The goal of this technology is to provide a mechanism for browser-based applications that need two-way communication with servers that does not rely on opening multiple HTTP connections (e.g., using XMLHttpRequest or <iframe>s and long polling).

It’s fun but when would we ever use things like this in actual code?When it’s well tested, commented, documented, and becomes an understood idiom of your code base.We focus so much on black magic and avoiding it that we rarely have a chance to enjoy any of the benefits. When used responsibly and when necessary, it gives a lot of power and expressiveness.

You particular circumstances may or may not warrant a way different from what lhunath (and other users) deem "best practices".

Remember that in the end, especially in scripting, there always are more than one way to skin a cat, but some ways are more portable, more reliable, make it simpler to handle error cases, parse the output, etc.

However, this request-by-request mindset doesn’t map well to GraphQL because there’s only one controller and the requests that come to it may be very different.

Can you provide details of what you mean by "not working as expected"?

Whether you agree or not, to me there's nothing in this world that is entirely apolitical - when there are people there is politics. You don't have to agree with my views, nor do I expect you to. Diversity and disagreement is what drives mankind forward.

When mocking is deemed profitable:

First of all, I would start off presenting yourself: Dear XYZ support team I am the web developer in charge of example.com website. By presenting you this way, you are establishing the frame to treat you, hinting that you should be presupposed to be somewhat proficient, so they could choose to answer in a more technical detail.

Feel free to hint, brag, or both! The best CS reps should easily take a hint from clear language and a signature like John Appleseed, JavaScript/Ruby Developer, but any will catch on with a simple line like "I know what I'm doing, so I'd appreciate an extra-technical explanation!"

Hey, I'm a PhD in [field] and do [whatever] professionally. Before calling you, I've narrowed down the problem to [something on their end], so that's what needs to be addressed. If I could speak to an engineer about [specific problem], that'd be great; but if we've gotta walk through the script, let's just knock it out quickly. If they end up requiring the script, then the best way to use your expertise is to run through it quickly. Keep the chit-chat to a minimum and just do the stuff efficiently. If they start describing how to perform some step, you might interrupt them with, "Got it, just a sec.", then let them know once you're ready for the next step.

However, what speaks against just straight up telling them that you're working as [Insert title of your position] and you know what you're talking about?

OP is referring to letting people know they can speak like proper adults when talking about technical terms, without going through the usual nanny-like discourse that tech support has to provide to non-techies. For instance, it happened to me with Amazon support. The speaker told me exactly where to touch in order to clear the cache of the Android Amazon App Store. Given that I work as an app developer the guy could have just said "please clear the cache". No need to go through "tap here, then here, now you should see this, tap that"...

I have tried different tactics of showing the tech support that I am proficient in their field of work (I work as a web developer). Specifically: using accurate terms and technologies to show my knowledge of them and telling the support that I am the "administrator" of the website in question.

How to let tech support subtly know that I am proficient without showing off?

They have to ask you the dumb questions, either because their employer demands they do, or sometimes because their computer system doesn't let them get to the next part of the script unless they play ball.

Another will employ smart people who apologise to you profusely for having to go through all the pointless steps, but that's just what they have to do!

None of the existing repository filtering tools did what I wanted; they all came up short for my needs. No tool provided any of the first eight traits below I wanted, and all failed to provide at least one of the last four traits as well:

Alphonze Mouzon

So even if it works for you, you won't know where it breaks.

MJML has been designed with responsiveness in mind. The abstraction it offers guarantee you to always be up-to-date with the industry practices and responsive. Email clients update their specs and requirements regularly, but we geek about that stuff - we’ll stay on top of it so you can spend less time reading up on latest email client updates and more time designing beautiful email.

These example are for Rails applications, but there is no dependency on Rails for using this gem. Most of the examples are applicable to any Ruby application.

John Company offers players a new understanding of British history in the eighteenth and nineteenth century that reflects contemporary scholarship on the subject and extensive research into primary documents. John Company attempts to put the critical events of that time in their proper context and show how the imperial experience transformed the domestic culture of Britain. The East India Company lurked behind every building of a textile mill and every bit of wealth in a Jane Austen novel.  John Company is an uncompromising portrait of the people who made the Company and the British Empire what it was. It is as frank as it is cutting in its satire.  Accordingly, the game wrestles with many of the key themes of imperialism and globalization in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and how those developments were felt domestically. As such, this game might not be suitable for all players. Please make sure everyone in your group consents to this exploration before playing. 

If you'd like to read more about the game's arguments, click here. 

It has two very different meanings, that you would have to distinguish by context. One meaning is just expressing that we have limitations. If you don't know something, that's just tough, you don't know it and you have to live with that. You don't have information if you don't have that information. The other meaning is that not only are there gaps in our knowledge, but often we don't even know what the gaps in our knowledge are. I don't know how to speak Finnish. That's a gap in my knowledge that I know about. I know that I don't know how to speak Finnish. But there are gaps in my knowledge that I'm not even aware of. That's where you can say "You don't know what you don't know" meaning that you don't even know what knowledge you are missing.

but in essence I expect OP means Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns"

But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.

Some risk management techniques urge practitioners to consider the "known unknowns" and the "unknown unknowns"

Incidentally, I'd add that it can also be used in looking toward the future, in awareness that we lack such a crystal ball: We base our plans on our knowledge, and there'll be times where we know there is a gap in that knowledge, but we're also aware that there may be things we can't possibly foresee, because "we don't know what we don't know".

