve that?

    Read the article

  • centering image in div

    - by Harsh Reddy
    I have a square <div> (70px x 70px) which will contain an image of a variable dimensions(Square, landscape or potrait). I want this image to be symmetrically centered inside the <div>. how do I get it..? <div class="img-polaroid" style="width: 70px; height: 70px; background-color: black; text-align:center;"> <image src='.base_url("images/store/images/".$image->image).' /> </div> The actual size of the image can be greater than 70px x 70px. But it should fit symmetrically in the center. I also have to make it cross-browser compatible.. Help Appreciated...

    Read the article

  • Integrating JavaScript Unit Tests with Visual Studio

    - by Stephen Walther
    Modern ASP.NET web applications take full advantage of client-side JavaScript to provide better interactivity and responsiveness. If you are building an ASP.NET application in the right way, you quickly end up with lots and lots of JavaScript code. When writing server code, you should be writing unit tests. One big advantage of unit tests is that they provide you with a safety net that enable you to safely modify your existing code – for example, fix bugs, add new features, and make performance enhancements -- without breaking your existing code. Every time you modify your code, you can execute your unit tests to verify that you have not broken anything. For the same reason that you should write unit tests for your server code, you should write unit tests for your client code. JavaScript is just as susceptible to bugs as C#. There is no shortage of unit testing frameworks for JavaScript. Each of the major JavaScript libraries has its own unit testing framework. For example, jQuery has QUnit, Prototype has UnitTestJS, YUI has YUI Test, and Dojo has Dojo Objective Harness (DOH). The challenge is integrating a JavaScript unit testing framework with Visual Studio. Visual Studio and Visual Studio ALM provide fantastic support for server-side unit tests. You can easily view the results of running your unit tests in the Visual Studio Test Results window. You can set up a check-in policy which requires that all unit tests pass before your source code can be committed to the source code repository. In addition, you can set up Team Build to execute your unit tests automatically. Unfortunately, Visual Studio does not provide “out-of-the-box” support for JavaScript unit tests. MS Test, the unit testing framework included in Visual Studio, does not support JavaScript unit tests. As soon as you leave the server world, you are left on your own. The goal of this blog entry is to describe one approach to integrating JavaScript unit tests with MS Test so that you can execute your JavaScript unit tests side-by-side with your C# unit tests. The goal is to enable you to execute JavaScript unit tests in exactly the same way as server-side unit tests. You can download the source code described by this project by scrolling to the end of this blog entry. Rejected Approach: Browser Launchers One popular approach to executing JavaScript unit tests is to use a browser as a test-driver. When you use a browser as a test-driver, you open up a browser window to execute and view the results of executing your JavaScript unit tests. For example, QUnit – the unit testing framework for jQuery – takes this approach. The following HTML page illustrates how you can use QUnit to create a unit test for a function named addNumbers(). <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <head> <title>Using QUnit</title> <link rel="stylesheet" href="http://github.com/jquery/qunit/raw/master/qunit/qunit.css" type="text/css" /> </head> <body> <h1 id="qunit-header">QUnit example</h1> <h2 id="qunit-banner"></h2> <div id="qunit-testrunner-toolbar"></div> <h2 id="qunit-userAgent"></h2> <ol id="qunit-tests"></ol> <div id="qunit-fixture">test markup, will be hidden</div> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://code.jquery.com/jquery-latest.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://github.com/jquery/qunit/raw/master/qunit/qunit.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> // The function to test function addNumbers(a, b) { return a+b; } // The unit test test("Test of addNumbers", function () { equals(4, addNumbers(1,3), "1+3 should be 4"); }); </script> </body> </html> This test verifies that calling addNumbers(1,3) returns the expected value 4. When you open this page in a browser, you can see that this test does, in fact, pass. The idea is that you can quickly refresh this QUnit HTML JavaScript test driver page in your browser whenever you modify your JavaScript code. In other words, you can keep a browser window open and keep refreshing it over and over while you are developing your application. That way, you can know very quickly whenever you have broken your JavaScript code. While easy to setup, there are several big disadvantages to this approach to executing JavaScript unit tests: You must view your JavaScript unit test results in a different location than your server unit test results. The JavaScript unit test results appear in the browser and the server unit test results appear in the Visual Studio Test Results window. Because all of your unit test results don’t appear in a single location, you are more likely to introduce bugs into your code without noticing it. Because your unit tests are not integrated with Visual Studio – in particular, MS Test -- you cannot easily include your JavaScript unit tests when setting up check-in policies or when performing automated builds with Team Build. A more sophisticated approach to using a browser as a test-driver is to automate the web browser. Instead of launching the browser and loading the test code yourself, you use a framework to automate this process. There are several different testing frameworks that support this approach: · Selenium – Selenium is a very powerful framework for automating browser tests. You can create your tests by recording a Firefox session or by writing the test driver code in server code such as C#. You can learn more about Selenium at http://seleniumhq.org/. LTAF – The ASP.NET team uses the Lightweight Test Automation Framework to test JavaScript code in the ASP.NET framework. You can learn more about LTAF by visiting the project home at CodePlex: http://aspnet.codeplex.com/releases/view/35501 jsTestDriver – This framework uses Java to automate the browser. jsTestDriver creates a server which can be used to automate multiple browsers simultaneously. This project is located at http://code.google.com/p/js-test-driver/ TestSwam – This framework, created by John Resig, uses PHP to automate the browser. Like jsTestDriver, the framework creates a test server. You can open multiple browsers that are automated by the test server. Learn more about TestSwarm by visiting the following address: