Thank you for the additional clarification and for the considerable expenditure of explanatory effort represented by the preceding response. Before proceeding further with the underlying technical question, it may be useful to establish a more explicit shared understanding concerning the relationship between the quantity of information supplied, the extent to which that information is necessary for the immediate decision being made, and the finite amount of maintainer attention available for converting the supplied information into an actionable conclusion. For the avoidance of doubt, the concern being raised here is not that factual accuracy, reproducibility, technical precision, correction of earlier assertions, or sufficient evidentiary support are undesirable. Each of those properties is useful and may, under the appropriate circumstances, be necessary. The difficulty arises when the information required to establish the relevant fact is accompanied by additional explanation whose presence, although potentially interesting and perhaps even technically correct, does not materially alter the fact itself, the confidence with which that fact can be evaluated, or the action that follows from accepting it. Every response imposes what might be described as a comprehension obligation upon its recipients. That obligation consists not merely of reading the words presented, but also of determining which statements constitute factual claims, which function as evidence, which are qualifications, which are conjectures, which supersede earlier statements, which merely restate conclusions already established elsewhere, and which are included primarily to explain the circumstances under which some other statement came to be made. The cost of satisfying this obligation tends to increase with the length, density, and structural complexity of the response, even where the amount of information capable of changing the maintainer’s eventual decision remains constant. This consideration is particularly significant in the context of open-source maintenance, where the time required to read, classify, verify, and contextualize one response cannot simultaneously be used to reproduce another issue, review a pull request, investigate a regression, prepare a release, answer another contributor, evaluate a dependency update, improve documentation, or perform any of the numerous other activities competing for the same limited pool of attention. Consequently, verbosity is not entirely without cost merely because the information is supplied voluntarily, constructively, and with the intention of preventing misunderstanding. Its cost is transferred to each recipient who must determine which portions are operationally necessary and which portions can be disregarded without compromising the validity of the resulting conclusion. We would therefore ask that future responses be prepared according to something approximating a principle of minimum sufficient communication, by which a response contains the smallest collection of independently useful facts required to answer the question currently being asked or to establish the behavior currently under discussion. Information should not be included solely because it is adjacent to the subject, because it records the path by which a conclusion was reached, because it anticipates questions that have not yet been asked, because it exhaustively delineates the boundaries of claims whose ordinary interpretation is already sufficiently narrow, or because omitting it might leave some peripheral aspect of the subject less than comprehensively characterized. The use of the word “smallest” in this context should not be interpreted as a request for artificial abbreviation, unexplained assertions, incomplete reproduction instructions, or the omission of facts required to distinguish the reported behavior from another superficially similar behavior. It means, instead, that each sentence should justify the attention required to process it by contributing something without which a maintainer would be materially less able to verify the report or determine the appropriate next action. Where the removal of a sentence would leave the actionable meaning unchanged, that sentence should generally be presumed removable. Where several paragraphs can be replaced by a single concrete observation without sacrificing reproducibility, the concrete observation should be preferred. Where a mechanism can be demonstrated through a minimal configuration change and an immediately observable result, that demonstration should ordinarily take precedence over a comprehensive narrative describing the mechanism’s provenance, implications, surrounding implementation details, and hypothetical manifestations in configurations not yet tested. Qualifications should similarly be restricted to those that alter the reasonable interpretation of the principal claim. It is generally unnecessary to enumerate every proposition that is not being asserted, every environment that has not been tested, every alternative explanation that was considered and rejected, every inference that a sufficiently careful reader might otherwise draw, or every reason the author has for believing that an untested configuration may behave similarly. Where uncertainty is relevant, it is usually sufficient to identify the precise boundary of verification rather than narrating the broader epistemological status of all related propositions. One potentially useful standard for deciding whether information warrants inclusion is to ask whether the behavior that actually occurs, the smallest reliable procedure that causes it to occur, and any qualification without which those statements would become materially misleading remain understandable and reproducible after the information is removed. If they do, the removed material was probably not necessary for the immediate response. Background already available elsewhere in the issue, detailed explanations of standard language or bundler behavior, speculative generalizations beyond the verified reproducer, extended discussion of why an earlier reproducer was inadequate, descriptions of investigative paths that did not produce the final result, and multiple