10,000 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2021
    1. So, where did J.C. Penney go wrong? Well, while we admire their attempt to change, they attempted to destroy over a century’s worth of price conditioning consumers have been through with department stores and pricing in general. They weren’t completely off base, as consumers with more and more access to information (comparison shopping engines, consumer reports, etc.), are beginning to realize that the value of products is determined much differently than a sticker would suggest. Yet, assuming that most soccer moms (and dads) wouldn’t fall prey to the colorful print ads tucked within the comics section in the Sunday paper, overlooks how much the majority of consumers value “winning” the retail game. Simply, deflating the perceived value causes customers to value the actual product less.
    2. Almost no one ever pays full price. In fact, studies show that people are much more inclined to pay $25 for an item valued at $50, than paying for the same item without a sale at $25. It’s all about the “price framing” of a product that creates a perceived value, which all leads to the excitement of getting a good deal
    1. Apologies: it's hyperbole. The parent site has a bunch of "spend x to get one of y Steam games" deals, which is what I was referring to. it was not meant literally. Just an attempt to build common ground with the poster who was talking about gambling and fomo.I thought they were referencing the larger site, so I wanted to acknowledge that so I didn't come off as dismissive of their concerns.Which turned out to be entirely separate concerns! Obviating the reason for the comment in the first place.Anyway, sorry for the short novel. But that's the danger of pithy one-liners: assumed context for the poster can be entirely lost in translation.Thanks for coming to my public apology press release?
    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. 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)
    2. 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.

    3. 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")
    4. class Charge < Trailblazer::Activity::Path # ... step :validate step :decide_type, Output(Activity::Left, :credit_card) => Path(end_id: "End.cc", end_task: End(:with_cc)) do step :authorize step :charge end step :direct_debit end

      if you want to copy and paste to console:

      module Trailblazer
      class Charge < Trailblazer::Activity::Path
        # ...
        step :validate
        step :decide_type, Output(Activity::Left, :credit_card) => Path(end_id: "End.cc", end_task: End(:with_cc)) do
          step :authorize
          step :charge
        end
        step :direct_debit
      end
      end
      
      puts Trailblazer::Developer.render a
      
      #<Start/:default>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=decide_type>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=decide_type>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=direct_debit>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=authorize>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=authorize>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=charge>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=charge>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:with_cc>
      #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=direct_debit>
       {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
      #<End/:success>
      
    5. 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?

    6. Defaults names are given to steps without the :id options, but these might be awkward sometimes.

      Why would those default names ever be awkward?

      If you the default name is whatever comes after step:

      step :default_name
      

      then why can't you just change that name to whatever you want?

      To answer my own question: I think you can do that, as long as the name is the 1st argument to step. But below I noticed an example where a Subprocess was the 1st argument instead, and so it needs a name in this case:

      step Subprocess(DeleteAssets), id: :delete_assets
      

      Why are they inconsistent about calling it name or id? Which one is it? I guess it's an id since that's what the key is called, and since there's an Id() helper to reference a task by its id.

    Tags

    Annotators

    URL

    1. While you could program this little piece of logic and flow yourself using a bunch of Ruby methods along with a considerable amount of ifs and elses, and maybe elsif, if you’re feeling fancy, a Trailblazer activity provides you a simple API for creating such flow without having to write and maintain any control code. It is an abstraction.
    1. 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.
    1. I think one thing would have been a solution to basically everything here: Player created maps. As Im involved in many modding communities, I know for a fact that player created content can be vital in making games last so much longer, and the quality can shoot for the stars, Player created maps would have been fantastic for this game.
    1. 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
    2. I'm not very familiar with this feature. Do you know what version of Rails is required for this code to work? Is it Rails 6.0+? We run the test suite via Travis CI for many versions of Rails so I am concerned that this will cause test failures on older versions. Can we write the tests so that they gracefully exclude the CSP stuff on older versions where CSP is not supported?
    1. Rebasing For feature/topic branches, you should always use the --rebase flag to git pull, or if you are usually handling many temporary "to be in a github pull request" branches, run the following to automate this: git config branch.autosetuprebase local

      That's what I keep telling people. Glad to see I'm not the only one...

