MissingFuse handler for Fusebox5 development
I’ve been building a new FB5 application for the last couple months and have found myself adding fuses on a daily basis. My natural development process is to make the circuit.xml then go back and add the fuses. But sometimes I get out of order and try to hit a fuseaction in my browser before I’ve even made the empty fuse, resulting in a missing .cfm error.
To assist in this aspect of development, I’ve created a simple fusebox.missingFuse.cfm errortemplate.
This errortemplate creates all missing fuses <include>d in circuit.xml for the currently-executing Fuseaction request. The first missing include is caught, handled by the errortemplate, then the page is refreshed automatically. In the case of a second missing <include>, it will again get caught and written. Ad nauseum. Helpful for, say, the act_file, the other act_file, then the dsp_file.
Download the file by clicking the teeny little “Download” link at the bottom of this post, and drop the .cfm into your errortemplates folder. Whenever the Fusebox cores hit a missing fuse in circuit.xml, it will be automatically created for you.
Modify line 1 if you’re using development-circuit-load. If you wanted to enable this errortemplate in production mode, you could, for example, modify line 1 to work in production mode as well as, for example, send you an email message when it encountered a missing fuse rather than write out an empty fuse like it does now.
Enjoy!
Nat,
Congratulations on the new job. I like the idea of the missing template handler creating fuses. Just a pity it can’t add the code too!
Comment by Kevin Roche — October 13, 2006 @ 12:00 am
Hi Kevin – Are you coming to MAX? I’ll be there. I spent weeks and weeks trying to make the error template write the correct code. I tried inferring the purpose from the fuse name, looking into application-scoped factories for matching names, introspecting method names, peering at the attributes scope, correlating the fuse position in the circuit hierarchy. But then I gave up.
No I didn’t. Just kidding. But wouldn’t that be cool?!
Comment by Nat Papovich — October 13, 2006 @ 12:00 am