reformulations of the same conclusion at successively different levels of abstraction should normally be retained by the author unless and until a maintainer requests them. This request is not intended as a judgment concerning the effort, competence, thoroughness, or good faith involved in preparing the response. It concerns the format in which the result of that effort is presented. A technically correct response may nevertheless be disproportionately expensive to consume, in much the same way that a comprehensive diagnostic log may contain the relevant error while simultaneously making that error more difficult to locate. The objective is not to minimize the amount of investigation performed by the reporter, but to minimize the portion of that investigation which every subsequent reader must reconstruct before reaching the actionable result. We recognize that determining what is essential requires judgment and that contributors cannot invariably know in advance which detail a maintainer will consider relevant. In such circumstances, the preferred strategy is progressive disclosure, under which the shortest adequately supported factual answer is provided initially and further supporting detail is supplied only when a maintainer identifies a concrete need for it. It is substantially easier for a maintainer to request one missing fact than it is for multiple maintainers to independently identify and disregard several pages of facts that do not affect the decision being made. The appropriate optimization target is therefore not maximum completeness at the time of the first response, but minimum aggregate effort across all participants required to reach a sufficiently supported conclusion. A concise response that results in one targeted follow-up question may satisfy that target more effectively than an exhaustive response which attempts to preempt every conceivable follow-up but requires substantially greater processing time from every reader, including readers for whom most of the anticipated questions would never have arisen. Facts directly necessary to establish the reported behavior should be included. Evidence directly necessary to verify those facts should be included only to the extent that verification would otherwise be impractical or ambiguous. Context that may be interesting but does not change the facts, their verification, or the resulting action should be omitted unless specifically requested. Where several formulations communicate materially identical information, the shortest formulation should be selected. Where a direct statement is available, it should take precedence over a narrative account of how the statement was discovered. Where one verified claim is sufficient, it should not be surrounded by multiple hypothetical extensions. Where the answer to a question can be expressed as a concrete condition and an observable consequence, the response should ordinarily contain that condition and consequence without attempting to supply a general theory of every adjacent failure mode. It is also important to clarify that this does not mean providing a concise summary followed by the same extended explanation that the summary was intended to replace. The continued presence of the explanation preserves most of the reading, classification, and triage cost. A summary is not a substitute for removing unnecessary material when the unnecessary material remains directly beneath it. Supporting details can remain available to the author and can be supplied in a subsequent response if a maintainer determines that the initial facts are insufficient. Nor is it generally necessary to surround relevant facts with introductory courtesies, repeated apologies, rhetorical transitions, anticipatory defenses, summaries of prior misunderstandings, explanations of why the current answer differs from a previous answer, assurances about claims that are not being made, or concluding restatements of conclusions already expressed. Courtesy is appreciated, but its communicative footprint need not substantially exceed that of the technical substance. A correction is most useful when it makes the corrected claim immediately identifiable and permits the obsolete claim to be discarded without requiring the reader to reconstruct the entire history of the correction. Applied to the present exchange, the information that appears most capable of affecting maintainer action is that disabling HMR removes the React refresh preamble, that the resulting client bootstrap no longer causes the relevant environment initialization to occur before createClientRpc is evaluated, and that server-function construction consequently encounters a ReferenceError because process is unavailable. The precise import-order mechanics, the contrast with the initial theory concerning a relative URL, the implications for other plugins whose preambles may differ, the explanation of why the originally linked example does not exhibit the behavior under its default configuration, and the broader characterization of the problem as a dependency on an incidental ordering guarantee may become relevant during implementation, but they need not all be transmitted before maintainers have had an opportunity to evaluate the narrower verified condition and its immediate consequence. In consideration of the asymmetry between the effort required for an author to preserve additional material and the cumulative effort required for every recipient to inspect and classify that material, and with due regard for the limited and nonrenewable character of volunteer maintainer attention as it relates to the substantially renewable supply of potentially relevant contextual exposition, future participation would be most effective if each response were reduced, before submission, to only those empirically established statements whose omission would prevent reproduction, materially distort the reported behavior, or leave the specific question under consideration unanswered, with all supplementary narrative, speculative extension, duplicative reformulation, historical reconstruction, rhetorical cushioning, and otherwise nonessential elaboration withheld pending an explicit indication that its disclosure is required.

