494 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Once a variable is specified with the use method, access it with EnvSetting.my_var Or you can still use the Hash syntax if you prefer it: EnvSetting["MY_VAR"]
  2. Jun 2021
    1. 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
    2. 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).
    1. >> We have that already, it's named 'json_each_text' > Apparently you haven't looked at json parse/deparse costs ;P Well, a PL function is gonna be none too cheap either. Using something like JSON definitely has lots to recommend it --- eg, it probably won't break when you find out your initial spec for the transport format was too simplistic.
    1. 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.
  3. May 2021
    1. As the token is unique and unpredictable, it also enforces proper sequence of events (e.g. screen 1, then 2, then 3) which raises usability problem (e.g. user opens multiple tabs). It can be relaxed by using per session CSRF token instead of per request CSRF token.
    1. Collecting per-second measurements of CPU load might yield interesting data, but such frequent measurements may be very expensive to collect, store, and analyze.

      Revisit the log files on our production server.

    1. it is better to allow an error budget—a rate at which the SLOs can be missed—and track that on a daily or weekly basis
    2. To save effort, build a set of reusable SLI templates for each common metric; these also make it simpler for everyone to understand what a specific SLI means.
    1. With over 16 million pulls per month, Google’s `distroless` base images are widely used and depended on by large projects like Kubernetes and Istio. These minimal images don’t include common tools like shells or package managers, making their attack surface (and download size!) smaller than traditional base images such as `ubuntu` or `alpine`.

      I need to check these out.

  4. Apr 2021
    1. 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.

      does not depend on the shifting winds of Rails.

    1. 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.
    2. But in all this incongruous abundance you'll certanly find the links to expect It's just what is wanted: the tool, which is traditionally used to communicate automatically with interactive programs. And as it always occurs, there is unfortunately a little fault in it: expect needs the programming language TCL to be present. Nevertheless if it doesn't discourage you to install and learn one more, though very powerful language, then you can stop your search, because expect and TCL with or without TK have everything and even more for you to write scripts.
    1. “Who cares? Let’s just go with the style-guide” — to which my response is that caring about the details is in the heart of much of our doings. Yes, this is not a major issue; def self.method is not even a code smell. Actually, that whole debate is on the verge of being incidental. Yet the learning process and the gained knowledge involved in understanding each choice is alone worth the discussion. Furthermore, I believe that the class << self notation echoes a better, more stable understanding of Ruby and Object Orientation in Ruby. Lastly, remember that style-guides may change or be altered (carefully, though!).
    1. We strongly encourage you to reset any personal access tokens and OAuth tokens you have.

      Reset my access tokens. Pretty sure I have at least one.

    1. I actually think this is Not Constructive, since there's no absolute rule about which pairings can be joined into a single word or hyhenated, and it's pointless having "votes" here about each specific case. Follow a style guide if you have one, or search Google Books and copy whatever the majority do. Or just make your own decision.
    1. Academy Games has always prided itself in the quality of its rules. Most of our rules are taught in stages, allowing you to start playing as soon as possible without needing to read everything. We are very careful about the order we teach rules and rely heavily on graphics and pictures to facilitate understanding. We also include a large number of detailed picture examples, often with 3D renders, that help you understand the context of the rules.
    1. 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).
    1. # +devise_for+ is meant to play nicely with other routes methods. For example, # by calling +devise_for+ inside a namespace, it automatically nests your devise # controllers: # # namespace :publisher do # devise_for :account # end
  5. Mar 2021
    1. This should link to / explain the relationship to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(computer_programming) (which I believe is a way of expressing / codifying semantic classes into source code).

      It should also link to / explain the relationship to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory

    2. (Not answered on this stub article)

      What, precisely, is the distinction/difference between a semantic class and a semantic field? At the very least, you would say that they are themselves both very much within the same semantic field.

      So, is a semantic class distinct from a semantic field in that semantic class is a more well-defined/clear-cut semantic field? And a semantic field is a more fluid, nebulous, not well-defined field (in the same sense as a magnetic field, which has no distinct boundary whatsoever, only a decay as you move further away from its source) ("semantic fields are constantly flowing into each other")?

