With all this “monetization” happening around Trailblazer, we will also make sure that all free and paid parts of the project grow adult and maintan an LTS - or long-term support - status. Those are good news to all you users out there having been scared to use gems of this project, not knowing whether or not they’re being maintained, breaking code in the future or making your developers addicted to and then cutting off the supply chain. Trailblazer 2.1 onwards is LTS, and the last 1 ½ years of collaboration have proven that.

It means "You're about to talk about words, but words don't matter."

If you want to compile youself you can pass the --with-features=huge to the configure script. Note, however, this does not enable the different language bindings because those are mostly optional and also the various GUIs need to enabled specifically, because you can have only one gui.

When one is searching for it on the internet, there are many many people wondering how one can open .desktop files. It seems trivial, since one usually just has to click an item on the launcher so one thinks there must be some way.

It sounds like a gnome-open (or the equivalent library call) bug. Reassigning.

I agree that it's bad to have to handle this at the application level

Very often in these monorepos, packages are so incredibly specific in functionality, the question then becomes why even have a separate package at all if it’s tightly coupled? Can you use these packages independently or are they tied to specific versions of other packages in the monorepo? It’ll probably be easier to remove the mask and just work as a monolith.

Focus is better than features.

he goes on to say that simple functions should not be packages because they are too small.

Write modules for publication, even if you only use them privately. You will appreciate documentation in the future.

Write modules that do one thing well. Write a new module rather than complicate an old one.

The number one problem that I see developers have when practicing test-first development that impedes them from refactoring their code is that they over-specify behavior in their tests. This leads developers to write more tests than are needed, which can become a burden when refactoring code.

There used to be other backends in addition to C: Java, CSharp, and Javascript but those suffered from bitrot and have been removed.

much software requires continuous changes to meet new requirements and correct bugs, and re-engineering software each time a change is made is rarely practical.

A product’s onceability is, to a certain extent, linked to its usefulness. If it is really useful, we will certainly go to considerable lengths to repair it.

This is a copy of the "AMD" document in the repo, kept here to maintain historical links. If this document differs from the one in the repo, the repo version is the correct one.

Microlibraries are easier to understand, develop and test. They make it easier for new people to get involved and contribute. They reduce the distinction between a “core module” and a “plugin”, and increase the pace of development in D3 features.

Small files are nice, but modularity is also about making D3 more fun.

Unfortunately, given how widely used concat_javascript_sources is, this required changing a lot of tests. It would be nice if we could remove some of the duplication in these tests (so that similar changes would not require updating this many tests), but that can come in another PR.

I don't understand why this isn't being considered a bigger deal by maintainrs/the community. Don't most Rails developers use SCSS? It's included by default in a new Rails app. Along with sprockets 4. I am mystified how anyone is managing to debug CSS in Rails at all these days, that this issue is being ignored makes sprockets seem like abandonware to me, or makes me wonder if nobody else is using sprockets 4, or what!

Meh... as I said earlier, I think using Webpack is the recommended way now. Another issue is there is no way to generate source maps in production.

sprockets 4 makes Chrome browser identification of SCSS css lines _worse_

But maybe few are still using sprockets at all, for JS or (S)CSS anymore? Hard to say.

If I can't do something to change the sprockets 4 debugging experience I am seeing, I am going to probably downgrade back to sprockets 3. I am finding it impossible to develop CSS the ways I am used to.

Is there a PR to... something? sassc-rails? That would make the patch not necessary? (I don't know if there's any good way to monkey-patch that in, I think you have to fork? So some change seems required...) Should the defaults be different somehow? This is very difficult to figure out.

Is there a PR to... something? sassc-rails?

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.

If the bug is still there I think that it is better if it is open so others can find it if they run into the same issue.

Closing this because it's obviously not going to get fixed and it's cluttering my open issues

If a company really wanted to invest, I would prefer they dedicated an employee for X hours a week for Y months than money.

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.

Any updates on this one? It makes debugging JS and CSS in the web inspector next to impossible when you can't get any help finding the offending code in your own source files.

An equation is meant to be solved, that is, there are some unknowns. A formula is meant to be evaluated, that is, you replace all variables in it with values and get the value of the formula.

Want to know how to build a taxi app that will become the next Uber or Carb? It is a reasonable question considering how convenient and cost-effective it is to use a taxi instead of maintaining your own vehicle. The best way for a cab company to ensure this convenience for customers is to build a taxi booking app.

Usually when people are talking about code being semantically correct, they're referring to the code that accurately describes something.

Semantically correct usage of elements means that you use them for what they are meant to be used for.

It means that you're calling something what it actually is.

always use real <label for="correct_input"> elements. Just that alone is a UX consideration all too many forms fail on

This question was asked over a year ago, but it's a good question that I recently encountered as well...

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.

I know this is old, but I got the same error and I came here from Google, so in case someone does too, this was my solution:

Webshim is also more than a polyfill, it has become a UI component and widget library. Webshim enables a developer to also enhance HTML5 capable browsers with more highly customizable, extensible and flexible UI components and widgets.

not all answers pass this tests

Ci taatu guy googu la jigéeni Ajoor yi di jaaye sanqal.

