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

Trailblazer offers you a new, more intuitive file layout in applications.

Instead of grouping by technology, classes and views are structured by concept, and then by technology. A concept can relate to a model, or can be a completely abstract concern such as invoicing.

Concepts over Technology

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.

It's an implementation of the command pattern in Ruby.

The more important point comes from a program design perspective. Here, "programming to an interface" means focusing your design on what the code is doing, not how it does it. This is a vital distinction that pushes your design towards correctness and flexibility.

If the program was important enough, Microsoft might actually go ahead and add some hack to their implementation so the the program would continue to work, but the cost of that is increased complexity (with all the ensuing problems) of the Windows code. It also makes life extra-hard for the Wine people, because they try to implement the WinAPI as well, but they can only refer to the documentation for how to do this, which leads to many programs not working as they should because they (accidentally or intentionally) rely on some implementation detail.

The press will tell you that "the concept" is great but the execution is bad. What should I tell you? The experience is shallow. The game is mediocre. But listen carefully, when a game is mediocre and can't even make you feel something then it's the worst kind of gaming. I will give it a 4 out of 10. You know, if this was a test in a school then this game should be marked D (someone answered a few questions, but overall missed the point). I understand that many people care about the "concept" of this game, but why if the experience is just... not here. I'm talking about the experience becaus We. The Revolution tried to be an actual experience. And it fails so badly.

I don't think this is what really matters at the end, since whatever is the implementation the goal should be to provide a library that people actually like to use.

I'm not familiar with Svelte. But the UI itself is handled in a custom canvas on mobile (and probably Desktop?) Though, on the web, it is HTML and CSS.

This decorators proposal deliberately omits these features, in order to keep the meaning of decorators "well-scoped" and intuitive, and to simplify implementations, both in transpilers and native engines.

However, this coalescing was very complicated, both in the specification and implementations, due to the dynamism of computed property names for accessors. Coalescing was a big source of overhead (e.g., in terms of code size) in polyfill implementations of "Stage 2" decorators.

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.

Dart Sass has replaced Ruby Sass as the canonical implementation of the Sass language.

Dart Sass is the primary implementation of Sass, which means it gets new features before any other implementation. It’s fast, easy to install, and it compiles to pure JavaScript which makes it easy to integrate into modern web development workflows.

The freedesktop.org project also developed a free and open-source software library called libdbus, as a reference implementation of the specification. This library should not be confused with D-Bus itself, as other implementations of the D-Bus specification also exist

Typically, platform accessibility APIs do not provide a vehicle to notify assistive technologies of a role value change, and consequently, assistive technologies may not update their cache with the new role attribute value.

One of the primary tasks of engineers is to minimize complexity. JSX changes such a fundamental part (syntax and semantics of the language) that the complexity bubbles up to everything it touches. Pretty much every pipeline tool I've had to work with has become far more complex than necessary because of JSX. It affects AST parsers, it affects linters, it affects code coverage, it affects build systems. That tons and tons of additional code that I now need to wade through and mentally parse and ignore whenever I need to debug or want to contribute to a library that adds JSX support.

BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer (P2P) communications protocol for file sharing. It may also refer to: BitTorrent (company), a company which develops and maintains the BitTorrent protocol BitTorrent (software), the original BitTorrent client

It causes some implementation complexity just by existing.

I used a "specific function". But maybe it could be done within a derived store. A kind of auto reset on ... But I think there is no elagant solution, so I stick with the specific function.

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

Please focus on explaining the motivation so that if this RFC is not accepted, the motivation could be used to develop alternative solutions. In other words, enumerate the constraints you are trying to solve without coupling them too closely to the solution you have in mind.

A huge part of the value on an RFC is defining the problem clearly, collecting use cases, showing how others have solved a problem, etc.

An RFC can provide tremendous value without the design described in it being accepted.

However, that in-memory representation is not tied directly to the DOM in the browser (even though it is called Virtual DOM, which is an unfortunate and confusing name for an universal apps framework), and it is just a DOM-like data-structure that represents all the UI components hierarchy and additional meta-data. Virtual DOM is just an implementation detail.

It would be nice if the tests weren't so implementation specific, but rather tested the essence of the functionality. I tried to make them less brittle but failed. To that end, re-writing all the tests in rspec would be (IMHO) a brilliant improvement and pave the way for better tests in the future and more flexibility in implementation.

The aim of this list is to document all Markdown syntax variations (rather than implementations).

Devise-Two-Factor only worries about the backend, leaving the details of the integration up to you. This means that you're responsible for building the UI that drives the gem. While there is an example Rails application included in the gem, it is important to remember that this gem is intentionally very open-ended, and you should build a user experience which fits your individual application.

public money isnot used to create or perpetuate disability-related barriers, and regarding training of front-linepersonnel.

it doesn't even render in-file components. For example, the <Fade /> component we have above is an implementation detail of the <HiddenMessage /> component, but because we're shallow rendering <Fade /> isn't rendered so changes to that component could break our application but not our test. That's a major issue in my mind and is evidence to me that we're testing implementation details.