Yet, in all these instances, life offers no crystal ball; there's no way of knowing what the future holds, or to be cognizant of something we are unaware of. This is the essence of "You don't know what you don't know," only it's being expressed in a comical way

Had I known the van was going to overheat, I would have driven the car instead.

If I had known you were going to get such bad grades on your report card, I wouldn't have let you go to the dance last weekend.

If I had known your plane was going to be two hours late, I wouldn't have rushed to the airport.

The basic rule of thumb is: "I'm not aware of all types of security exploits. I must protect against those I do know of and then I must be proactive!".

A good heuristic is to not trust the libraries you did not write either.

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.

At first you feel confused because usual pipe constructions such as: $ echo luser && echo TopSecret | telnet foo.bar.com fail you and the problem which seemed so plain on the face of it grows into “mission impossible”.

It seems inelegant to me to split this into two different modules, one to include, the other to extend.

include adds instance methods, extend adds class methods. This is how it works. I don't see inconsistency, only unmet expectations :)

The privacy policy — unlocking the door to your profile information, geodata, camera, and in some cases emails — is so disturbing that it has set off alarms even in the tech world.

Yelp, like Google, makes money by collecting consumer data and reselling it to advertisers.

Machinist was written because I loved the idea behind Factory Girl, but I thought the philosophy wasn't quite right, and I hated the syntax.

The game has been on sale for a year, but sales have been dismal.

The good news: everyone had a genuine blast. We knew we had experimented our way into something fun, even if the rules and designs still needed a lot of work.

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.

Of course, there is no reason why you can't use <aside> for all sidenotes, if it makes your code simpler. Think of it as civil disobedience. :)

however, if this is relevant to just one spec, you don't necessarily need to include devise helpers to all your controllers specs, you can just explicitly include those helpers in that one controller describe block: require 'spec_helper' describe MyCoolController include Devise::TestHelpers it { } end

Yes, you are right. That was a very bad workaround. Stubbing methods on NilClass can be compared to switching to dark side of force. Powerful but comes with a huge price. I highly don't recommend using my workaround from 1 year ago.

If you've ever talked about regular expressions with another programmer, you've invariably heard this 1997 chestnut: Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems.

Would it be desirable to specify the new object in a block? That would make it somewhat symmetrical to how Hash.new takes a block as a default value.

This isn't really a downside to React; one of React's strengths is that it lets you control so much and slot React into your environment

Svelte is different in that by default most of your code is only going to run once; a console.log('foo') line in a component will only run when that component is first rendered.

Currently, I’m working on designing the interfaces and it’s real fun!

This could be an operation, a workflow, or hand-baked Ruby code completely unrelated to Trailblazer.

click the images below

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

This games a scam. Reviews are fake.

he goes on to talk about third party problems and how you're never guaranteed something is written correctly or that even if it is you don't know if it's the most optimal solution

Small modules are extremely versatile and easy to compose together in an app with any number of other modules that suit your needs.

Second, I don't agree that there are too many small modules. In fact, I wish every common function existed as its own module. Even the maintainers of utility libraries like Underscore and Lodash have realized the benefits of modularity and allowed you to install individual utilities from their library as separate modules. From where I sit that seems like a smart move. Why should I import the entirety of Underscore just to use one function? Instead I'd rather see more "function suites" where a bunch of utilities are all published separately but under a namespace or some kind of common name prefix to make them easier to find. The way Underscore and Lodash have approached this issue is perfect. It gives consumers of their packages options and flexibility while still letting people like Dave import the whole entire library if that's what they really want to do.

Normally you should not register a named module, but instead register as an anonymous module: define(function () {}); This allows users of your code to rename your library to a name suitable for their project layout. It also allows them to map your module to a dependency name that is used by other libraries.

I don't even know how to tell if they're working 100%, I'm getting mixed signals ..

Should it only contain link* calls?

When should I use link, vs dir, vs. tree?

but I still have no idea if I'm writing this new file correctly.

Money could be good if it is spent to provide some of the above things. Money on it's own is hard because then it means I would have to spend time book-keeping and managing instead of programming.

Triaging issues, reproducing bugs, fixing reported bugs are all helpful.

Better yet, send them a link to this page to help them understand why and how to make an example app:

If you want the issue fixed as fast as possible, then you should try to help the maintainers as much as possible. Make an example app! Even if it takes extra time for you, it will ultimately lead to your issues getting fixed faster.

If you plan on using a gamepad with big picture mode I made a config that works perfectly so check it out.

My collection (this isn’t all of it) grows at a comical pace.

This is a non-exhaustive list of other things I love;

Designing and writing code get me money so I can have food so they get a lot of my attention.

The HTML5 form validation techniques in this post only work on the front end. Someone could turn off JavaScript and still submit jank data to a form with the tightest JS form validation.To be clear, you should still do validation on the server.

Therefore client side validation should always be treated as a progressive enhancement to the user experience; all forms should be usable even if client side validation is not present.

It's important to remember that even with these new APIs client side validation does not remove the need for server side validation. Malicious users can easily workaround any client side constraints, and, HTTP requests don't have to originate from a browser.

Since you have to have server side validation anyways, if you simply have your server side code return reasonable error messages and display them to the end user you have a built in fallback for browsers that don't support any form of client side validation.

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.