For this one we'll define a helper method to handle raising the correct errors. We have to do this because calling .run! would raise an ActiveInteraction::InvalidInteractionError instead of an ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound. That means Rails would render a 500 instead of a 404.

Writing the uniqueness validations yourself is easy so I felt it was better to leave this up to the developer

The "authority terms" comprising it are expected to be used outside the library catalog, as metadata in the sources, enabling links to the taxonomy.

Now if you think about it, PJAX sounds a lot like Turbolinks. They both use JS to fetch server-rendered HTML and put it into the DOM. They both do caching and manage the forward and back buttons. It's almost as if the Rails team took a technique developed elsewhere and just rebranded it.

Increasing student motivation and the perception of chemistry's relevance in the classroom by learning about tattooing from a chemical and societal view

From Cookbook to Research: Redesigning an Advanced Biochemistry Laboratory

Chemistry outreach as a community of practice: investigating the relationship between student-facilitators’ experiences and boundary processes in a student-run organization

The relationship between subject matter knowledge and teaching effectiveness of undergraduate chemistry peer facilitators

If components gain the slot attribute, then it would be possible to implement the proposed behavior of <svelte:fragment /> by creating a component that has a default slot with out any wrappers. However, I think it's still a good idea to add <svelte:fragment /> so everyone who encounters this common use case doesn't have to come up with their own slightly different solutions.

Popper for Svelte with actions, no wrapper components or component bindings required! Other Popper libraries for Svelte (including the official @popperjs/svelte library) use a wrapper component that takes the required DOM elements as props. Not only does this require multiple bind:this, you also have to pollute your script tag with multiple DOM references. We can do better with Svelte actions!

Biosciences Robert Sabin 713-348-4324 Charles Stewart

If you'd prefer, you can use a third-party library like Modernizr or Detect It to do this test for you.

Sometimes, systems just scale the problemA UI design system is more than the code of a component library. It’s more than the colors, styles, and margins of your elements. It’s an ever-growing and ever-evolving creature that entails your brand and your user’s feelings.

I also find that a lot of the complexity of Flutter can be avoided, and I mostly use it to define the UI as a more app-centric alternative to HTML/CSS.

As was mentioned in the comments above, the material design spec for buttons specifies that the text should be uppercase, but you can easily override its CSS property: paper-button { text-transform: none; }

@use "@material/theme" with (  $primary: #FEDBD0,  $on-primary: #442C2E);

The ultimate goal of the Open Library is to make all the published works of humankind available to everyone in the world. While large in scope and ambition, this goal is within our grasp.

This module should not be used in other npm modules since it modifies the default require behavior! It is designed to be used for development of final projects i.e. web-sites, applications etc.

Is there any service that does this sort of alert when my library gets a book I want?

The resolve.alias option is used to make sure that only one copy of the Svelte runtime is bundled in the app, even if you are npm linking in dependencies with their own copy of the svelte package. Having multiple copies of the internal scheduler in an app, besides being inefficient, can also cause various problems.

Just coming here to voice my agreement that these warnings are annoying and exist in other libraries as well. For me this happened with svelma. I didn't write the library code, so I don't have complete control over it even though I agree there is an argument to be had around whether I should be notified anyway. In either case, these warnings should be easily disabled since libraries don't always get updated over night.

Maybe it's also a bug because every warning should be ignorable? Not sure.

I would like the compiler to add a property like canIgnore: false to the warning, if the warning cannot be disabled.

In principle, this information is already available through other means, but it is actually a fair amount of work to gather it in this form, and I think it could be useful to open it up to programmatic consumption.

Focus on your application: forget about forms details like I'm dirty, field touched...

Form Validation

return { type: "COUNTRY_BLACK_LIST", succeeded, message: succeeded ? "" : "This country is not available" }

It is easily extensible (already implemented Final Form and Formik plugin extensions).

You can try to build a solution to tackle these issues on your own, but it will cost you time and money... why not use a battle-tested solution to handle all this complexity?

If you want to implement a form with a superb User Experience, you have to take care of many variables:

Form validation can get complex (synchronous validations, asynchronous validations, record validations, field validations, internationalization, schemas definitions...). To cope with these challenges we will leverage this into Fonk and Fonk Final Form adaptor for a React Final Form seamless integration.

Managing Form State (holding field information, check if a control has been touched, if the user has clicked the submit button, who owns the current focus...) can be tedious and prone to errors. We can get help from React Final Form to handle these challenges for us.

Fonk is framework extension, and can be easily plugged into many libraries / frameworks, in this documentation you will find integrations with:

Vue Final Form A form state management system for Vue that uses Final Form under the hood.