      If so, could you even say that a semantic class is a kind of (hyponym) of semantic field?

      Maybe I should pose this question on a semantics forum.

    1. Or if you need to change the way the string is assembled, you can provide a proc, for example: if defined?(BetterErrors) BetterErrors.editor = proc { |file, line| "vscode://file/%{file}:%{line}" % { file: URI.encode_www_form_component(file), line: line } } end
    1. there are no general principles comparable to Alberti's treatises or Le Corbusier's.

      TODO: look up and link.

    1. a Docker container running a very simple NodeJS web server with the Graphile library (and some additional Netflix internal components for security, logging, metrics, and monitoring) could provide a “better REST than REST” or “REST++” platform for rapid development efforts

      Give this a try.

    1. Third configurable block to run.

      I like how they identify in the description which order things run in: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and last.

      Though, it would be more readable to have a list of them, in chronological order, rather than having them listed in alphabetical order.

    2. Last configurable block to run. Called after frameworks initialize.
    1. Clearly JS and NPM have done a lot RIGHT, judging by success and programmer satisfaction. How do we keep that right and fix the wrong?
      1. Get out the city shapefile and overlay these values.
      2. Get the most current version of the voter registration database.
      3. Determine the number of voters who, according to the Spokane Journal of Business, took part in the 2018 school bond vote, but not the stadium advisory vote. (Geographically, these would be folks who live within SD81, but outside of the city limits.)
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. But last I have seen comments from DHH, he considered webpack(er) recommended for JS, but Sprockets still the preferred solution for (S)CSS.
    4. Is there a PR to... something? sassc-rails? That would make the patch not necessary? (I don't know if there's any good way to monkey-patch that in, I think you have to fork? So some change seems required...) Should the defaults be different somehow? This is very difficult to figure out.
    5. Is there a PR to... something? sassc-rails?
    1. Beykat yi duñu dem tool altine.

      Les cultivateurs ne vont pas au champ le lundi.

      beykat bi -- farmer 👩🏾‍🌾 (from bey -- to farm/cultivate).

      yi -- the (indicates plurality).

      duñu -- do not/no one (?).

      dem v. -- to go, leave, etc.

      tool bi -- field, orchard.

      altine ji -- (Arabic) Monday.

    2. Noo mën a def dinga fey alamaan bi.

      Quoi que tu fasses, tu paieras l'amende.

      noo -- you (?)

      mën v. -- power ; be stronger than 💪🏽; can, will.

      a -- (?).

      def v. -- do, commit, execute; to put.

      dinga -- you will.

      fey v. -- turn off, switch off 📴, appease; pay 💵.

      alamaan bi -- (French: l'amende) fine.

      bi -- the.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y6PTqs1uCc

  6. afarkas.github.io afarkas.github.io
    1. Webshim is also more than a polyfill, it has become a UI component and widget library. Webshim enables a developer to also enhance HTML5 capable browsers with more highly customizable, extensible and flexible UI components and widgets.

      And now that it's deprecated (presumably due to no longer needing these polyfills), not only do the polyfills go away (no longer maintained), but also these unrelated "extras" that some of us may have been depending on are now going away with no replacement ...

      If those were in a separate package, then there would have been some chance of the "extras" package being updated to work without the base webshims polyfills.

      In particular, I was using $.webshims.addCustomValidityRule which adds something that you can't do in plain HTML5 (that I can tell), so it isn't a polyfill...

  7. Feb 2021
    1. URI::MailTo::EMAIL_REGEXP

      First time I've seen someone create a validator by simply matching against URI::MailTo::EMAIL_REGEXP from std lib. More often you see people copying and pasting some really long regex that they don't understand and is probably not loose enough. It's much better, though, to simply reuse a standard one from a library — by reference, rather than copying and pasting!!

    1. In combination with [Track()], the :magnetic_to option allows for a neat way to spawn custom tracks outside of the conventional Railway or FastTrack schema.

      Instead of magnetic_to:, I propose wrapping the steps that are on a separate track in something like...