https://github.com/jeresig/testswarm/wiki Yeti – This is the framework introduced by Yahoo for automating browser tests. Yeti uses server-side JavaScript and depends on Node.js. Learn more about Yeti at http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2010/08/25/introducing-yeti-the-yui-easy-testing-interface/ All of these frameworks are great for integration tests – however, they are not the best frameworks to use for unit tests. In one way or another, all of these frameworks depend on executing tests within the context of a “living and breathing” browser. If you create an ASP.NET Unit Test then Visual Studio will launch a web server before executing the unit test. Why is launching a web server so bad? It is not the worst thing in the world. However, it does introduce dependencies that prevent your code from being tested in isolation. One of the defining features of a unit test -- versus an integration test – is that a unit test tests code in isolation. Another problem with launching a web server when performing unit tests is that launching a web server can be slow. If you cannot execute your unit tests quickly, you are less likely to execute your unit tests each and every time you make a code change. You are much more likely to fall into the pit of failure. Launching a browser when performing a JavaScript unit test has all of the same disadvantages as launching a web server when performing an ASP.NET unit test. Instead of testing a unit of JavaScript code in isolation, you are testing JavaScript code within the context of a particular browser. Using the frameworks listed above for integration tests makes perfect sense. However, I want to consider a different approach for creating unit tests for JavaScript code. Using Server-Side JavaScript for JavaScript Unit Tests A completely different approach to executing JavaScript unit tests is to perform the tests outside of any browser. If you really want to test JavaScript then you should test JavaScript and leave the browser out of the testing process. There are several ways that you can execute JavaScript on the server outside the context of any browser: Rhino – Rhino is an implementation of JavaScript written in Java. The Rhino project is maintained by the Mozilla project. Learn more about Rhino at http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/ V8 – V8 is the open-source Google JavaScript engine written in C++. This is the JavaScript engine used by the Chrome web browser. You can download V8 and embed it in your project by visiting http://code.google.com/p/v8/ JScript – JScript is the JavaScript Script Engine used by Internet Explorer (up to but not including Internet Explorer 9), Windows Script Host, and Active Server Pages. Internet Explorer is still the most popular web browser. Therefore, I decided to focus on using the JScript Script Engine to execute JavaScript unit tests. Using the Microsoft Script Control There are two basic ways that you can pass JavaScript to the JScript Script Engine and execute the code: use the Microsoft Windows Script Interfaces or use the Microsoft Script Control. The difficult and proper way to execute JavaScript using the JScript Script Engine is to use the Microsoft Windows Script Interfaces. You can learn more about the Script Interfaces by visiting http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/t9d4xf28(VS.85).aspx The main disadvantage of using the Script Interfaces is that they are difficult to use from .NET. There is a great series of articles on using the Script Interfaces from C# located at http://www.drdobbs.com/184406028. I picked the easier alternative and used the Microsoft Script Control. The Microsoft Script Control is an ActiveX control that provides a higher level abstraction over the Window Script Interfaces. You can download the Microsoft Script Control from here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=d7e31492-2595-49e6-8c02-1426fec693ac After you download the Microsoft Script Control, you need to add a reference to it to your project. Select the Visual Studio menu option Project, Add Reference to open the Add Reference dialog. Select the COM tab and add the Microsoft Script Control 1.0. Using the Script Control is easy. You call the Script Control AddCode() method to add JavaScript code to the Script Engine. Next, you call the Script Control Run() method to run a particular JavaScript function. The reference documentation for the Microsoft Script Control is located at the MSDN website: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa227633%28v=vs.60%29.aspx Creating the JavaScript Code to Test To keep things simple, let’s imagine that you want to test the following JavaScript function named addNumbers() which simply adds two numbers together: MvcApplication1\Scripts\Math.js function addNumbers(a, b) { return 5; } Notice that the addNumbers() method always returns the value 5. Right-now, it will not pass a good unit test. Create this file and save it in your project with the name Math.js in your MVC project’s Scripts folder (Save the file in your actual MVC application and not your MVC test application). Creating the JavaScript Test Helper Class To make it easier to use the Microsoft Script Control in unit tests, we can create a helper class. This class contains two methods: LoadFile() – Loads a JavaScript file. Use this method to load the JavaScript file being tested or the JavaScript file containing the unit tests. ExecuteTest() – Executes the JavaScript code. Use this method to execute a JavaScript unit test. Here’s the code for the JavaScriptTestHelper class: JavaScriptTestHelper.cs   using System; using System.IO; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; using MSScriptControl; namespace MvcApplication1.Tests { public class JavaScriptTestHelper : IDisposable { private ScriptControl _sc; private TestContext _context; /// <summary> /// You need to use this helper with Unit Tests and not /// Basic Unit Tests because you need a Test Context /// </summary> /// <param name="testContext">Unit Test Test Context</param> public JavaScriptTestHelper(TestContext testContext) { if (testContext == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("TestContext"); } _context = testContext; _sc = new ScriptControl(); _sc.Language = "JScript"; _sc.AllowUI = false; } /// <summary> /// Load the contents of a JavaScript file into the /// Script Engine. /// </summary> /// <param name="path">Path to JavaScript file</param> public void LoadFile(string path) { var fileContents = File.ReadAllText(path); _sc.AddCode(fileContents); } /// <summary> /// Pass the path of the test that you want to execute. /// </summary> /// <param name="testMethodName">JavaScript function name</param> public void ExecuteTest(string testMethodName) { dynamic result = null; try { result = _sc.Run(testMethodName, new object[] { }); } catch { var error = ((IScriptControl)_sc).Error; if (error != null) { var description = error.Description; var line = error.Line; var column = error.Column; var text = error.Text; var source = error.Source; if (_context != null) { var details = String.Format("{0} \r\nLine: {1} Column: {2}", source, line, column); _context.WriteLine(details); } } throw new AssertFailedException(error.Description); } } public void Dispose() { _sc = null; } } }     Notice that the JavaScriptTestHelper class requires a Test Context to be instantiated. For this reason, you can use the JavaScriptTestHelper only with a Visual Studio Unit Test and not a Basic Unit Test (These are two different types of Visual Studio project items). Add the JavaScriptTestHelper file to your MVC test application (for example, MvcApplication1.Tests). Creating the JavaScript Unit Test Next, we need to create the JavaScript unit test function that we will use to test the addNumbers() function. Create a folder in your MVC test project named JavaScriptTests and add the following JavaScript file to this folder: MvcApplication1.Tests\JavaScriptTests\MathTest.js /// <reference path="JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js"/> function testAddNumbers() { // Act var result = addNumbers(1, 3); // Assert assert.areEqual(4, result, "addNumbers did not return right value!"); }   The testAddNumbers() function takes advantage of another JavaScript library named JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js. This library contains all of the code necessary to make assertions. Add the following JavaScriptnitTestFramework.js to the same folder as the MathTest.js file: MvcApplication1.Tests\JavaScriptTests\JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js var assert = { areEqual: function (expected, actual, message) { if (expected !== actual) { throw new Error("Expected value " + expected + " is not equal to " + actual + ". " + message); } } }; There is only one type of assertion supported by this file: the areEqual() assertion. Most likely, you would want to add additional types of assertions to this file to make it easier to write your JavaScript unit tests. Deploying the JavaScript Test Files This step is non-intuitive. When you use Visual Studio to run unit tests, Visual Studio creates a new folder and executes a copy of the files in your project. After you run your unit tests, your Visual Studio Solution will contain a new folder named TestResults that includes a subfolder for each test run. You need to configure Visual Studio to deploy your JavaScript files to the test run folder or Visual Studio won’t be able to find your JavaScript files when you execute your unit tests. You will get an error that looks something like this when you attempt to execute your unit tests: You can configure Visual Studio to deploy your JavaScript files by adding a Test Settings file to your Visual Studio Solution. It is important to understand that you need to add this file to your Visual Studio Solution and not a particular Visual Studio project. Right-click your Solution in the Solution Explorer window and select the menu option Add, New Item. Select the Test Settings item and click the Add button. After you create a Test Settings file for your solution, you can indicate that you want a particular folder to be deployed whenever you perform a test run. Select the menu option Test, Edit Test Settings to edit your test configuration file. Select the Deployment tab and select your MVC test project’s JavaScriptTest folder to deploy. Click the Apply button and the Close button to save the changes and close the dialog. Creating the Visual Studio Unit Test The very last step is to create the Visual Studio unit test (the MS Test unit test). Add a new unit test to your MVC test project by selecting the menu option Add New Item and selecting the Unit Test project item (Do not select the Basic Unit Test project item): The difference between a Basic Unit Test and a Unit Test is that a Unit Test includes a Test Context. We need this Test Context to use the JavaScriptTestHelper class that we created earlier. Enter the following test method for the new unit test: [TestMethod] public void TestAddNumbers() { var jsHelper = new JavaScriptTestHelper(this.TestContext); // Load JavaScript files jsHelper.LoadFile("JavaScriptUnitTestFramework.js"); jsHelper.LoadFile(@"..\..\..\MvcApplication1\Scripts\Math.js"); jsHelper.LoadFile("MathTest.js"); // Execute JavaScript Test jsHelper.ExecuteTest("testAddNumbers"); } This code uses the JavaScriptTestHelper to load three files: JavaScripUnitTestFramework.js – Contains the assert functions. Math.js – Contains the addNumbers() function from your MVC application which is being tested. MathTest.js – Contains the JavaScript unit test function. Next, the test method calls the JavaScriptTestHelper ExecuteTest() method to execute the testAddNumbers() JavaScript function. Running the Visual Studio JavaScript Unit Test After you complete all of the steps described above, you can execute the JavaScript unit test just like any other unit test. You can use the keyboard combination CTRL-R, CTRL-A to run all of the tests in the current Visual Studio Solution. Alternatively, you can use the buttons in the Visual Studio toolbar to run the tests: (Unfortunately, the Run All Impacted Tests button won’t work correctly because Visual Studio won’t detect that your JavaScript code has changed. Therefore, you should use either the Run Tests in Current Context or Run All Tests in Solution options instead.) The results of running the JavaScript tests appear side-by-side with the results of running the server tests in the Test Results window. For example, if you Run All Tests in Solution then you will get the following results: Notice that the TestAddNumbers() JavaScript test has failed. That is good because our addNumbers() function is hard-coded to always return the value 5. If you double-click the failing JavaScript test, you can view additional details such as the JavaScript error message and the line number of the JavaScript code that failed: Summary The goal of this blog entry was to explain an approach to creating JavaScript unit tests that can be easily integrated with Visual Studio and Visual Studio ALM. I described how you can use the Microsoft Script Control to execute JavaScript on the server. By taking advantage of the Microsoft Script Control, we were able to execute our JavaScript unit tests side-by-side with all of our other unit tests and view the results in the standard Visual Studio Test Results window. You can download the code discussed in this blog entry from here: http://StephenWalther.com/downloads/Blog/JavaScriptUnitTesting/JavaScriptUnitTests.zip Before running this code, you need to first install the Microsoft Script Control which you can download from here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=d7e31492-2595-49e6-8c02-1426fec693ac

    Read the article

  • How can I get a Silverlight application to check for an update and ask user to upgrade?

    - by Edward Tanguay
    I have made an out-of-browser silverlight application which I want to automatically update every time there is a new .xap file uploaded to the server. When the user right-clicks the application and clicks on Updates, the default is set to "Check for updates, but let me choose whether to download and install them": This leads me to believe that it is possible to make my Silverlight application automatically detect if there is a new .xap file present on the server, and if there is, the Silverlight client will automatically ask the user if he would like to install it. This however is not the case. I upload a new .xap file and the Silverlight application does nothing. Even if I add this to my App.xaml.cs: -- private void Application_Startup(object sender, StartupEventArgs e) { this.RootVisual = new BaseApp(); if (Application.Current.IsRunningOutOfBrowser) { Application.Current.CheckAndDownloadUpdateAsync(); } } and update the .xap file, the Silverlight application does nothing. This information enabled me to check if there is an update and if so, tell the user to restart the application, but when he restarts the application, nothing happens: -- private void Application_Startup(object sender, StartupEventArgs e) { this.RootVisual = new BaseApp(); if (Application.Current.IsRunningOutOfBrowser) { Application.Current.CheckAndDownloadUpdateAsync(); Application.Current.CheckAndDownloadUpdateCompleted += new CheckAndDownloadUpdateCompletedEventHandler(Current_CheckAndDownloadUpdateCompleted); } } void Current_CheckAndDownloadUpdateCompleted(object sender, CheckAndDownloadUpdateCompletedEventArgs e) { if (e.UpdateAvailable) { MessageBox.Show("An application update has been downloaded. " + "Restart the application to run the new version."); } else if (e.Error != null && e.Error is PlatformNotSupportedException) { MessageBox.Show("An application update is available, " + "but it requires a new version of Silverlight. " + "Visit the application home page to upgrade."); } else { //no new version available } } How do I make my Silverlight application check, each time it starts, if there is a new .xap file, and if there is, pass control to the Silverlight client to ask the user if he wants to download it, as the above dialogue implies is possible?

