82 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2024
  2. Apr 2024
  3. Sep 2023
    1. Note that the mere presence of this header causes premailer to be skipped, i.e., even setting skip_premailer: false will cause premailer to be skipped. The reason for that is that the skip_premailer is a simple header and the value is transformed into a string, causing 'false' to become truthy.

      They should fix this!

      lib/premailer/rails/hook.rb def skip_premailer_header_present? message.header[:skip_premailer] end

  4. Jan 2023
  5. Dec 2022
    1. This still seems like a bug, as the expected behavior doesn't occur and it's difficult (for someone unfamiliar with the inner workings of ActionMailer) to debug. I spent a good half an hour figuring out the work around, so I'm trying to prevent others from experiencing the same thing.
  6. Nov 2022
  7. Aug 2022
  8. Jul 2022
  9. Jan 2022
  10. Nov 2021
    1. So now the question is, why does Session, an interface, not get implicit index signatures while SessionType, an identically-structured typealias, *does*? Surely, you might again think, the compiler does not simply deny implicit index signatures tointerface` types? Surprisingly enough, this is exactly what happens. See microsoft/TypeScript#15300, specifically this comment: Just to fill people in, this behavior is currently by design. Because interfaces can be augmented by additional declarations but type aliases can't, it's "safer" (heavy quotes on that one) to infer an implicit index signature for type aliases than for interfaces. But we'll consider doing it for interfaces as well if that seems to make sense And there you go. You cannot use a Session in place of a WithAdditionalParams<Session> because it's possible that someone might merge properties that conflict with the index signature at some later date. Whether or not that is a compelling reason is up for rather vigorous debate, as you can see if you read through microsoft/TypeScript#15300.
  11. Aug 2021
  12. Jul 2021
  13. Jun 2021
  14. Apr 2021
  15. Mar 2021
  16. Feb 2021
  17. Jan 2021
    1. It seems like this should be one of the easiest things to understand in CSS. If you want a block-level element to fill any remaining space inside of its parent, then it’s simple — just add width: 100% in your CSS declaration for that element, and your problem is solved. Not so fast. It’s not quite that easy. I’m sure CSS developers of all skill levels have attempted something similar to what I’ve just described, with bizarre results ultimately leading to head scratching and shruggingly resorting to experimenting with absolute widths until we find just the right fit. This is just one of those things in CSS that seems easy to understand (and really, it should be), but it’s sometimes not — because of the way that percentages work in CSS.
  18. Nov 2020
  19. Oct 2020
    1. I debugged docker-compose and docker-py and figured out that you should either use environment variables or options in command. You should not mix these . If you even specify --tls in command then you will have to specify all the options as the TLSConfig object, as now TLSConfig object is created completely from the command options and operide the TFSConfig object created from the environment variable.
    1. You dont need to pass --tls or --tlsverify option in the docker-config path as the task already sets DOCKER_TSL_VERIFY environment varaible. I debugged docker-compose and docker-py library and verified that if you pass any flag --tls or --tlsverify flag it tries to create tslConfig object out of options and not from environment
    1. I debugged docker-compose and docker-py and figured out that you should either use environment variables or options in command. You should not mix these . If you even specify --tls in command then you will have to specify all the options as the TLSConfig object, as now TLSConfig object is created completely from the command options and operide the TFSConfig object created from the environment variable.
    1. My version of https://svelte.dev/repl/9c7d12357a15457bb914705702f156d1?version=3.19.2 from https://github.com/sveltejs/svelte/issues/4586

      to try to simplify and help me understand it better.

      So the lack of synchronousness is only noticed inside handleClick.

      By the time the DOM gets updated, it has a consistent/correct state.

      In other words, the console.log shows wrong value, but template shows correct value. So this might not be an actual problem for many/most use cases.

  20. Sep 2020
    1. Basically, the idea is that a train tried to start with the caboose brakes stuck on. After releasing the caboose, the train still could not start. The problem was that when the train attempted to start with the caboose brake on, it stretched all the inter-car couplings so that the whole train was just like one big car. At this point, the friction from the engine train wheels was not enough to get the whole thing going. Instead, you need to just get one car moving at a time - this is why there is space between the couplings.
    1. Most simple example: <script> import ChildComponent from './Child.svelte'; </script> <style> .class-to-add { background-color: tomato; } </style> <ChildComponent class="class-to-add" /> ...compiles to CSS without the class-to-add declaration, as svelte currently does not recognize the class name as being used. I'd expect class-to-add is bundled with all nested style declarations class-to-add is passed to ChildComponent as class-to-add svelte-HASH This looks like a bug / missing feature to me.
    1. It's fashionable to dislike CSS. There are lots of reasons why that's the case, but it boils down to this: CSS is unpredictable. If you've never had the experience of tweaking a style rule and accidentally breaking some layout that you thought was completely unrelated — usually when you're trying to ship — then you're either new at this or you're a much better programmer than the rest of us.
  21. Aug 2020
  22. Jul 2020
  23. Jun 2020
    1. However, a ActiveRecord::Rollback within the nested transaction will be caught by the block of the nested transaction, but will be ignored by the outer transaction, and not cause a roll back! To avoid this unexpected behaviour, you have to explicitly tell rails for each transaction to indeed use proper nesting: CopyActiveRecord::Base.transaction(joinable: false, requires_new: true) do # inner code end This is a safer default for working with custom transactions.
    1. transaction calls can be nested. By default, this makes all database statements in the nested transaction block become part of the parent transaction. For example, the following behavior may be surprising: User.transaction do User.create(username: 'Kotori') User.transaction do User.create(username: 'Nemu') raise ActiveRecord::Rollback end end creates both “Kotori” and “Nemu”. Reason is the ActiveRecord::Rollback exception in the nested block does not issue a ROLLBACK. Since these exceptions are captured in transaction blocks, the parent block does not see it and the real transaction is committed.

      How is this okay??

      When would it ever be the desired/intended behavior for a raise ActiveRecord::Rollback to have absolutely no effect? What good is the transaction then??

      What happened to the principle of least surprise?

      Is there any reason we shouldn't just always use requires_new: true?

      If, like they say, the inner transaction "become[s] part of the parent transaction", then if anything, it should roll back the parent transaction too — not roll back nothing.

  24. May 2020
    1. Unexpected features “Unexpected” features are those that are unrelated to the add-on’s primary function, and are not likely from the add-on name or description to be expected by a user installing that add-on. Should an add-on include any unexpected feature that falls into one of the following categories: Potentially compromises user privacy or security (like sending data to third parties) Changes default settings like the new tab page, homepage or search engine Makes unexpected changes to the browser or web content Includes features or functionality not related to the add-on’s core function(s) Then the “unexpected” feature(s) must adhere to all of the following requirements: The add-on description must clearly state what changes the add-on makes. All changes must be “opt-in”, meaning the user has to take non-default action to enact the change. Changes that prompt the user via the permissions system don’t require an additional opt-in. The opt-in interface must clearly state the name of the add-on requesting the change.
  25. Mar 2020
  26. Feb 2020