Remove duplicate numerical lines



  • @Eko-palypse :

    Yes, but you forgot something. :-)

    editor.setText(newText if lastLineContainsEOL else newText[:-len(line_ending)])



  • To continue with the hijack-tangent of this thread… :-)

    @Scott-Sumner said,

    If people are interested in this script and have ideas about solving that particular problem, I’m interested in hearing them.

    Challenge accepted. :-)

    My first idea was that you could track the previous bufferID, and make sure you always activate the previous one. While trying to see if that would help, I noticed that with the exact script you had posted, if all open files were missing EOL, it would save all files, but only fix the EOL on the active file.

    That gave me the flash for the solution: in the callback, store the currently-active bufferID, activate the buffer for the argument to the callback (ie, the file being saved), make the changes to the now-active file, then re-activate the originally-active buffer. The script below seemed to do it for me:

    from Npp import notepad, editor, NOTIFICATION
    
    def callback_npp_FILEBEFORESAVE(args):
        # the editor.appendText will go to the _active_ buffer, whatever
        # file is currently being saved.  So to solve two birds with one
        # stone, save the active buffer ID, then switch to the buffer ID
        # for this instance of the callback -- now the editor has the
        # correct buffer active.
        oldActiveID = notepad.getCurrentBufferID()
        notepad.activateBufferID(args["bufferID"])
    
        line_ending = ['\r\n', '\r', '\n'][notepad.getFormatType()]
        doc_size = editor.getTextLength()
        if editor.getTextRange(doc_size - 1, doc_size) != line_ending[-1]:
            # fix Notepad++'s "broken" functionality and add a line-ending at end-of-file
            editor.appendText(line_ending)
    
        # now that you're done editing, go back to the originally-active buffer
        notepad.activateBufferID(oldActiveID)
    
    notepad.callback(callback_npp_FILEBEFORESAVE, [NOTIFICATION.FILEBEFORESAVE])
    

    I tested this with three open files: two in one view, one in other view; I tried various combinations of which ones needed to be saved, and which ones were missing EOL, and which was active, and it seemed to always do what I intended, but it’s possible that other combinations won’t work.



  • @PeterJones said:

    if all open files were missing EOL, it would save all files, but only fix the EOL on the active file

    Really? I tested with several open files (at least one of the 3 types, Win/Linux/Mac) that needed fixing and when I did a Save All they all got saved after being modified…hmmm, guess I will have another look…



  • It was that way for me. But the oldID=activeID, activate(args), edit, activate(oldID) should work for your first problem, even if you didn’t have the second problem that I have.



  • @Eko-palypse

    So we all learn from each other here. My favorite line from your script is this one:

    lastLineContainsEOL = True if len(editor.getLine(editor.getLineCount()-1)) == 0 else False

    In my “callback_npp_FILEBEFORESAVE” script I did it differently…but I like your method, too.

    Thinking more about it now, you could also do it like this:

    lastLineContainsEOL = True if editor.getText()[-1] in '\n\r' else False

    but maybe that pulls a lot of text just to look at the last character…



  • @PeterJones said:

    the oldID=activeID, activate(args), edit, activate(oldID) should work

    Yea, I had something like that (but even more involved) in my original over-complicated version (mentioned yesterday, originally), but I found some cases where even that didn’t always work right…so I cut it out entirely before posting. Maybe I’ll revisit it…



  • @Scott-Sumner

    yes, that is what I like about open source project in general.
    Everyone can learn from others from different point of views or styles etc …

    Yes, but you forgot something. :-)

    Correct, different size - damn it. :-)

    editor.getText()[-1]
    but maybe that pulls a lot of text just to look at the last character…

    I thought so too but after rechecking scintilla documentation it looks like
    SCI_GETCHARACTERPOINTER is what we are looking for because from the document it states
    Grant temporary direct read-only access to the memory used by Scintilla to store the document.

    So, editor.getCharacterPointer()[-1] shouldn’t allocate any heap memory at all or maybe just a little tiny bit.

    @PeterJones nice one - works for me as well :-)

    Eko



  • @Eko-palypse

    I get nervous about editor.getCharacterPointer() because of my lack of full understanding about multibyte character encodings (as stated previously, I’m an A-Z person). I suppose, though, in this case we are talking about, there could be no issues…



  • @Scott-Sumner

    not sure I understand your concerns about this.
    I assume it is only the pointer to the text buffer returned and pythonscript
    plugin has the python buffer protocol implemented so it should be safe always.
    But as written, I assume - don’t really know how it is implemented.