    Read the article

  • new ActiveXObject('Word.Application') creates new winword.exe process when IE security does not allo

    - by Mark Ott
    We are using MS Word as a spell checker for a few fields on a private company web site, and when IE security settings are correct it works well. (Zone for the site set to Trusted, and trusted zone modified to allow control to run without prompting.) The script we are using creates a word object and closes it afterward. While the object exists, a winword.exe process runs, but it is destroyed when the word object is closed. If our site is not set in the trusted zone (Internet zone with default security level) the call that creates the word object fails as expected, but the winword.exe process is still created. I do not have any way to interact with this process in the script, so the process stays around until the user logs off (users have no way to manually destroy the process, and it wouldn't be a good solution even if they did.) The call that attempts to create the object is... try { oWordApplication = new ActiveXObject('Word.Application'); } catch(error) { // irrelevant code removed, described in comments.. // notify user spell check cannot be used // disable spell check option } So every time the page is loaded this code may be run again, creating yet another orphan winword.exe process. oWordApplication is, of course, undefined in the catch block. I would like to be able to detect the browser security settings beforehand, but I have done some searching on this and do not think that it is possible. Management here is happy with it as it is. As long as IE security is set correctly it works, and it works well for our purposes. (We may eventually look at other options for spell check functionality, but this was quick, inexpensive, and does everything we need it to do.) This last problem bugs me and I'd like to do something about it, but I'm out of ideas and I have other things that are more in need of my attention. Before I put it aside, I thought I'd ask for suggestions here...

    Read the article

  • Custom HTTPHandler causing caching or session issues?

    - by Jan de Jager
    So i have a custom CMS running under .Net 3.5 written entirely in c#. The engine is optimized to render for mobile devices, but also server to normal web browsers. It also supports cookieless sessions. Great... I've chosen not to cache anything (including browser data) in order to control the rendering completely from data. This has been all good until lately. The engine implements a basic login function that simply logs the user state within a session object. The behavior is rather strange. User will click through the site no problem. Then login. The login will either go through successfully or just redisplay the login screen, suggesting a cached page being returned or redisplayed... If the login is successful the concurrent page hits will switch arbitrarily between logged in and logged out state... Also suggesting either the session state is not accessible or a cached page being returned. I have debugged the hell out of the thing.... including using fiddler and the like. When debugging the behavior disappears. Huh? One of the sites running on the engine is http://www.wiseguy.mobi (sorry customized for South Africa, so you'll probably not be able to get the password Text Message)!

    Read the article

  • IE History Tracking, IFRAMES, and Cross Domain error...

    - by peiklk
    So here's the deal. We have a Flash application that is running within an HTML file. For one page we call a legacy reporting system in ASP.NET that is within an IFRAME. This page then communicates back to the Flash application using cross-domain scripting (document.domain = "domain" is set in both pages. THIS ALL WORKS. Now the kicker. Flash has history tracking enabled. This loads the history.js file that created a div tag to store page changes so the back and forward buttons work in the browser. Which works for Firefox and Chrome as they create a div tag. HOWEVER In Internet Explorer, history.js creates another IFRAME (instead of a DIV) called ie_historyFrame. When the ScriptResource.axd code attempts to access this with: var frameDoc = this._historyFrame.contentWindow.document; we get an "Access is Denied" error message. ARGH! We've tried getting a handle to this IFRAME and inserting the document.domain code. FAIL. We've tried editing the historytemplate.html file that flex also uses to include document.domain... FAIL. I've tried to edit the underlying ASP.NET page to disable history tracking in the ScriptManager control. FAIL. At my wit's end on this one. We have users who need to use IE to access this site. They are big clients who we cannot tell to just use Firefox. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How can I get a Silverlight application to check for an update without the user clicking a button?

