47 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
  2. Nov 2020
    1. This mirrors how classes already work and avoids the issues with introducing an unexpected DOM node.
  3. Oct 2020
    1. I debugged docker-compose and docker-py and figured out that you should either use environment variables or options in command. You should not mix these . If you even specify --tls in command then you will have to specify all the options as the TLSConfig object, as now TLSConfig object is created completely from the command options and operide the TFSConfig object created from the environment variable.
    1. docker --tlsverify ps executes just fine, while docker-compose --tlsverify up -d --force-recreate gives me an error: SSL error: [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed
    2. I only have one set of certs. And I can't see how they can be different because docker commands work using the endpoint. It's just the docker-compose command that fails
    3. docker-compose command you can not mix environment variable and command option. You can specify setting in env variable and then just use docker-compose ps. The connection will be secured with TLS protocol if DOCKER_TLS_VERIFY variable is set.
    4. You dont need to pass --tls or --tlsverify option in the docker-config path as the task already sets DOCKER_TSL_VERIFY environment varaible. I debugged docker-compose and docker-py library and verified that if you pass any flag --tls or --tlsverify flag it tries to create tslConfig object out of options and not from environment
    1. I debugged docker-compose and docker-py and figured out that you should either use environment variables or options in command. You should not mix these . If you even specify --tls in command then you will have to specify all the options as the TLSConfig object, as now TLSConfig object is created completely from the command options and operide the TFSConfig object created from the environment variable.
    1. My version of https://svelte.dev/repl/9c7d12357a15457bb914705702f156d1?version=3.19.2 from https://github.com/sveltejs/svelte/issues/4586

      to try to simplify and help me understand it better.

      So the lack of synchronousness is only noticed inside handleClick.

      By the time the DOM gets updated, it has a consistent/correct state.

      In other words, the console.log shows wrong value, but template shows correct value. So this might not be an actual problem for many/most use cases.

    1. I too have been confused by behavior like this. Perhaps a clearly defined way to isolate atomic units with synchronous reactivity would help those of us still working through the idiosyncrasies of reactivity.
    2. For performance reasons, $: reactive blocks are batched up and run in the next microtask. This is the expected behavior. This is one of the things that we should talk about when we figure out how and where we want to have a section in the docs that goes into more details about reactivity. If you want something that updates synchronously and depends on another value, you can use a derived store:
    1. One would expect the display to be updated, but it is not... WHY is it updated the 2nd time you enter something? What is different?
    1. If the user now clicks Back again, the URL bar will display https://www.mozilla.org/foo.html, and totally bypass bar.html.
  4. Sep 2020
    1. Basically, the idea is that a train tried to start with the caboose brakes stuck on. After releasing the caboose, the train still could not start. The problem was that when the train attempted to start with the caboose brake on, it stretched all the inter-car couplings so that the whole train was just like one big car. At this point, the friction from the engine train wheels was not enough to get the whole thing going. Instead, you need to just get one car moving at a time - this is why there is space between the couplings.
    1. Most simple example: <script> import ChildComponent from './Child.svelte'; </script> <style> .class-to-add { background-color: tomato; } </style> <ChildComponent class="class-to-add" /> ...compiles to CSS without the class-to-add declaration, as svelte currently does not recognize the class name as being used. I'd expect class-to-add is bundled with all nested style declarations class-to-add is passed to ChildComponent as class-to-add svelte-HASH This looks like a bug / missing feature to me.
    1. It's fashionable to dislike CSS. There are lots of reasons why that's the case, but it boils down to this: CSS is unpredictable. If you've never had the experience of tweaking a style rule and accidentally breaking some layout that you thought was completely unrelated — usually when you're trying to ship — then you're either new at this or you're a much better programmer than the rest of us.
  5. Aug 2020
    1. I'm just trying out the "Reply to comment" button here. Well, it seems like it doesn't quote the text... that's really the feature I'd like to exposed. When responding to a large message (email or otherwise), I like to quote various parts and respond in line.
  6. Jul 2020
    1. One may expect Array#- to behave like mathematical subtraction or difference when it doesn't. One could be forgiven to expect the following behavior: [1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4] - [1,2,3,4] => [1,2,3,4]
    2. I'll freely admit I was surprised by this behavior myself since I needed to obtain an Array with only one instance of each item in the argument array removed.
  7. Jun 2020
    1. However, a ActiveRecord::Rollback within the nested transaction will be caught by the block of the nested transaction, but will be ignored by the outer transaction, and not cause a roll back! To avoid this unexpected behaviour, you have to explicitly tell rails for each transaction to indeed use proper nesting: CopyActiveRecord::Base.transaction(joinable: false, requires_new: true) do # inner code end This is a safer default for working with custom transactions.
    1. transaction calls can be nested. By default, this makes all database statements in the nested transaction block become part of the parent transaction. For example, the following behavior may be surprising: User.transaction do User.create(username: 'Kotori') User.transaction do User.create(username: 'Nemu') raise ActiveRecord::Rollback end end creates both “Kotori” and “Nemu”. Reason is the ActiveRecord::Rollback exception in the nested block does not issue a ROLLBACK. Since these exceptions are captured in transaction blocks, the parent block does not see it and the real transaction is committed.

      How is this okay??

      When would it ever be the desired/intended behavior for a raise ActiveRecord::Rollback to have absolutely no effect? What good is the transaction then??

      What happened to the principle of least surprise?

      Is there any reason we shouldn't just always use requires_new: true?

      If, like they say, the inner transaction "become[s] part of the parent transaction", then if anything, it should roll back the parent transaction too — not roll back nothing.

  8. May 2020
    1. Unexpected features “Unexpected” features are those that are unrelated to the add-on’s primary function, and are not likely from the add-on name or description to be expected by a user installing that add-on. Should an add-on include any unexpected feature that falls into one of the following categories: Potentially compromises user privacy or security (like sending data to third parties) Changes default settings like the new tab page, homepage or search engine Makes unexpected changes to the browser or web content Includes features or functionality not related to the add-on’s core function(s) Then the “unexpected” feature(s) must adhere to all of the following requirements: The add-on description must clearly state what changes the add-on makes. All changes must be “opt-in”, meaning the user has to take non-default action to enact the change. Changes that prompt the user via the permissions system don’t require an additional opt-in. The opt-in interface must clearly state the name of the add-on requesting the change.
  9. Mar 2020
    1. To be just a bit polemic, your first instinct was not to do that. And you probably wouldn't think of that in your unit tests either (the holy grail of dynamic langs). So someday it would blow up at runtime, and THEN you'd add that safeguard.
    2. As many would guess: ... catch StandardError => e raise $! ... raises the same error referenced by $!, the same as simply calling: ... catch StandardError => e raise ... but probably not for the reasons one might think. In this case, the call to raise is NOT just raising the object in $!...it raises the result of $!.exception(nil), which in this case happens to be $!.
  10. Feb 2020
    1. The .ignore file , from what I can tell, needs to exist in the directory you're targeting for it to be recognized, not the current directory. If you're searching in .src, the file would need to be there for it to work.