    1. While I certainly don’t think that all configuration should be “self hosted” in this kind of way

      how is it "self hosted"? in what way?

      I think I found the answer here https://github.com/rails/sprockets/blob/master/UPGRADING.md:

      One benefit of using a manifest.js file for this type of configuration is that now Sprockets is using Sprockets to understand what files need to be generated instead of a non-portable framework-specific interface.

      So it is "self-hosted" in that Sprockets is using Sprockets itself for this...?

    2. Another thing I don’t like is the name of the config file manifest.js. Internally Sprockets has the concept of a manifest already Sprockets::Manifest, but the two aren’t directly coupled. We also already have a “manifest” JSON file that gets generated in public/assets/ and has manifest in the name .Sprockets-manifest-140998229eec5a9a5802b31d0ef6ed25.json. I know one is a JS file and one is a JSON file, but it’s a bit confusing to talk about.

      When I first heard of app/assets/config/manifest.js, I was a bit confused too, and assumed/wondered if it was related to the manifest it generates under public.

    3. Another big issue is that the config wasn’t really expressive enough. From the beginning Rails needed a way to say “only compile application.css and application.js, but compile ALL images” by default. With our previous interface, we’re limited to only strings.
    4. The alternative was to have multiple scripts or stylesheet links on one page, which would trigger multiple HTTP requests. Multiple requests mean multiple connection handshakes for each link “hey, I want some data”, “okay, I have the data”, “alright I heard that you have the data, give it to me” (SYN, ACK, SYNACK). Even once the connection is created there is a feature of TCP called TCP slow start that will throttle the speed of the data being sent at the beginning of a request to a slower speed than the end of the request. All of this means transferring one large request is faster than transferring the same data split up into several smaller requests.
    5. 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.
    1. Local variables can even be declared with the same name as a global variable. If this happens, there are actually two different variables with the same name: one local and one global. This helps ensure that an author writing a local variable doesn’t accidentally change the value of a global variable they aren’t even aware of.
    1. Ruby on Rails 6 Note:: With the release of Rails 6 there have been some minor changes made to the default configuration for The Asset Pipeline. In specific, by default Sprockets no longer processes JavaScript and instead Webpack is set as the default. The twbs/bootstrap-rubygem is for use with Sprockets not Webpack.
    1. STATSD_SAMPLE_RATE: (default: 1.0)

      It's recommended to configure this library by setting environment variables.

      The thing I don't like about configuration via environment variables is that everything is limited/reduced to the string type. You can't even use simple numeric types, let alone nice rich value objects like you could if configuration were done in the native language (Ruby).

      If you try to, you get:

      ENV['STATSD_SAMPLE_RATE'] = 1
      config/initializers/statsd.rb:8:in `[]=': no implicit conversion of Integer into String (TypeError)
      
    1. To correct this, you can move these files to some subdirectory of ./app/assets/stylesheets or javascripts; or you can change the manifest.js to be more like how Rails with Sprockets 3 works, linking only the specific application files as top-level targets
    1. Literally, everything in this example can go wrong. Here’s an incomplete list of all possible errors that might occur: Your network might be down, so request won’t happen at all The server might be down The server might be too busy and you will face a timeout The server might require an authentication API endpoint might not exist The user might not exist You might not have enough permissions to view it The server might fail with an internal error while processing your request The server might return an invalid or corrupted response The server might return invalid json, so the parsing will fail And the list goes on and on! There are so maybe potential problems with these three lines of code, that it is easier to say that it only accidentally works. And normally it fails with the exception.
    2. Write special-case classes. For example, you will have User base class with multiple error-subclasses like UserNotFound(User) and MissingUser(User). It might be used for some specific situations, like AnonymousUser in django, but it is not possible to wrap all your possible errors in special-case classes. It will require too much work from a developer. And over-complicate your domain model.