    - by Edward Tanguay
    I have made an out-of-browser silverlight application which I want to automatically update every time there is a new .xap file uploaded to the server. When the user right-clicks the application and clicks on Updates, the default is set to "Check for updates, but let me choose whether to download and install them": This leads me to believe that it is possible to make my Silverlight application automatically detect if there is a new .xap file present on the server, and if there is, the Silverlight client will automatically ask the user if he would like to install it. This however is not the case. I upload a new .xap file and the Silverlight application does nothing. Even if I add this to my App.xaml.cs: -- private void Application_Startup(object sender, StartupEventArgs e) { this.RootVisual = new BaseApp(); if (Application.Current.IsRunningOutOfBrowser) { Application.Current.CheckAndDownloadUpdateAsync(); } } and update the .xap file, the Silverlight application does nothing. This information leads me to believe that I have to make a button which the user clicks to see if there is an update. But I don't want the user to have to click a button every day to see if there is an update. I want the application to check by itself if there is a new .xap file and if there is, let the client ask the user if he wants the update. How do I make my Silverlight application check, each time it starts, if there is a new .xap file, and if there is, pass control to the Silverlight client to ask the user if he wants to download it, as the above dialogue implies is possible?

    Read the article

  • jQuery/CSS height issues in IE/Chrome

    - by abysslogic
    Hello again, I am back with more problems on my jQuery animated splash / website. You can see the splash which is working in most browsers at voidsync.com/test. The problems I am encountering with IE are the html, body, or #CONTAINER not adjusting to longer content such as in the Services or About pages - you will see the footer does not properly move to the bottom. Refreshing the browser after loading or completing the splash, the pages height adjusts properly to fit the content. Also this works in IE8 with JS disabled, so I know the problem is in there. (except in IE7 or IE8 compatibility mode, where the footer does not move down, period). I can post code here if needed, but im not sure if that is necessary or possible as you may need to see all of the source code to get the right idea. Bonus question The Hosting page has similar problems in Chrome, where the content height does not appear to resize properly on that one page, or the footer becomes overlapped which may be due to the styling used on table elements. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • How is jQuery so fast?

    - by ClarkeyBoy
    Hey, I have a rather large application which, on the admin frontend, takes a few seconds to load a page because of all the pageviews that it has to load into objects before displaying anything. Its a bit complex to explain how the system works, but a few of my other questions explains the system in great detail. The main difference between what they say and the current system is that the customer frontend no longer loads all the pageviews into objects when a customer first views the page - it simply adds the pageview to the database and creates an object in an unsynchronised list... to put it simply, when a customer views a page it no longer loads all the pageviews into objects; but the admin frontend still does. I have been working on some admin tools on the customer frontend recently, so if an administrator clicks the description of an item in the catalogue then the right hand column will display statistics and available actions for the selected item. To do this the page which gets loaded (through $('action-container').load(bla bla bla);) into the right hand column has to loop through ALL the pageviews - this ultimately means that ALL the pageviews are loaded into objects if they haven't been already. For some reason this loads really REALLY fast. The difference in speed is only like a second on my dev site, but the live site has thousands of pageviews so the difference is quite big... So my question is: why is it that the admin frontend loads so slowly while using $(bla).load(bla); is so fast? I mean whatever method jQuery uses, can't browsers use this method too and load pages super-fast? Obviously not as someone would've done that by now - but I am interested to know just why the difference is so big... is it just my system or is there a major difference in speed between the browser getting a page and jQuery getting a page? Do other people experience the same kind of differences? Thanks in advance, Regards, Richard

    Read the article

  • jQuery and XHTML layout problems in ie7

    - by abysslogic
    Hi there, I am back again with more layout problems on my up and coming website. I am able to achieve the proper animation, positioning and results with my layout / splash on every modern browser (excluding ie7 or older). I have an image in the center of the page, that is text-align: center'd, and pushed to a vertical center by having a div (#SPLASH_HEAD) set to 50% on the top half of the page. The loading animation changes the height of #SPLASH_HEAD to 0px, to drag the image to the top (and then do other things). In ie7 (or compatability mode), it appears that there is an error in jquery-1.4.2.min.js, line 116 char 165 (which I dont think has anything to do with the actual jQuery file itself). The splash is not centered either vertically (#SPLASH_HEAD does not register at 50% of window height) and is not centered properly with margin-left. Also, none of the other elements are hidden properly (with .hide()) as ie7 does not appear to be loading all of my jQuery / javascript. heres a link: www.voidsync.com/test (it would be easier to view the source on there) thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why does Silverlight player mislead user by leading him to think he can "choose whether to download