Peñe, kenn du ko able.

Sëriñ boobu aj na daaw, doomam a ko wuutu léegi.

This is where all our learnings about semantics, outputs, signals and the DSL come together.

Hey, that’s is an imaginary complication of our example - please don’t do this with every condition you have in your app.

Knowing about the wiring mechanics in Trailblazer is one thing. However, the real fun starts with nesting activities. That’s when the ideas of encapsulation, interfaces and reducing dependencies really come into play.

Do you have collaborators who could have generated keys and sold them on their own? DIG's Steam keys and other stores' Steam keys must have some source, after all. Keys don't generate themselves, and only your accounts should be able to request them.This particular game was in Bunch Keys Indie Wizardry Bundle. I assume you had a proper contract for that. Maybe DIG or an intermediary bought 50-200 copies of it?

It isn't stealing because you or an associate must have generated and given them the keys in some way or another?Ideally you would ask a DIG bundle buyer to show you their key for your game, so you can figure out what key request batch it came from, and then you can scratch your head and wonder who you gave those keys to and what journey they took afterwards.

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

Personally, I'm starting to think that the feature where it automatically adds xray.js to the document is more trouble than it's worth. I propose that we remove that automatic feature and just make it part of the install instructions that you need to add this line to your template/layout: <%= javascript_include_tag 'xray', nonce: true if Rails.env.development? %>

Now that I've thought more about it, I honestly think the auto-adding the script feature is overrated, over-complicated, and error-prone (#98, #100), and I propose we just remove it (#110).

now that I've thought more about it, I think the auto-adding the script feature is overrated, over-complicated, and error-prone (#100), and ought to just be removed (#110).

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

This is failing CI because CI is testing against Rails < 6. I think the appropriate next steps are: Open a separate PR to add Rails 6 to the CI matrix Update this PR to only run CSP-related test code for Rails >= 6.0.0 Can you help with either or both of those?

At work, we often mention "throwing something over the fence" and "wrong rock" so there is (to us) a proverbial fence and a proverbial wrong rock.

Keep in mind that third party code with references to other files also processed by the asset Pipeline (images, stylesheets, etc.), will need to be rewritten to use helpers like asset_path.

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.

computers theoretically need only one machine instruction (subtract one number from another and branch if the result is negative)

But why do we return 0? Why not 1? Why not None? And while None in most cases is as bad (or even worse) than the exceptions, turns out we should heavily rely on business logic and use-cases of this function.

Enforces better architecture

In other words, once you've used Maybe you cannot hit nil with a missing method. This is remarkable because even &. doesn't save you from omitting || "No state" at the end of the computation. Basically, that's what they call "Type Safety".

Don’t worry if you get confused at first. Everyone does. I’ve listed some other references at the end that may help. But don’t give up.

This is a useful approach to error handling, but please don’t take it to extremes! See my post on “Against Railway-Oriented Programming”.

provide interfaces so you don’t have to think about them

What this means is: I better refrain from writing a new book and we rather focus on more and better docs.

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.

Also, the more I use Trailblazer in projects or even in Trailblazer itself, I feel how needed those new abstractions are.

This creates a win-win situation, you as the user have your peace of mind, and we can continue working with your funds.

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.

In Ruby 3 we now have a “rightward assignment” operator. This flips the script and lets you write an expression before assigning it to a variable. So instead of x = :y, you can write :y => x

compose(Add, x: x, y: 3)

Add.run(x: x, y: 3)

Why is all this interaction code better? Two reasons: One, you can reuse the FindAccount interaction in other places, like your API controller or a Resque task. And two, if you want to change how accounts are found, you only have to change one place.

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.

No one has requested it before so it's certainly not something we're planning to add.

I'm sure there will be a few other people out there who eventually want something like this, since Interactions are actually a great fit for enforcing consistency in data structures when working with a schemaless NoSQL store, but obviously it's still a bit of a niche audience.

To give a little more context, structures like this often come up in my work when dealing with NoSQL datastores, especially ones that rely heavily on JSON, like Firebase, where a records unique ID isn't part of the record itself, just a key that points to it. I think most Ruby/Rails projects tend towards use cases where these sort of datastores aren't appropriate/necessary, so it makes sense that this wouldn't come up as quickly as other structures.

I don't think seeing it in Rails PRs naturally means we should do it blankly. Put it another way, what's the justification in those PRs for doing it?

The assert method is used by all the other assertions. It pushes the second parameter to the list of errors if the first parameter evaluates to false or nil.

From my perspective the onus is on you to consider not just the words coming out of your mouth, but how they are received.

Consequently, you act irresponsibly when you adopt any programming practice simply because "that's the way you're supposed to do things."

My point is that you should not program blindly. You must understand the havoc a feature or idiom can wreak. In doing so, you're in a much better position to decide whether you should use that feature or idiom. Your choices should be both informed and pragmatic.

And just because a feature or idiom is commonly used does not mean you should use it either.

The more important point comes from a program design perspective. Here, "programming to an interface" means focusing your design on what the code is doing, not how it does it. This is a vital distinction that pushes your design towards correctness and flexibility.