    Eko



  • @PeterJones

    So to revisit this:

    if all open files were missing EOL, it would save all files, but only fix the EOL on the active file

    I just re-tested after disabling my more-complicated script, restarting N++, and then activating my script as posted above. I created 3 new named files and make sure each had only a single line of text (only a 1 showing in the line-number margin–thus NO line-ending at end-of-buffer, or anywhere in the buffer for that matter). I activated a different file from these 3 and pressed the Save All toolbar button. Checking all 3 files in turn I found that all had a line 2 in the line number margin and this were all appropriately affected by my callback script.

    Not sure why you would see different behavior. I’m running PS 1.3.0.0 and N++ 7.2.2, which for the latter, I’m confident you are not… ;-)



  • @Scott-Sumner

    I’m in the same position as @PeterJones - only the current active file
    does get the eol added.
    PS 1.3
    Npp 7.5.9

    Eko



  • @Eko-palypse @PeterJones

    I guess I will stop posting scripts now…let others do the heavy lifting. :-)

    …unless and until I move to a newer N++…



  • @Scott-Sumner

    No, no, no … don’t do that … forget all about I wrote :-)
    It never happened - everything is good - bright nice day
    and bugs are just animals :-)

    Eko



  • @PeterJones said:

    To continue with the hijack-tangent of this thread… :-)

    hahahaha, i like … word of the day: hijack-tangent ;-D 👍

    it’s really refreshing, it is different to other bbs’es where this kind of thought exchange is and has to be done via the bbs’ chat and pm systems, often leaving a sterile one post product at the end without any leads how the author(s) got there.

    i think this can be very useful to new interested users to get a better grip of how much time you really need to think about a seemingly simple task and/or consult with others to get a good or perfected result within a short period of time.

    and i guess no one could come up with a good and plausible reason to mind about this kind of hijacking anyways.
    especially because the op is probably happy since yesterday and the rest is a nice brain storming, coding, testing and sharing.

    aaaaand … my post (this one) was the real hijacking … lol



  • I’m on 7.5.8 32-bit, with PythonScript 1.3.0.0…

    And now @Scott-Sumner has actually given me a valid reason to downvote him, because if he stops posting PythonScript, it will be up to me… and I just don’t have the py-knowledge to keep up for long. :-)



  • @PeterJones

    valid reason to downvote

    First labeled a “retard”, then spanked vigorously by Don Ho in perhaps an interesting overreaction…and now downvoted by Peter… I’m super unpopular. :-(



  • @Scott-Sumner:

    don’t worry, you’re not … i’m currently googling for a specific helping hack:

    nodebb plugin hack that downvotes from specific users triggers a double upvote
    (alternative: hack that there are two upvote buttons left and right of the counter for specific user accounts)

    @PeterJones

    also don’t worry, i’m currently googling for a specific helping hack:

    nodebb browser hack that specific users, who refuse to post scripts, are unable to close the np++ browser window ever again
    (alternative: they can close it, but as soon as they do, the same page will pop up on their cellular phones)

    looool ;-)



  • I’m super unpopular

    … says the one who has 70% higher reputation than anyone else in these forums. :-) Fortunately, downvotes can be transitory: 'Twas done as a joke, referring back to the time that the interface made it look like I had downvoted Scott. But my real downvotes are reserved for egregious behavior – posting spam in the forums, primarily – so I removed this one.

    And yes, it does seem to have been rather rough in the forums recently: gang up on Scott this week; last week, I got so frustrated due to a certain conversation that I was within moments of deciding to not bother reading/posting here; and, I’m sure Don hasn’t had the best time, with all the problems that showed up in the transition to 7.6. Hopefully, it will mellow out again soon.

    Anyway, I learned a lot through all the code examples and the experiments they prompted. Thanks all.



  • @PeterJones

    transition to 7.6. Hopefully, it will mellow out again soon.

    i think i’m afraid not.
    there have been new complaints that, now that all plugins reside at a single, all users accessible location inside %programdata% as the active posters wished, others that were silent before want it either in a different location or the way it was in 7.6 … or the way it was in 7.5.9 … or inside of %programfiles%



  • This is where real life and software development goes hand in hand - you can’t make everyone happy.

    Eko


Log in to reply