    - by Edward Tanguay
    I have a silverlight application which users can install out-of-browser. When the right-click and look at the update panel, it is set to "check for updates and let me choose whether to download and install them: However, with the following code, my application detects and downloads a new version automatically, and the new version is available upon the next start of the application without any user interaction: App.xaml.cs: private void Application_Startup(object sender, StartupEventArgs e) { this.RootVisual = new BaseApp(); if (Application.Current.IsRunningOutOfBrowser) { Application.Current.CheckAndDownloadUpdateAsync(); Application.Current.CheckAndDownloadUpdateCompleted += new CheckAndDownloadUpdateCompletedEventHandler(Current_CheckAndDownloadUpdateCompleted); } } void Current_CheckAndDownloadUpdateCompleted(object sender, CheckAndDownloadUpdateCompletedEventArgs e) { if (e.UpdateAvailable) { //an new version has been downloaded and silverlight version is the same //so user just has to restart application } else if (e.Error != null && e.Error is PlatformNotSupportedException) { //a new version is available but the silverlight version has changed //so user has to go to new website and install the appropriate silverlight version } else { //no update is available } } This happens to be what I want for this particular application, however: Isn't this misleading to the user since the Silverlight player leads him to believe that he will be able to "choose whether to download and install updates" when in fact, updates are being downloaded and installed without his knowing?

    Read the article

  • jQuery server ping slowly but surely filling memory?

    - by danspants
    I use the following piece of code to test if our server is running whilst the user is in a page. I've also started adding other functions that grab small amounts of data that are constantly changing and are to be relayed to the user (Files waiting for download, messages, reports etc). I've noticed recently that if I leave any page open (all pages contain the same function), the browser takes up more and more system memory which I can only attribute to this regular task (overnight it reached 1.6 gb). Is there some way of clearing out the data that is being accumulated? Is this normal behaviour? As far as i can tell, every time I call the function it should overwrite the previously retrieved data? function testServer(){ jQuery.ajax({ type:"HEAD", url:"/media/d_arrow_blue.png", error: function(msg) { jQuery.jGrowl("Server Disconnected"); } }); //retrieves count of files awaiting download - move to seperate function jQuery.get("/get_files/",{"type":"count"},function(data) { jQuery("#downloadList").children("div").text(data); }); }; jQuery().doTimeout(6000,function() { testServer(); return true; });

    Read the article

  • Focus behavior in Applet-Javascript interaction

    - by Dan
    I have a web page with an applet that opens a popup window and also makes Javascript calls. When that Javascript call results in a focus() call on an HTML input, that causes the browser window to push itself in front of the applet window. But only on certain browsers, namely MSIE. On Firefox the applet window remains on top. How can I keep that behavior consistent in MSIE? Note that using the old Microsoft VM for Java also achieves the desired (applet window in front) result. HTML code: <html> <head> <script type="text/javascript"> function focusMe() { document.getElementById('mytext').focus(); } </script> </head> <body> <applet id="myapplet" mayscript code="Popup.class" ></applet> <form> <input type="text" id="mytext"> <input type="button" onclick="document.getElementById('myapplet').showPopup()" value="click"> </form> </body> </html> Java code: public class Popup extends Applet { Frame frame; public void start() { frame = new Frame("Test Frame"); frame.setLayout(new BorderLayout()); Button button = new Button("Push Me"); frame.add("Center", button); button.addActionListener(new ActionListener(){ public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { frame.setVisible(false); } }); frame.pack(); } public void showPopup() { frame.setVisible(true); JSObject.getWindow(this).eval("focusMe()"); } }

    Read the article

  • Help making userscript work in chrome

    - by Vishal Shah
    I've written a userscript for Gmail Pimp.my.Gmail & i'd like it to be compatible with Google Chrome too. Now i have tried a couple of things, to the best of my Javascript knowledge (which is very weak) & have been successful up-to a certain extent, though im not sure if it's the right way. Here's what i tried, to make it work in Chrome: The very first thing i found is that contentWindow.document doesn't work in chrome, so i tried contentDocument, which works. BUT i noticed one thing, checking the console messages in Firefox and Chrome, i saw that the script gets executed multiple times in Firefox whereas in Chrome it just executes once! So i had to abandon the window.addEventListener('load', init, false); line and replace it with window.setTimeout(init, 5000); and i'm not sure if this is a good idea. The other thing i tried is keeping the window.addEventListener('load', init, false); line and using window.setTimeout(init, 1000); inside init() in case the canvasframe is not found. So please do lemme know what would be the best way to make this script cross-browser compatible. Oh and im all ears for making this script better/efficient code wise (which is sure there is)

    Read the article

  • Javascript ended event when video playback ends on android

    - by Tjofras
    I have been trying to create a web page that will redirect the user after he has watched a video (or if he aborted the playback). I've got this working on the iphone but can't really figure out how it works on the android. On the Iphone i have found two ways of doing this. using the tag to embed the quicktime plugin and then adding a event listener with javascript to listen to the 'qt_ended' event. This does obviously not work on android because there is no quicktime plugin. The second thing i tried was using the html5 -tag and listening to the 'ended' event, again this worked on the iphone but to my surprise not on android. In this case i got the video playing on the android phone but no redirect occurred after the video had reached the end. So my guess is that the android browser does not fully support the video-tag and that it does not fire the event. So at this time i don't really know how to proceed. I'm guessing i could do something similar to the quicktime embed solution but using a plugin available on android. But i cant find any information on what plugins is available on the android and if they support some kind of 'ended'-event.