It makes me happy to see people actually think about things and not just accept a shitty API.

I do think it's a common pattern that should be solved, and I am probably going to try and solve it as a Gem as opposed to simply writing code that we use in our code base

with ActiveForm-Rails, validations is the responsability of the form and not of the models. There is no need to synchronize errors from the form to the models and vice versa.

DSLs can be problematic for the user since the user has to manage state (e.g. am I supposed to call valid? first or update_attributes?). This is exactly why the #validate is the only method to change state in Reform.

Trust me, I thought a lot about #validate and its semantics, and I am gonna make it even more "SRP" by making Form#errors and #valid? semi-public. All that happens via #validate reducing the possible wrong usage for users.

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).

if you name you instance variable form, then you can always just pass in params[:form]

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

Yes, you do face difficult choices (moral) but you don't care about it. All you care are the reputation bars. So... Let's kill this guy, who cares if he is innocent, but this faction needs it or I'm dead. Sounds great on paper but to be honest... you just sit there and do whatever for these reputation bars. If you won't, then you lose

We also find it hard to agree on what good names and bad names look like, which makes it hard to know when renaming improves a name.

Naming matters for both idealogical and practical reasons.

Anyone who has ever tried to name a child knows that naming is hard. Naming things in code is harder. It’s bad enough that you have to commit to a name that someone isn’t going to like. You also have to be able to live with it.

It's difficult because it's a case-by-case basis - there is no one right answer so it falls into subjective arguments.

Space: Suppose we had infinite memory, then cache all the data; but we don't so we have to decide what to cache that is meaningful to have the cache implemented (is a ??K cache size enough for your use case? Should you add more?) - It's the balance with the resources available.

Time: Suppose all your data was immutable, then cache all the data indefinitely. But this isn't always to case so you have to figure out what works for the given scenario (A person's mailing address doesn't change often, but their GPS position does).

So the hard and unsolvable problem becomes: how up-to-date do you really need to be?

After considering the value we place, and the tradeoffs we make, when it comes to knowing anything of significance, I think it becomes much easier to understand why cache invalidation is one of the hard problems in computer science

The non-determinism is why cache invalidation — and that other hard problem, naming things — are uniquely and intractably hard problems in computer science. Computers can perfectly solve deterministic problems. But they can’t predict when to invalidate a cache because, ultimately, we, the humans who design and build computational processes, can’t agree on when a cache needs to be invalidated.

Creating more legally binding licenses and contracts just perpetuates the problem of law – a.k.a. state force – intruding where it doesn’t belong.

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.

when it comes to personal machines, I expect them to just work so I can work.

And honestly, most people prefer the no hassle, especially after wasting too much time dabbling with distros that are "for advanced users" troubleshooting all kinds of dumbass problems that just worked out of the box in many other distros.

This nav bar by Chris Coyier is a great example of something that makes more sense as a flexbox than grid.

Flexbox's strength is in its content-driven model. It doesn't need to know the content up-front. You can distribute items based on their content, allow boxes to wrap which is really handy for responsive design, you can even control the distribution of negative space separately to positive space.

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.

Your browser window is basically just one big iframe.

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

Group Rules from the Admins1NO POSTING LINKS INSIDE OF POST - FOR ANY REASONWe've seen way too many groups become a glorified classified ad & members don't like that. We don't want the quality of our group negatively impacted because of endless links everywhere. NO LINKS2NO POST FROM FAN PAGES / ARTICLES / VIDEO LINKSOur mission is to cultivate the highest quality content inside the group. If we allowed videos, fan page shares, & outside websites, our group would turn into spam fest. Original written content only3NO SELF PROMOTION, RECRUITING, OR DM SPAMMINGMembers love our group because it's SAFE. We are very strict on banning members who blatantly self promote their product or services in the group OR secretly private message members to recruit them.4NO POSTING OR UPLOADING VIDEOS OF ANY KINDTo protect the quality of our group & prevent members from being solicited products & services - we don't allow any videos because we can't monitor what's being said word for word. Written post only.

Systemd flies in the face of the Unix philosophy: 'do one thing and do it well,' representing a complex collection of dozens of tightly coupled binaries

We informed and documented. We made it easy for you to understand the problem and also to take action if you disagreed. I hope you didn’t read https://linuxmint-user-guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/snap.html#how-to-install-the-snap-store-in-linux-mint-20. I can’t understand how it could be simpler.

Is it harder to enable it in Mint than it is to disable it in Ubuntu? Not at all. Is how to enable it better documented in Mint than how to disable it in Ubuntu? Absolutely: https://linuxmint-user-guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/snap.html.

We don’t do politics, and we certainly don’t do religion. You’re bringing these here by using terms such as “politicians” or “evil”.

The code is far simpler and easier to understand/verify

Ubuntu also supports ‘snap’ packages which are more suited for third-party applications and tools which evolve at their own speed, independently of Ubuntu. If you want to install a high-profile app like Skype or a toolchain like the latest version of Golang, you probably want the snap because it will give you fresher versions and more control of the specific major versions you want to track.

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.