But it sounds like the library could use some way to setTouched()

I'm suggesting there should be a way to write lifecycle related code that also responds to changing props, like how useEffect works. I think how React handles this could be a good source of inspiration.

Svelte right now has a lot of opportunities to have component state become out of sync with props.

I'm suggesting this is a problem generally. Users will not think of being out of sync with props

Svelte doesn't re-render, so you need to respond to component mount/dismount and prop changes separately as they are distinct concepts and never tied together, unlike in React.

If something isn't a great idea, the tools should support that approach

Wondering how to get field state from multiple fields at once? People coming from Redux-Form might be wondering where the equivalent of Redux Form's Fields component is, as a way to get state from several fields at once. The answer is that it's not included in the library because it's so easy to write one recursively composing Field components together.

Add new plugin Recaptcha3Token that sends the reCaptcha v3 token to the back-end when the form is valid

that a better and cleaner approach would be to use computed properties and a validation library that is decoupled for the UI (like hapi/joi).

If the react cargo cult didn't have the JSX cowpath paved for them and acclimated to describing their app interface with vanilla javascript, they'd cargo cult around that. It's really about the path of least resistance and familiarity.

hyperscript is a perfectly good alternative and uses the same interface as matt esch's virtual-dom

A JavaScript DOM model supporting element creation, diff computation and patch operations for efficient re-rendering

virtual-dom exposes a set of objects designed for representing DOM nodes. A "Document Object Model Model" might seem like a strange term, but it is exactly that. It's a native JavaScript tree structure that represents a native DOM node tree.

virtual-dom is a collection of modules designed to provide a declarative way of representing the DOM for your app. So instead of updating the DOM when your application state changes, you simply create a virtual tree or VTree, which looks like the DOM state that you want. virtual-dom will then figure out how to make the DOM look like this efficiently without recreating all of the DOM nodes.

The problem is that not all tooling supports adding new dependencies from a transform. The first step is figuring out how this can be done idiomatically in the current ecosystem.

I recommend folks use https://github.com/shama/bel instead of this package; we've been working hard on it for the past two years to make sure it has all the features you could want to write inline HTML. Hope it's good; closing for now!

interfaces

unified is an interface for processing text using syntax trees.

It’s what powers remark (Markdown), retext (natural language), and rehype (HTML), and allows for processing between formats.

it also allows for more divergence in how people write there code and where they put their logic, making different svelte codebases potentially even more different due to fewer constraints. This last point is actually something I really value, I read a lot of Svelte code by a lot of different people and broadly speaking things look the same and are in the same places.

Our custom useEffect is not idiomatic Svelte.

To fix our Svelte version you might think we could use beforeUpdate or afterUpdate, but these lifecycle functions are related to the DOM being updated, not to prop updates. We only want to rerun our fetching when the album prop is changed.

Beautiful, except that switching albums does not update the PhotoGrid. This is not the automatic reactivity we were promised by Svelte.

We want to improve this while keeping both the API and the semantics and behavior as Reactish as possible.

Recoil

It provides several capabilities that are difficult to achieve with React alone, while being compatible with the newest features of React.

Sometimes, you may be tempted to write that wrapper. Because all your (React or Vue or insert your reactive framework here) instincts tell you so.Resist the temptation. There is a better way. A svelter way. Introducing: the use-directive (a.k.a. “actions”).

However, especially when starting out, it’s very easy to fall into the “this is how I did things in my previous framework” trap.

While you could use a map function for loops they aren't optimized.

Solid supports spread operator on native elements and Components.

In general it is recommended you handle forms in this "controlled" manner. In some cases it might make sense to manage the form state outside of Solid via refs. These "uncontrolled" forms can also work. Just be conscious of the difference as mixing approaches can lead to unexpected results.

This is just a library not a Framework.

Wait what? No runtime. How does that work? Well, obviously JavaScript executes at runtime, so was he saying he doesn't reuse any code? Well as it turns out the message here has changed. I looked and sure enough there was a runtime. Of course there was.

A library is a set of functions you can use in your project. It does not care how and where you use that functionality. A framework tells you how to write code with the framework you are working with so you can make the best use of patterns, architecture, and functions in a framework. A framework can encompass a library.

this is a common Svelte idiom for manually invalidating something that might have been mutated without there being a visible = sign somewhere

both copied much of their API from Redux Form, so, despite working very differently under the hood, there is a lot of overlap in their APIs.

If you’ve used Flow before, the syntax is fairly similar. One difference is that we’ve added a few restrictions to avoid code that might appear ambiguous.

but would it be reasonable to expect svelte-select to handle that so that consumers of this lib don't have to do all that?