        DefTrack do :paypal do
          step :charge_paypal
        end
      

      or

        paypal_track = RailwayTrack do :paypal do
          step :charge_paypal
        end
      

      so we can reference it from outputs, like we can with tracks created with Path helper.

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

      Seems like this would be a very common need: once you switch to a custom failure track, you want it to stay on that track until the end!!!

      The problem is that in a Railway, everything automatically has 2 outputs. But we really only need one (which is exactly what Path gives us). And you end up fighting the defaults when there are the automatic 2 outputs, because you have to remember to explicitly/verbosely redirect all of those outputs or they may end up going somewhere you don't want them to go.

      The default behavior of everything going to the next defined step is not helpful for doing that, and in fact is quite frustrating because you don't want unrelated steps to accidentally end up on one of the tasks in your custom failure track.

      And you can't use fail for custom-track steps becase that breaks magnetic_to for some reason.

      I was finding myself very in need of something like this, and was about to write my own DSL, but then I discovered this. I still think it needs a better DSL than this, but at least they provided a way to do this. Much needed.

      For this example, I might write something like this:

      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
      

      I guess that's not much different than theirs. Main improvement is it avoids ugly need to specify end_id/end_task.

      But that wouldn't actually be enough either in this example, because you would actually want to have a failure track there and a path doesn't have one ... so it sounds like Subprocess and a new self-contained ProcessCreditCard Railway would be the best solution for this particular example... Subprocess is the ultimate in flexibility and gives us all the flexibility we need)


      But what if you had a path that you needed to direct to from 2 different tasks' outputs?

      Example: I came up with this, but it takes a lot of effort to keep my custom path/track hidden/"isolated" and prevent other tasks from automatically/implicitly going into those steps:

      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>
      

      Now attempt to do it with Path... Does the Path() have an ID we can reference? Or maybe we just keep a reference to the object and use it directly in 2 different places?

      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>
      

      It's just too bad that:

      • there's not a Railway helper in case you want multiple outputs, though we could probably create one pretty easily using Path as our template
      • we can't "inline" a separate Railway acitivity (Subprocess "nests" it rather than "inlines")
    3. step :direct_debit

      I don't think we would/should really want to make this the "success" (Right) path and :credit_card be the "failure" (Left) track.

      Maybe it's okay to repurpose Left and Right for something other than failure/success ... but only if we can actually change the default semantic of those signals/outputs. Is that possible? Maybe there's a way to override or delete the default outputs?

    4. Patching has no implicit, magical side-effects and is strongly encouraged to customize flows for a specific case in a quick and consise way.
    5. While you could nest an activity into another manually, the Subprocess macro will come in handy.
    6. The macro automatically wires all of Validate’s ends to the known counter-part tracks.
    1. They do not maintain a to-do list (mentally or physically).
    2. If you ask my former students, they will tell you that as a teacher, my goal is to do nothing. I dream of the day when I can sit at my desk, feet propped up, reading a book, while the classroom bursts with activity and learning around me.
    1. 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.
    1. ActiveModel provides a powerful framework for defining callbacks. ActiveInteraction hooks into that framework to allow hooking into various parts of an interaction's lifecycle.
    2. account.first_name = first_name if first_name.present? account.last_name = last_name if last_name.present?

      I guess this is needed so we don't reset to nil (erasing value in database) when they haven't even provided a new value as input.

      But surely there's a cleaner way...

    1. Personal todo lists don’t depend on others using the same system (no network effects)

      They don't unless you're building a wiki or commonplace book that can interact with those of others. (Roam research isn't doing this---yet, but they should.) Ideally small building block pieces will allow it to dovetail with other systems that could potentially do the same thing.

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

      equivalent in javascript:

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

      Not a bad replacement for that! I still find javascript's syntax a little more easily readable and natural, but given that we can't use the same syntax (probably because it would be incompatible with existing syntax rules that we can't break for compatibility reasons, unfortunately), this is a pretty good compromise/solution that they've come up with.

    1. 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.
    1. Examples of different ways of defining forms

      Wow, that's a lot of different ways.

      The inline_form way in particular seems interesting to me, though it's worth noting that that method is just an example, not actually part of this project's code, so it's not really a first-class option like the other options.