Noo mën a def dinga fey alamaan bi.

It can also be included as individual modules, i.e. Hashie::Extensions::MethodReader, Hashie::Extensions::MethodWriter and Hashie::Extensions::MethodQuery.

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

Since we're not passing any inputs to ListAccounts, it makes sense to use .run! instead of .run. If it failed, that would mean we probably messed up writing the interaction.

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

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

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.

now that I realize how easy it is to just manually include this in my app: <%= javascript_include_tag 'xray', nonce: true if Rails.env.development? %> I regret even wasting my time getting it to automatically look for and add a nonce to the auto-injected xray.js script

As a workaround, I guess I'll have to disable my strict CSP in development, but I'd prefer to keep it strict in development as well so that I ran into any CSP issues sooner...

Here's the last issue where source maps were discussed before the beta release.

Have you ever felt like a framework was getting in the way instead of helping you go faster? Maybe you’re stuck on some simple task that would be easy to do manually, but your framework is making you jump through configuration hoops. I end up getting lost in a sea of documentation (or no documentation), and the search for that one magical config key takes just a tad bit too long. It’s a productivity sink, and worse than the time delay it adds to my frustration throughout the day.

found that using only the Pascal-provided control structures, the correct solution was given by only 20% of the subjects, while no subject wrote incorrect code for this problem if allowed to write a return from the middle of a loop.

That such minimalism is possible does not mean that it is necessarily desirable

Another solution is using the Safe Navigation Operator &. introduced in Ruby 2.3 which is a bit better because this is a language feature rather than an opinionated runtime environment pollution

provide interfaces so you don’t have to think about them

You’re allowed to blame us for a terrible developer experience in Trailblazer 2.0. It’s been quite painful to find out which step caused an exception. However, don’t look back in anger! We’ve spent a lot of time on working out a beautiful way for both tracing and debugging Trailblazer activities in 2.1.

Feel free to pick and choose what you need for your applications.

In the short term you may have the stamina to get up earlier, stay later, and out-work the demands you face. But the inverse equation of shrinking resources and increasing demands will eventually catch up to you, and at that point how you involve others sets the ceiling of your leadership impact.

Around 2 years ago I decided to end the experiment of “TRB PRO” as I felt I didn’t provide enough value to paying users. In the end, we had around 150 companies and individuals signed up, which was epic and a great funding source for more development.

The new 2.1 version comes with a few necessary but reasonable changes in method signatures. As painful as that might sound to your Rails-spoiled ears, we preferred to fix design mistakes now before dragging them on forever.

The new call API is much more consistent and takes away another thing we kept explaining to new users - an indicator for a flawed API.

Trailblazer (TRB) is an Open-Source project. Since we want to keep it that way, we decided to raise awareness for the “cost” of our work - providing new versions and features is incredibly time-consuming for us, but we love what we do.

The bare bones operation without any Trailblazery is implemented in the trailblazer-operation gem and can be used without our stack.

While Trailblazer offers you abstraction layers for all aspects of Ruby On Rails, it does not missionize you. Wherever you want, you may fall back to the "Rails Way" with fat models, monolithic controllers, global helpers, etc. This is not a bad thing, but allows you to step-wise introduce Trailblazer's encapsulation in your app without having to rewrite it.

Only use what you like.

you can pick which layers you want. Trailblazer doesn't impose technical implementations

In order to support easy reuse, revision, remixing, and redistribution, the entire Hypothesis Help knowledge base by Hypothesis is dedicated to the public domain via CC CC0 1.0. While we appreciate attribution and links back to Hypothesis from anywhere these works are published, they are not required.

ActiveModel::Form happened because the "tableless model" presented in RailsCast 219 wasn't as powerful as the "real deal" from RailsCast 193.

Teaching is my passion

Read about the motivation to understand why this separation of concerns is important.

Some people believed I argued that object orientation is bad simply because extends has problems, as if the two concepts are equivalent. That's certainly not what I thought I said, so let me clarify some meta-issues.

The Java packages contain a lot of great code. But there are also parts of that code I'm sure the authors are embarrassed to admit they wrote.