# booleans # simple: providing any value for ENV['FORCE_SSL'] means `true`: force_ssl = !!ENV['FORCE_SSL'] # more advanced: # only when we provide 'true' will `force_ssl` become true. force_ssl = ('true' == ENV['FORCE_SSL'])

--stop-after-configfile-check

# Note that it could be in `args.first`, or in `kwargs[:id]` now, so it is either this: def initialize(*args, **kwargs) if !args.empty? args[0] = args[0].to_i elsif kwargs.key?(:id) kwargs[:id] = kwargs[:id].to_i end super(*args, **kwargs) end

Rails' default approach to log everything is great during development, it's terrible when running it in production. It pretty much renders Rails logs useless to me.

Lograge is an attempt to bring sanity to Rails' noisy and unusable, unparsable and, in the context of running multiple processes and servers, unreadable default logging output.

So far for the obligatory warning. I get the point, I even agree with the argument, but I still want to send a POST request. Maybe you are testing an API without a user interface or you are writing router tests? Is it really impossible to simulate a POST request with Capybara? Nah, of course not!

This is ugly by design, as an inducement to test properties instead of specifics.

Reducing nested structures is tiresome. Have you tried immer?

Content in the wild can easily come to rely on this: var underAutomation = ("webdriver" in navigator) ? navigator.webdriver : false; v, without this behaviour: var underAutomation = navigator.webdriver;

But it is kind of verbose, and it’s also a lot slower, so I can understand why the model test might be preferred.

React, on the other hand, often requires a fair amount of boilerplate code, even for simple interactions.

That should work as expected and not be too verbose (or at least it doesn't repeat string literals anywhere)

So is @Ryan Cavanaugh's answer the only viable solution? It seems extremely verbose...

Which gets the job done, but that's a chunk of boilerplate for a simple accessor

Coming from React to Svelte this did catch me out numerous times but for me I now prefer Svelte's approach, particularly because it removes some of the boilerplate around useEffect.

Here's where I start to have a preference for Svelte; the two are very similar but once I got used to Svelte I found that React felt like jumping through hoops. You can't create a worker instance, it has to go in a useRef, and then you can't easily pull code out into a function without then requiring useCallback so it can be a safe dependency on useEffect. With Svelte I write code that's closer to "plain" JavaScript, whereas in React more of my code is wrapped in a React primitive.

Pluggability uses the Loggability library. Just set the log level to 'debug' and it'll explain what's going on:

To understand this helper, you should understand that every step invocation calls Output() for you behind the scenes. The following DSL use is identical to the one [above]. class Execute < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway step :find_provider, Output(Trailblazer::Activity::Left, :failure) => Track(:failure), Output(Trailblazer::Activity::Right, :success) => Track(:success)

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>

The sole purpose to add Dev::Trace::Inspector module is to make custom inspection possible and efficient while tracing. For example, ActiveRecord::Relation#inspect makes additional queries to fetch top 10 records and generate the output everytime. To avoid this, Inspector will not call inspect method when it finds such objects (deeply nested anywhere). Instead, it’ll call AR::Relation#to_sql to get plain SQL query which doesn’t make additional queries and is better to understand in tracing output.

As you can see, we end up with a lot of boilerplate if-statements. The code is more verbose. And it’s difficult to follow the main logic.

account.first_name = first_name if first_name.present? account.last_name = last_name if last_name.present?

this second approach, while more verbose, sort of spells out better where things are coming from. (I like it, in other words.)

Compare that with the current recommended way to add/remove fields in an array, which is very verbose and boilerplatey:

hyperscript is more concise because it's just a function call and doesn't require a closing tag. Using it will greatly simplify your tooling chain.

Template literals work well for long embedded DSLs. Unfortunately the syntax noise is substantial when you exit in and out of embedded arbitrary ECMAScript expressions with identifiers in scope.

But this is starting to become rather verbose at what could be a much simpler and more elegant solution if only there were another template helper that could do variable assignment.

always end up with a boilerplate function somewhere, which feels hacky.

Comparison to useReducer

This library is built in TypeScript, and for TypeScript users it offers an additional benefit: one no longer needs to declare action types. The example above, if we were to write it in TypeScript with useReducer, would require the declaration of an Action type: type Action = | { type: 'reset' } | { type: 'increment' } | { type: 'decrement' }; With useMethods the "actions" are implicitly derived from your methods, so you don't need to maintain this extra type artifact.

It would be tiresome - and bloated - to include a class pass-through for every component or assigning custom properties (from the RFC linked) for all potential properties on every component, just in case it's gonna be used in layouts that requires it. Wrapping them in a wrapper div is certainly an option, but potentially creates 100s or 1000s (long lists, several lists etc.) of new elements in the DOM slowing down low-end devices.

verbosity for multiple overrides in parent component markup

variables and fallbacks in the child component css again seem verbose, and not as flexible as classes

Your tooltip component will have to wrap your image with a span tag or something, it can’t just add events to its children. And if you are adding multiple actions to it you will have to wrap it multiple times.

<Concern1> <Concern2> </Concern2> </Concern1>

vs.

<img use:concern1 use:concern2>

Three tests to prove a small piece of behavior. Although it might seem overkill for such a small feature, these tests are quick to write—that is, once you know how to write them

I have considered taking the selector :global(childSelector){} but it is far too verbose

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.

Seems like an awful lot of typing to make a simple input control, especially when Angular did all that for you.

It starts to get a bit boilerplatey though, especially if your component subscribes to multiple stores.

Take the case of the <input> element in this component — we could add an on:input event handler that sets the value of name to event.target.value, but it's a bit... boilerplatey

Besides, this will just end up being reported as a security bug to the security list if left as is, cause docker will eat up all your disk space due to a single call site flooding STDERR forcing logs to grow forever.

I was just expressing that, even thought I like React, I dread having to still manually handle everything, instead of just using a directive, a la Vue.JS. This is what I consider boilerplate. Hence my comment on how I could leave React for Svelte just because of that. Clearly a Svelte side-by-side code comparison shows a much cleaner code for Svelte.

Man, just because it gets rid of SO MUCH boilerplate I want to switch already.It kills me everytime I work with forms in React. So much noise for such a simple task.