Rollup builds atop Browserify and Webpack's lineage to make it possible to easily consume those packages, while looking to the future of JS modules.

When you publish this module, you do not want to bundle React, for the reasons described above. (It would be even worse to bundle React in a library, because then its copy would duplicate that loaded by the application!) But the fix is slightly different for a library than an application. In this library's Rollup configuration, we only want to specify external, not globals:

As you've probably already figured out it's the last output definition that should be by legacy apps. With the above output configuration we allow consuming the component both from a modern app with a Node.js-based environment and from legacy apps.

But library users are more numerous, and so their needs are more important.

small modules allow library authors to become lazy. Why include that six-line helper function when you can do a one-line `require`?

These are all things that make your life as a library author easier.

I think I know why: it’s because the small modules philosophy favours library authors (like Sindre) at the ultimate expense of library users.

I don't understand why it just launches the mutation once and then it throws the error Function called outside component initialization, the only way to make it work is to do something like $: result = mutation(...) but it doesn't make sense, I don't want to run the mutation after each keystroke.

We’re still working on idiomatic Svelte APIs so this one’s also on our list to figure out what the best way forward is

For context, the previous API had a lazy promise. Currently I’m thinking we could just return a closure like in the React API

This is the same as useEffect in React, incidentally — the function must be synchronous in order to avoid race conditions.

urql/packages/svelte-urql/ Go to file Add file Go to file Create new file Upload files urql/packages/svelte-urql/

I assume that soon developers will publish more components for svelte, and any possible class conflict is problematic. Yeah, it's rare case, but it is.

There are work arounds, but nothing clean. I just feel like this should be functionality that should be part of the slot feature.

Svelte will not offer a generic way to support style customizing via contextual class overrides (as we'd do it in plain HTML). Instead we'll invent something new that is entirely different. If a child component is provided and does not anticipate some contextual usage scenario (style wise) you'd need to copy it or hack around that via :global hacks.

The main rationale for this PR is that, in my hones opinion, Svelte needs a way to support style overrides in an intuitive and close to plain HTML/CSS way. What I regard as intuitive is: Looking at how customizing of styles is being done when applying a typical CSS component framework, and making that possible with Svelte.

Explicit interfaces are preferable, even if it places greater demand on library authors to design both their components and their style interfaces with these things in mind.

The RFC is more appropriate because it does not allow a parent to abritrarily control anything below it, that responsibility still relies on the component itself. Just because people have been passing classes round and overriding child styles for years doesn't mean it is a good choice and isn't something we wnat to encourage.

This has already forced me to forgo Svelte Material because I would like to add some actions to their components but I cannot and it does not make sense for them to cater to my specific use-case by baking random stuff into the library used by everyone.

The point of the feature is to not rely on the third-party author of the child component to add a prop for every action under the sun. Rather, they could just mark a recipient for actions on the component (assuming there is a viable target element), and then consumers of the library could extend the component using whatever actions they desire.

Does it look like a decorator plugin in Ractive, right

Your LazyLoad image is now inextensible. What if you want to add a class? Perhaps the author of LazyLoad thought of that and sets className onto the <img>. But will the author consider everything? Perhaps if we get {...state} attributes.

I totally get not wanting to extend the syntax. I tried doing these things and in practice it was not easy or pretty. Actions provide a much cleaner and easier way to accomplish a certain set of functionality that would be much more difficult without it.

Actions add additional functionality to elements within your component's template that may be difficult to add with other mechanisms. Examples of functionality which actions makes trivial to attach are:

If this was tied into Svelte's flow with hooks this would not be necessary since it would know when it was being removed from the DOM.

You must: reference each element you are extending using refs or an id add code in your oncreate and ondestroy for each element you are extending, which could become quite a lot if you have a lot of elements needing extension (anchors, form inputs, etc.)

The more I think about this, the more I think that maybe React already has the right solution to this particular issue, and we're tying ourselves in knots trying to avoid unnecessary re-rendering. Basically, this JSX... <Foo {...a} b={1} {...c} d={2}/> ...translates to this JS: React.createElement(Foo, _extends({}, a, { b: 1 }, c, { d: 2 })); If we did the same thing (i.e. bail out of the optimisation allowed by knowing the attribute names ahead of time), our lives would get a lot simpler, and the performance characteristics would be pretty similar in all but somewhat contrived scenarios, I think. (It'll still be faster than React, anyway!)

For reference: an independent implementation

Extend ActionConfig interface in rfc-extended.d.ts file with new params: import * as RFC from 'react-fetching-library'; declare module 'react-fetching-library' { export interface ActionConfig { // Only new params skipAuth: boolean; params: any; }; }