This article explains why you shouldn't use getters and setters (and when you can use them) and suggests a design methodology that will help you break out of the getter/setter mentality.

If you think you’ve conveyed something but the other person hears something completely different, is that their fault or yours? 

From my perspective the onus is on you to consider not just the words coming out of your mouth, but how they are received.

Everyone has their own background and context that they overlay on top of what they hear. It’s our jobs as communicators to consider that perspective and to adjust the way we communicate accordingly. If we do, we stand a better chance of persuading them to agree with our point of view.

People often hear what they think should be said, not the words that are actually spoken. This comes from the tendency of people to think faster than they talk. A listener makes assumptions about what they expect because their minds race ahead. This can be especially problematic when you misinterpret what your boss said. 

Rather than implement features you might need, you implement only the features you definitely need, but in a way that accommodates change. If you don't have this flexibility, parallel development simply isn't possible.

Bowline will bind up Ruby and HTML - letting you concentrate on the more interesting things

I apologize for the slow development of Reform after the "explosion" when I released it initially. The reason for this is I changed jobs and didn't use Reform (yet).

Scalability is the problem you want to have, and sooner rather than later, but maintainability is the problem you’re definitely going to have, sooner or later.

I have checked the following close stackoverflow sources : Relation passed to #or must be structurally compatible. Incompatible values: [:references]

that's a point, but I would say the opposite, when entering credit card data I would rathre prefer to be entirely in the Verified By Visa (Paypal) webpage (with the url easily visible in the address bar) rather that entring my credit card data in an iframe of someone's website.

If you teach your users to trust that URL bar is supposed to not change when they click links (e.g. your site uses a big iframe with all the actual content), then the users will not notice anything in the future either in case of actual security vulnerability.

The point is, just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not happening. It’s been more than two years and as far as I know, no one has ever noticed one of my requests. Maybe it’s been in your site this whole time

This is open-source. You can always fork and maintain that fork yourself if you feel that's warranted. That's how this project started in the first place, so I know the feeling.

Bordering an element with a single repeating image is something that seems like it should be easy with a property called border-image, but the process for actually doing that is somewhat counter-intuitive. Let’s say, for example, that you want to border an element with a repeating heart icon. You can’t do that with a image of a single heart. Instead, you have to make an image of a “frame” of hearts arranged as you’d like them to appear in the border, then slice that image. <img sizes="(min-width: 735px) 864px, 96vw" src='https://i2.wp.com/css-tricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/enlarged-border-image-slice.png' alt='' data-recalc-dims="1" />Eight hearts in a “frame” image, enlarged to show detail. The red lines indicate slices. If you think that sounds preposterous, you’re in good company. There was a lengthy discussion of the subject on Eric Myer’s blog a few years ago where many frontend development greats weighed in.

Great, I can use vw to scale text so it doesn't look puny on a desktop! Perfect... Oh. Huh, now the text is too small to read when viewed on a phone. Okay, well I can just use "max(x,y)" to make sure it doesn't get shrunk beyond a minimum size. Perfect... Oh. Hmm. Looks like "max" isn't supported properly by Chrome. Okay, well guess I'll just use "px" again.

I'm very (VERY!) tempted to use that ppa, but without offense to it's maintainers... it's just some random ppa. If it had more "traction" I'd use it. Right now it has only 3 maintainers.

What's wrong here is Canonical trying to position itself as a powerhouse and ascertain control over Linux users.

Canonical are really taking whole chapters out of the Microsoft 'How To' book. Do it our way or not at all.

You should default to the most permissive option imo and there really is no reason to check anything until you really need to If it were left to me I'd just use optional chaining, as it also eliminates the need for no-ops

In other words, programs that send messages to other machines (or to other programs on the same machine) should conform completely to the specifications, but programs that receive messages should accept non-conformant input as long as the meaning is clear.

be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others

Why? I wrote MagpieRSS out of a frustration with the limitations of existing solutions. In particular many of the existing PHP solutions seemed to: use a parser based on regular expressions, making for an inherently fragile solution only support early versions of RSS discard all the interesting information besides item title, description, and link. not build proper separation between parsing the RSS and displaying it.

