Re: Tracin' Mason

If you can do this in a handler, great! My approach would probably be more mundane -- I'd just add comments in the actual templates, so that by looking at the source code of a web page, I could figure out which templates were used.

Because that information might be a security risk, I might wrap that in a function that doesn't show output that information in PROD.

Alex / talexb / Toronto

Thanks PJ. We owe you so much. Groklaw -- RIP -- 2003 to 2013.

Comment on Re: Tracin' Mason

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Tracin' Mason by ownlifeful (Beadle) on Sep 15, 2022 at 18:59 UTC
Adding comments to actual templates was my first thought too. But we are dealing with a system with literally thousands of components. I would disable the comments functionality when deploying the code to PROD, but in DEV this would definitely be a good feature to have, and one that Mason ought to support.	[reply]
Re^3: Tracin' Mason by talexb (Chancellor) on Sep 19, 2022 at 21:45 UTC
.. literally thousands of components. Hmm .. that's taking components a little seriously. :) Thousands of components is a little mad. I'd still add comments to the obvious pieces -- at least to help you understand where they all are. As you get more familiar with everything, it should become easier. Alex / talexb / Toronto Thanks PJ. We owe you so much. Groklaw -- RIP -- 2003 to 2013.	[reply]
Re^3: Tracin' Mason by Anonymous Monk on Sep 16, 2022 at 11:42 UTC
Thousands of components with tests? :p https://metacpan.org/pod/Mason::Plugin::DefaultFilter	[reply]
Re^4: Tracin' Mason by Anonymous Monk on Sep 16, 2022 at 11:49 UTC
Or https://metacpan.org/pod/Mason::Interp#base_compilation_class	[reply]