The reason this kind of test fails those considerations is because it's testing irrelevant implementation details. The user doesn't care one bit what things are called. In fact, that test doesn't even verify that the message is hidden properly when the show state is false or shown when the show state is true. So not only does the test not do a great job keeping us safe from breakages, it's also flakey and doesn't actually test the reason the component exists in the first place.

I could rename toggle to handleButtonClick (and update the corresponding onClick reference). My test breaks despite this being a refactor.

I could mistakenly set onClick of the button to this.tgogle instead of this.toggle. My test continues to work, but my component is broken.

Will this test break when there's a mistake that would break the component in production?Will this test continue to work when there's a fully backward compatible refactor of the component?

Why is testing implementation details bad?There are two distinct reasons that it's important to avoid testing implementation details. Tests which test implementation details:Can break when you refactor application code. False negativesMay not fail when you break application code. False positives

But far too often, I see tests which are testing implementation details (read this before continuing if you haven't already). When you do this, you introduce a third user. The developer user and the end user are really all that matters for this component. So long as it serves those two, then it has a reason to exist. And when you're maintaining the component you need to keep those two users in mind to make sure that if you break the contract with them, you do something to handle that change.But as soon as you start testing things which your developer user and end user don't know or care about (implementation details), you add a third testing user, you're now having to keep that third user in your head and make sure you account for changes that affect the testing user as well.

You want to write maintainable tests for your React components. As a part of this goal, you want your tests to avoid including implementation details of your components and rather focus on making your tests give you the confidence for which they are intended. As part of this, you want your testbase to be maintainable in the long run so refactors of your components (changes to implementation but not functionality) don't break your tests and slow you and your team down.

At the heart of good teaching with technology are three core components: content, pedagogy, and technology, plus the relationships among and between them. The interactions between and among the three components, playing out differently across diverse contexts, account for the wide variations seen in the extent and quality of educational technology integration

offering humanity a way to address complex problems together

Kompetenzraster des Medienpasses

Zuordnungstabelle

At a time of once-in-a-generation reform to healthcare in this country, the leaders of HM can’t afford to rest on their laurels, says Dr. Goldman. Three years ago, he wrote a paper for the Journal of Hospital Medicine titled “An Intellectual Agenda for Hospitalists.” In short, Dr. Goldman would like to see hospitalists move more into advancing science themselves rather than implementing the scientific discoveries of others. He cautions anyone against taking that as criticism of the field. “If hospitalists are going to be the people who implement what other people have found, they run the risk of being the ones who make sure everybody gets perioperative beta-blockers even if they don’t really work,” he says. “If you want to take it to the illogical extreme, you could have people who were experts in how most efficiently to do bloodletting. “The future for hospitalists, if they’re going to get to the next level—I think they can and will—is that they have to be in the discovery zone as well as the implementation zone.” Dr. Wachter says it’s about staying ahead of the curve. For 20 years, the field has been on the cutting edge of how hospitals treat patients. To grow even more, it will be crucial to keep that focus.

By 2007, SHM had launched Project BOOST (Better Outcomes by Optimizing Safe Transitions), an award-winning mentored-implementation program to reduce LOS, adverse events, and unnecessary 30-day readmissions. Other mentored-implementation programs followed. The Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) program focuses on preventing hypoglycemia, while the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention Collaborative (VTE PC) seeks to give practical assistance on how to reduce blood clots via a VTE prevention program

“The ADDIE model consists of five steps: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. It is a strategic plan for course design and may serve as a blueprint to design IL assignments and various other instructional activities.”

In January of that year, the company began testing a tool called the web annotator, which allowed anyone to add genius.it/ before any URL and then highlight and annotate text.

MOOCs tend to attract those with already a high level of education, rather than widen access

approaches

an objective set for the Sprint that can be met through the implementation of Product Backlog. It provides guidance to the Development Team on why it is building the Increment. It is created during the Sprint Planning meeting. The Sprint Goal gives the Development Team some flexibility regarding the functionality implemented within the Sprint. The selected Product Backlog items deliver one coherent function, which can be the Sprint Goal. The Sprint Goal can be any other coherence that causes the Development Team to work together rather than on separate initiatives.

I regret that the documentation does not focus on what is most relevant; by focusing on a largely irrelevant implementation detail, we enlarge the importance of that implementation detail and obscure the importance of what makes a value type semantically useful. I dearly wish that all those articles explaining what “the stack” is would instead spend time explaining what exactly “copied by value” means and how misunderstanding or misusing “copy by value” can cause bugs.

I find this characterization of a value type based on its implementation details rather than its observable characteristics to be both confusing and unfortunate

Surely the most relevant fact about value types is not the implementation detail of how they are allocated, but rather the by-design semantic meaning of “value type”, namely that they are always copied “by value”.

I blogged a while back about how “references” are often described as “addresses” when describing the semantics of the C# memory model. Though that’s arguably correct, it’s also arguably an implementation detail rather than an important eternal truth. Another memory-model implementation detail I often see presented as a fact is “value types are allocated on the stack”. I often see it because of course, that’s what our documentation says.