Progress is made of compromises, this implies that we have to consider not only disadvantages, but also the advantages. Advantages do very clearly outweigh disadvantages. This doesn’t mean it perfect, or that work shouldn’t continue to minimize and reduce the disadvantages, but just considering disadvantages is not the correct way.

I’m not a dev either, so no Ubuntu fork, but I will perhaps be forced to look at Debian testing, without some advantages of Ubuntu - but now that Unity is gone (and I deeply regret it), gap would not be so huge anymore…

If folks want to get together and create a snap-free remix, you are welcome to do so. Ubuntu thrives on such contribution and leadership by community members. Do be aware that you will be retreading territory that Ubuntu developers trod in 2010-14, and that you will encounter some of the same issues that led them to embrace snap-based solutions. Perhaps your solutions will be different. .debs are not perfect, snaps are not perfect. Each have advantages and disadvantages. Ubuntu tries to use the strengths of both.

How do you know this? I've looked all over the internet and can't find any proof that Lightdm is more "lightweight" (whatever this means) or faster.

If there’s a lot more to aligning icons to text than you expected, then you are not alone.

Find Your Passion, Then Monetize It The

Try a little of everything, and then choose a specialization. Money is not the most important thing. You need to LOVE your activity! But you don't know what you like until you try it.

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

Better contribution workflow: We will be using GitHub’s contribution tools and features, essentially moving MDN from a Wiki model to a pull request (PR) model. This is so much better for contribution, allowing for intelligent linting, mass edits, and inclusion of MDN docs in whatever workflows you want to add it to (you can edit MDN source files directly in your favorite code editor).

It would help greatly if you provided references for "articles online about what universal javascript is". But I think this is just too dependent on opinion.

All projects here are completely frozen, though feel free to fork and continue using them on your own.

Secondary buttons are the alternative we give users to the primary action.

Many linguists believe that the natural language a person speaks affects how they think. Does the same concept apply to computer languages?

The use of __proto__ is controversial and discouraged. It was never originally included in the ECMAScript language spec, but modern browsers implemented it anyway. Only recently was the __proto__ property standardized by the ECMAScript 2015 specification for compatibility with web browsers, so it will be supported into the future.

We won’t go into all the details that make an application a PWA, because it all sort of depends on who you ask.

We are working to develop better communication within TC39 and with the broader JavaScript community so that this sort of problem can be corrected sooner in the future.

This is Sass based, and therefore doesn't require Svelte components

I've worked at Facebook and Google, and I know who can see the messages you send over their platforms. It's scary.

There are a few intentional behavioral differences between Dart Sass and Ruby Sass. These are generally places where Ruby Sass has an undesired behavior, and it's substantially easier to implement the correct behavior than it would be to implement compatible behavior. These should all have tracking bugs against Ruby Sass to update the reference behavior.

Obviously we shouldn't rush into anything. But changes like these are best made earlier on in a project's lifecycle, so I'm eager to hear what people think so that we can start making some progress.

However, that really doesn't mean we should expose everything else in JSON too...

I came up with this solution by piecing together man pages and random google result. I was surprised at how many incomplete and inaccurate answers were out there. What may have been more surprising was the complete lack of a full intact solution.

It took a lot of searching around to find that variable.

Don’t fetch stuff unless you actually need it Judging from the response to our 503 errors, much of the software requesting DTDs and schemata from our site doesn’t even need them in the first place, so requesting them just wastes bandwidth and slows down the application. If you don’t need it, don’t fetch it!

There are other features you *could* actually polyfill, such as Array.of, Number.isNaN or Object.assign, because those don’t introduce syntax changes to the language – except that you shouldn’t.

Polyfills are naughty as they patch native APIs, while ponyfills are pure and don't affect the environment.