    Read the article

  • Can I get consistent CSS colors across browsers?

    - by Trevor Burnham
    I'm testing a new site, and I have a div with background-color: #bbf6bb; That seems innocuous enough to me. And yet, on my MacBook Pro, the color looks very different in Firefox 3.6 vs. Safari 4. In Safari, it's the color I'd expect from the hex value: a pale green. In Firefox, there's a definite bluish tint, making the color turquoise. I'm aware of color inconsistencies that result from different treatment of images across browsers, but in pure CSS? Really? I'm guessing that Firefox trying to correct for my display in hopes of delivering better consistency with print, but I'd much rather have my site look the same hue to my users regardless of their choice of browser. Any ideas? Can someone confirm that Firefox is the culprit here? [Update: This seems to have been a fluke. Specifically, it's a narrow issue with Firefox—see my answer below. I'm puzzled, but relieved.]

    Read the article

  • Continue gif animation after escape is pressed

    - by cottsak
    Firefox (and other browsers i believe) stop gif animation when you click the Stop button or invoke it via the Escape key. I have a text input that on change makes ajax requests to update other elements. As part of this ajaxyness i have an animated gif to show feedback. I also trap the escape key press in this input so as to clear the text field for better UX. My problem is after the escape key is pressed once, none of the ajax gifs animate anymore until the page is refreshed. Does anyone know a workaround? Stuff i've tried: I tried the e.stopPropagation(); and e.cancelBubble = true; in the function handling the e.keyCode == 27 and that didn't seem to work. I suspect that this stops trigging more js events and the browser catches the escape irrespective of js activity. I have the gif showing/hiding via adding/removing a css class so it's difficult to apply the "change gif url to reset" workaround. I dont even know if this works anyway - didn't test it. But it seems difficult. If anyone knows that this works and knows of an easy way to apply the hack with background-image: url(../images/ajax-loader_dotcirclel13x13.gif); css then please let me know.

    Read the article

  • iframe created dynamically with javascript not reloading parent URL

    - by Lauren
    I can't seem to reload the parent page from within an iframe even though the domain for my iframe and the parent page appear to be the same. The IFRAME was created dynamically, rather than in the HTML page source, so could that be the problem? The iframe I'm working with is here http://www.avaline.com/ R3000_3 once you log in. You may use user:[email protected] pass: test03 Once logged in, hit the "order sample" button, and then hit "here" where it says "Your Third Party Shipper Numbers (To enter one, click here.)". I tried using javascript statements window.top.location.reload(),window.parent.location.reload(),window.parent.location.href=window.parent.location.href but none of those worked in FF 3.6 so I didn't move on to the other browsers although I am shooting for a cross-browser solution. I put the one-line javascript statements inside setTimeout("statement",2000) so people could read the content of the iframe before the redirect happens, but that shouldn't affect the execution of the statements... I wish I could test and debug the statements with the Firebug console from within the Iframe.

    Read the article

  • URL routing in an MVC framework - PHP

    - by Walderman
    I'm developing an MVC framework in PHP from scratch; mostly for the learning experience but this could easily end up in a live project. I went through this tutorial as a base and I've expanded from there. Requests are made like this: examplesite.com/controller/action/param1/param2/ and so on... And this is my .htaccess file: RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule ^(.*)$ index.php?rt=$1 [L,QSA] So all requests go to index.php and they are routed to the correct controller and action from there. If no controller or action is given, then the default 'index' is assumed for both. I have an index controller with an index action, which is supposed to be the home page of my site. I can access it by going to examplesite.com (since the index part is assumed). It has some images, a link to a stylesheet, and some scripts. They are linked with paths relative to index.php. I thought this would be fine since all request go to index.php and all content is simply included in this page using php. This works if I go to examplesite.com. I will see all of the images and styles, and scripts will run. However, if I go to examplesite.com/index, I am routed to the correct part of the site, but all of the links don't work. Does the browser think I am in a different folder? I would like to be able to use relative paths for all of the content in my site, because otherwise I need to use absolute paths everywhere to make sure things will show up. Is this possible?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90  | Next Page >