These flaws limited severely the development of a new objective in the project: the computation of joint kinematics and kinetics based on vendor and published biomechanical models (e.g. an acquisition, a collection of events, a collection of force platforms, etc.). The second major flaw was related to the pipeline mechanism and the non-generic data type requested by some filters (e.g. Thus the parsing of some file format were limited or impossible. The most problematic was the obligation to have a sample frequency for the analog data corresponding to an integer ratio of the video sample frequency. However, with this choice to have a C3D-like internal container (historically, this file format was the one with the largest possibilities to store various kind of data: 3D data, analog data, metadata, events), some problems arisen regarding new technologies’ possibilities. Thus, the modification of one of the filter’s parameters triggers a processing update. The later was defined by a set of filters linked together by their input(s) and output(s). merge files together, extract ground reaction wrenches, detect gait events). Internally, the code was based on the C3D-like container and a pipeline mechanism ( a la VTK, ITK) to process the data (e.g. The released tools gave the possibility to explore, modify, and merge acquisition data. ANB, ANC, TRB, TRC (Motion Analysis Corp.).Some of them stores electromyography and force platform data. Most of the proprietary file formats used by the motion capture leading companies were implemented. Thus, more than 20 file formats were implemented between 20 using reverse engineering, developer script, or company’s code. This was achieved by implementing a container close of the structure used by the C3D file format. The original goal was to propose tools to be independent of the file formats used by motion capture data system. Really interesting, thanks! I'll look into that.The Biomechanical ToolKit project started in 2009. > I ended up using which somehow manages to force tcp traffic through a socks5 proxy. You can file a proper issue about this at, I'd love to know what's going on there and get this fixed. Probably best to debug this outside of a HN thread though :-). It's always very hard to know if my configuration is representative of normal devs for any given language/tool. Maybe you have some other Go package manager configuration that conflicts with this? I'd be very interested to know about that if so, I'm sure there's others with the same thing. I just tested, and `go get /x/oauth2` seems to work fine for me, I can see all the requests being happily intercepted immediately: Ĭan you see the 500 in HTTP Toolkit, and any more info there (in the body or as an error at the top) related to that? Or can you see a "certificate rejected" message? If nothing turns up there at all then yes, something must be overriding the proxy configuration. > If you try to use go's package manager, example: `go get /x/oauth2` But I guess I can see why some like postman etc for exploration - so far i prefer swagger for that (or soapui for xml/soap - preferably running soapui under httpkit for the best of both worlds). I feel like postman etc is closer to println Debugging, while just intercepting the traffic is more like using a real debugger. Strongly considering purchasing httpkit - but so far I've just needed it occasionally. I don't know about altering requests "in flight" - I typically re-issue the request via curl or my application server (eg: rails console or debugger breakpoint). I find that httpkit (or just mitmproxy) often gives me decent insight to the actual requests. Either before or after a request is executed to add to the headers or parameters of the request or getting the results of the request. > One of the issues I found with http clients I looked into is that they often don't provide enough functionality to hook into the request process.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |