there is something that all humans do naturally even without education yeah and that is learn language

There has to be a better way for us to manage Javascript build/run scripts. Everything for this platform seems tacked together. quotes with escaped quotes and npm builds to call other 'npm run' builds.. This is getting pretty painful.

#> 1 OpenAlex Only 12427

api_endpoint <- oa_query(
  entity = "works",
  title_and_abstract.search = search_string,
  from_publication_date = from_date,
  to_publication_date = to_date
)

If I decide to add it, which solution should I pick, battle tested Sorbet or core team endorsed RBS?

I am just surprised that there is no clear official name for such a popular and well known convention.  Internet searching seems to indicate that the common term used is "Red Squiggly Line", but it seems like a term quickly made-up just to describe something for which we know no name.  There's a technical name for the dot on an "i" for goodness sake (tittle).

Let your operating system handle daemons, respawning and logging while you focus on your application features and users.

Less system administration, easier debugging, simpler code, all because you leveraged the init system to do the work for you!

we strive to heed upstream's recommendations on how they intend for their software to be consumed.

What they say is this is due to is new EU policies about messenger apps. I'm not in the EU. I reckon it's really because there's a new Messenger desktop client for Windows 10, which does have these features. Downloading the app gives FB access to more data from your machine to sell to companies for personalized advertising purposes.

Given the security implications of getting the implementation correct, we strongly encourage you to use OAuth 2.0 libraries when interacting with Google's OAuth 2.0 endpoints. It is a best practice to use well-debugged code provided by others, and it will help you protect yourself and your users. For more information, see Client libraries.

As an aside, I think I now prefer this technique to Python for at least one reason: passing arguments to the decorator method does not make the technique any more complex. Contrast this with Python: <artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=240845>

def document(f): def wrap(x): print "I am going to square", x f(x) return wrap @document def square(x): print math.pow(x, 2) square(5)

Until now, we had a lot of code. Although we were using a plugin to help with boilerplate code, ready endpoints, and webpages for sign in/sign up management, a lot of adaptations were necessary. This is when Doorkeeper comes to the rescue. It is not only an OAuth 2 provider for Rails but also a full OAuth 2 suite for Ruby and related frameworks (Sinatra, Devise, MongoDB, support for JWT, and more).

The bash manual contains the statement For almost every purpose, aliases are superseded by shell functions.

an equivalent of R's signif function in Ruby.

The focus of the dev container specification is to describe how to enrich a container for the purposes of development, rather than acting as a multi-container orchestrator format.

it is highly encouraged to switch to zeitwerk mode because it is a better autoloader

I am open to discussion but I don't want to jump on the conclusion.

The biggest reason is that we still have several options, so I didn't want to restrict the future possibility.

Instead of render props, we use Svelte's slot props: // React version <Listbox.Button> {({open, disabled} => /* Something using open and disabled */)} </Listbox.Button> <!--- Svelte version ---> <ListboxButton let:open let:disabled> <!--- Something using open and disabled ---> </ListboxButton>

I am firmly convinced that asserting on the state of the interface is in every way superior to asserting on the state of your model objects in a full-stack test.

const palette: { [key: string]: string } = {...

what is the TypeScript Way™ of handling the implicit any that appears due to object literals not having a standard index signature?

This will obviate the need for a helper function of any kind.

Noticed that with 100+ s, I am not alone here. There are definitely a lot of devs wanting this feature. So I took some time out and decided to give this a go myself. I have created a PR for the same

On existing projects, consider the global effort to change from origin/master to origin/main. The cost of being different than git convention and every book, tutorial, and blog post. Is the cost of change and being different worth it?

This meant that we owned both sides of the product implementation. For unit testing on the frontend, we stayed with Angular’s suggestion of Jasmine. For unit testing on the backend, we went with rspec-rails. These worked well since unit tests don’t need to cross technology boundaries.

I'm not sure why MSFT decided to change these codes in the first place. While it might have been a noble goal to follow the IETF standard (though I'm not really familiar with this), the old codes were already out there, and most developers don't benefit by the new codes, nor care about what these codes are called (a code is a code). Just the opposite occurs in fact, since now everyone including MSFT itself has to deal with two codes that represent the same language (and the resulting problems). My own program needs to be fixed to handle this (after a customer contacted me with an issue), others have cited problems on the web (and far more probably haven't publicised theirs), and MSFT itself had to deal with this in their own code. This includes adding both codes to .NET even though they're actually the same language (in 4.0 they distinguished between the two by adding the name "legacy" to the full language name of the older codes), adding special documentation to highlight this situation in MSDN, making "zh-Hans" the parent culture of "zh-CHS" (not sure if it was always this way but it's a highly questionable relationship), and even adding special automated code to newly created "add-in" projects in Visual Studio 2008 (only to later remove this code in Visual Studio 2010, without explanation and therefore causing confusion for developers - long story). In any case, this is not your doing of course, but I don't see how anyone benefits from this change in practice. Only those developers who really care about following the IETF standard would be impacted, and that number is likely very low. For all others, the new codes are just an expensive headache. Again, not blaming you of cours

I'm not sure why MSFT decided to change these codes in the first place. While it might have been a noble goal to follow the IETF standard (though I'm not really familiar with this), the old codes were already out there, and most developers don't benefit by the new codes, nor care about what these codes are called (a code is a code).

get: function(target, prop, receiver) { return "world"; }

We want the GraphQL API to be the primary means of interacting programmatically with GitLab. To achieve this, it needs full coverage - anything possible in the REST API should also be possible in the GraphQL API.

There's nothing to stop you from doing initializer code in a file that lives in app/models. for example class MyClass def self.run_me_when_the_class_is_loaded end end MyClass.run_me_when_the_class_is_loaded MyClass.run_me... will run when the class is loaded .... which is what we want, right? Not sure if its the Rails way.... but its extremely straightforward, and does not depend on the shifting winds of Rails.

The use of U+212B 'Angstrom sign', which was encoded due to round-trip mapping compatibility with an East-Asian character encoding, is discouraged, and the preferred representation is U+00C5 'capital letter A with ring above', which has the same glyph.

What is the equivalent of unbuffer program on Windows?

Of course you must not use plain-text passwords and place them directly into scripts. You even must not use telnet protocol at all. And avoid ftp, too. I needn’t say why you should use ssh, instead, need I? And you also must not plug your fingers into 220 voltage AC-output. Telnet was chosen for examples as less harmless alternative, because it’s getting rare in real life, but it can show all basic functions of expect-like tools, even abilities to send passwords. BUT, you can use “Expect and Co” to do other things, I just show the direction.

This approach is preferable to overriding authenticate_user! in your controller because it won't clobber a lot of "behind the scenes" stuff Devise does (such as storing the attempted URL so the user can be redirected after successful sign in).

Meh... as I said earlier, I think using Webpack is the recommended way now. Another issue is there is no way to generate source maps in production.

But yeah, I'm not sure how you would determine which was the "recommended way" really. I don't see anything in Rails docs saying either way.

But last I have seen comments from DHH, he considered webpack(er) recommended for JS, but Sprockets still the preferred solution for (S)CSS.

we want source maps in production (like DHH)

After waiting years for sprockets to support this we were very happy to see that sprockets 4 officially added support (thanks ), but then when trying to upgrade we noticed there's actually no way to use it in production... (without brittle hacks mentioned above).

Hey, that’s is an imaginary complication of our example - please don’t do this with every condition you have in your app.

URI::MailTo::EMAIL_REGEXP

For branching out a separate path in an activity, use the Path() macro. It’s a convenient, simple way to declare alternative routes

step :decide_type, Output(Activity::Left, :credit_card) => Track(:with_credit_card)

# Create the track, which would automatically create an implicit End with the same id.
Track(:with_credit_card) do
    step :authorize
    step :charge
end

class Example::ValidationErrorTrack < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
  step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)
  step :save,           Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)

  # Can't use fail here or the magnetic_to won't work and  Track(:validation_error) won't work
  step :log_validation_error, magnetic_to: :validation_error,
    Output(:success) => End(:validation_error), 
    Output(:failure) => End(:validation_error) 
end

puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
Reloading...

#<Start/:default>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<End/:validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
#<End/:success>

#<End/:validation_error>

#<End/:failure>

class Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1 < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
   validation_error_path = Path(end_id: "End.validation_error", end_task: End(:validation_error)) do
    step :log_validation_error
  end
  step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
  step :save,           Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
end

o=Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1; puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
Reloading...

#<Start/:default>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
#<End/:success>

#<End/:validation_error>

#<End/:failure>

step :direct_debit

Patching has no implicit, magical side-effects and is strongly encouraged to customize flows for a specific case in a quick and consise way.

While you could nest an activity into another manually, the Subprocess macro will come in handy.

The macro automatically wires all of Validate’s ends to the known counter-part tracks.

It's recommended to configure this library by setting environment variables.

ActiveModel provides a powerful framework for defining callbacks. ActiveInteraction hooks into that framework to allow hooking into various parts of an interaction's lifecycle.

{a: 1, b: 2, c: 3, d: 4} => {a:, b:, **rest} # a == 1, b == 2, rest == {:c=>3, :d=>4}

{a, b, ...rest} = {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3, d: 4}

It makes me happy to see people actually think about things and not just accept a shitty API.

Flatpak as a truly cross-distro application solution that works equally well and non-problematic for all

Moving DOM elements around made me anxious and I wanted to preserve natural tab order without resorting to setting tabindex, so I also made a flexbox version that never moves DOM elements around. I think it's the superior solution, at least for the layouts I was going for. https://github.com/wickning1/svelte-components/blob/master/src/FlexCardLayout.svelte

Depending on what other component libraries you’ve used, you may be used to handling events by passing callback functions to component properties, or using a special event syntax – Svelte supports both, though one is usually more appropriate than the other depending on your situation. This post explains both ways.

A cleaner approach could be the use:action API.

Popper for Svelte with actions, no wrapper components or component bindings required! Other Popper libraries for Svelte (including the official @popperjs/svelte library) use a wrapper component that takes the required DOM elements as props. Not only does this require multiple bind:this, you also have to pollute your script tag with multiple DOM references. We can do better with Svelte actions!

Jbuilder gives you a simple DSL for declaring JSON structures that beats manipulating giant hash structures. This is particularly helpful when the generation process is fraught with conditionals and loops.

The Web Storage API provides mechanisms by which browsers can store key/value pairs, in a much more intuitive fashion than using cookies.

Like JSON.stringify, but handles

Some devs prefer Svelte’s minimal approach that defers problems to userland, encouraging more innovation, choice, and fragmentation, and other devs prefer a more fully integrated toolkit with a well-supported happy path.

If you'd prefer, you can use a third-party library like Modernizr or Detect It to do this test for you.

I think the main difference between the two are the way API are served. Some smelte components need you to input big chunk of json as props, while i prefer keep props as primitive types and in the other hand give you different components tags to compose.

Another difference is that context in Svelte does not insert anything into the visual component tree. There is no <Context.Provider> element like in React

Converting Angular components into Svelte is largely a mechanical process. For the most part, each Angular template feature has a direct corollary in Svelte. Some things are simpler and some are more complex but overall it's pretty easy to do.

Some of the verbs implemented by systemctl are designed to provide a high-level overview in a human readable format. All that information is available over dbus, and/or journalctl, systemctl show. We could provide that information in json format, but there's a second problem. Information and format of information printed by e.g. systemctl status is not stable. Since the output is not suitable for programmatic consumption anyway, there's no need to provide it in a machine readable format.

Although I agree that -o json should return proper JSON, believe the proper way for external tools like SaltStack etc. to talk to systemd is DBus. See also saltstack/salt#20392 - everything else is more or less just hack-ish and prone to break easily.

If you have a better/simpler/"more official" solution, I'd still love to see it!

is this solution considered a hack or is something that we can use as an approved workaround in scenarios where we need to manually trigger validations?

The more official way to do this would be to run the check (you could even reuse this.validate) in onSubmit.

Use ponyfill.com for linking here.

Once again, this isn’t good or bad, it’s just the most efficient way to create something that is similar to something else

For event listeners we support the standard jsx naming convention onEventname (this is converted to on:eventname in svelte) as well.

For reasons of compatibility and simplicity, it's best to use React's built-in state management capabilities rather than external global state.

I'm not sure I understand the problem, everything you are describing is already possible.

but everything they were doing started to make sense

The $: can also be used to trigger effects.

We can run effects when some data changes using watchEffect - it takes a function that runs whenever a reactive value used inside changes.

MobX - for me personally MobX is a far better way to manage state than React Hooks. It doesn't care about the UI layer so it can be used outside the React ecosystem, and it's simple to mutate data.

This library exports a single React Hook, useMethods, which has all the power of useReducer but none of the ceremony that comes with actions and dispatchers.

page components can have an optional preload function that will load some data that the page depends on. This is similar to getInitialProps in Next.js or asyncData in Nuxt.js.

The benefit of this approach is that rather than having these defaults and fighting against them, it’s fully up to you to decide how to handle everything.

Unfortunately, many third party libraries, even though they are written in ESM, are published to npm as CJS modules, so we still need to concatenate them.

There are two ways of handling this with Rollup, as described by the troubleshooting link from the warning. Unfortunately, both Rollup and React recommend the wrong one.

DX: start sapper project; configure eslint; eslint say that svelt should be dep; update package.json; build fails with crypt error; try to figure what the hell; google it; come here (if you have luck); revert package.json; add ignore error to eslint; Maybe we should offer better solution for this.

The recommended solution for onMount is the same as for useEffect — place an async function inside the handler

If you want this control then wrap them in a DOM node that the parent controls. If you want to pass in values then use props and if you want to pass in values from higher up the tree, the new style RFC may be able to help.

I think Svelte's approach where it replaces component instances with the component markup is vastly superior to Angular and the other frameworks. It gives the developer more control over what the DOM structure looks like at runtime—which means better performance and fewer CSS headaches, and also allows the developer to create very powerful recursive components.

You should install the packages individually. Alternatively, you can install all of them at once with the svelte-material-ui package.

There are tools in Svelte that break this expectation to a degree, but they are a bit annoying to use, which makes it an active decision on the part of the developer. The API hints at the way we want you to do things because we feel that this will give the better experience.

Most of the linked issues, as well as this RFC, attempt to solve this problem by relaxing Svelte's CSS scoping rules, providing a better API with which to use global, or by manually passing down classes. We have never found this to be an acceptable solution which is why those issues have been closed. That position has not changed.

Or if we formally took a stance that the class prop is THE ordained way to pass class attributes, though I don't think this functionality warrants this restriction.

React doesn’t provide something like ng-class, but there is a great library called classnames that does the same and more. Install it:

Matz, alas, I cannot offer one. You see, Ruby--coding generally--is just a hobby for me. I spend a fair bit of time answering Ruby questions on SO and would have reached for this method on many occasions had it been available. Perhaps readers with development experience (everybody but me?) could reflect on whether this method would have been useful in projects they've worked on.

you have less direct control as you must rely on the vendor’s adherence to IAB’s guidelines for compliance.

Directly blocking the vendor scripts (using another prior blocking method), then executing them only after consent has been collected. This method requires more implementation work and it’s a bit slower in terms of execution time, but it allows personalized ads to be served from the first page view (where consent hasn’t been collected yet) and gives you more direct and solid control in regards to ensuring compliance.

Try doing the equivalent of #indexes without it. Not that it's especially hard, but you have to stop and work out a solutuon. When you need it, that's when you wish there were already a method for it.

somelhing to do.