How are ponyfills better than polyfills? A polyfill is code that adds missing functionality by monkey patching an API. Unfortunately, it usually globally patches built-ins, which affects all code running in the environment. This is especially problematic when a polyfill is not fully spec compliant (which in some cases is impossible), as it could cause very hard to debug bugs and inconsistencies. Or when the spec for a new feature changes and your code depends on behavior that a module somewhere else in the dependency tree polyfills differently. In general, you should not modify API's you don't own.

if you think this project can help you or anyone else, you may star it on GitHub

However, in function components there really isn't much need for this pattern since you can just use JS default arguments

Svelte should make something like useEffect part of the framework so that this could work better and be less verbose.

Svelte doesn't re-render, so you need to respond to component mount/dismount and prop changes separately as they are distinct concepts and never tied together, unlike in React.

Sometimes, you may be tempted to write that wrapper. Because all your (React or Vue or insert your reactive framework here) instincts tell you so.Resist the temptation. There is a better way. A svelter way. Introducing: the use-directive (a.k.a. “actions”).

However, especially when starting out, it’s very easy to fall into the “this is how I did things in my previous framework” trap.

I started Solid years ago before I thought anyone would be interested in using it. I only started promoting it because it had already achieved the goals I had set out for it.

Since this issue seems to pop up periodically, it would be useful to turn this into a warning. It may not be elegant, but it prevents surprise blank screens due to a navigation error.

It is showed as an error, but it is a warning as it doesn't break anything. I hate having warning/error in my console not coming from me. It is not justified as it's not bad practice imho

You probably want initialValue! ⚠️ The value of the field upon creation. This value is only needed if you want your field be dirty upon creation (i.e. for its value to be different from its initial value).

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.

Instead, rather than trying to implement what it thinks is the best way to bundle different type of assets, it leaves that entirely up to the developer to decide.

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.

new style RFC

They don't need to add a prop for every action. The action itself can be passed in as a prop. <script> export let action; </script> <div use:action>whatever</div> The argument for the action can be another prop or can be part of the same prop.

Lets not extend the framework with yet another syntax

And to illustrate another way actions are helpful, take your above example and put the button into a {{#each}}. It gets more complicated.

I'm just pushing on the "is this really a good idea" front

Another problem I ran into was knowing when an element is removed. I had to add a MutationObserver on the current tooltip target so if it gets removed by Svelte while the tooltip is visible (e.g. if a click moves to another route) the tooltip isn't left hanging around on the screen. No mouseleave/mouseout events are dispatched on elements that are removed.

The feature is highly likely to be implemented, the API and implementation are the only real topics of discussion right now.

6to5 attempted to ship a quick and dirty TDZ static checking feature but had to retract it immediately afterwards due to various bugs in the algorithm.

Now I know what you're thinking, "this is an atrocity, what a horrible mess!" and you're right, it's kind of ugly. In fact it's just about impossible to think this is a good idea the first time you see it — you have to actually try it.

Ultimately though, I'd say the file structure that makes the most sense for your i18n workflow is the best one.

So, which is better? t.inspect # => "2007-11-01 15:25:00 8483885939586761/68719476736000000 UTC" t.inspect # => "2007-11-01 15:25:00.123456789000000004307366907596588134765625 UTC"

But I love it, and so I plan to keep it alive.

If you've found a problem in Ruby on Rails which is not a security risk, do a search on GitHub under Issues in case it has already been reported. If you are unable to find any open GitHub issues addressing the problem you found, your next step will be to open a new one.

It's funny that in such a complex gem like this, there's only one open issue, exactly about what I came here to post.

there’s 3 steps to building software: Make it work Make it right Make it fast

By putting our data in the corporate cloud, we are that kid. We are giving corporations and governments a way to see where we are looking towards, and they can predict our future and decide whether and how to intervene or subvert.

From a game theoretic standpoint, we’ve already lost. Too many of our civil society adversaries have too much of our data, and we have so little of theirs.

The words that you have not spoken; you are their owner. The words you have spoken, they own you.

Hewson also identifies three properties of human beings that give rise to agency: intentionality, power, and rationality.

They also have differing amounts of abilities and resources resulting in some having greater agency (power) than others.