On many occasions, I've opened up requests for support in the form of a Github pull request. This way, I am telling the author: I have found a potential problem with your library, here is how I fixed it for my circumstance, here is the code I used for reference. You get extra internet points if you open the pull request with: "I don't expect this pull request to get merged, but I wanted to you show you what I did".

Not everyone has time to adhere to the specific coding styles for a project, so if you can't do a full blown pull-request, there is NOTHING wrong with opening a pull-request that only has the intention of showing the author how you solved the problem.

Don't assume that because you opened up a pull request, that the author will accept it. There are many reasons that a maintainer might choose to not merge in your specific patch, many of which have nothing to do with you. If your patch isn't accepted, try to assume it's for a valid technical reason and not because the author hates you.

Don't get upset, rejection is normal

(This isn't a duplicate because it's explicitly seeking a workaround given certain constraints, not just asking for direct replacement.)

The companies behind six of the 11 apps, including Southwest Airlines and Twitter, were not sharing how many requests they’d received and honored. Twitter said it plans to add the information.

or were left with no idea whether it worked

name =

Is the column a boolean column? (i.e. what does User.columns_hash[:admin_created].type return?)

A de

)

.

Cookies

method

Form

request.cookies.get

ven belo

If the JSON o

request.get_json()

s:

In P

Usin

Inside

The most important thing to know about this form is that it performs a POST request to the same route that generated the form.

To de

Form data

reques

A query string

This tutoria

Our test raises an ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound exception. We know that Rails has special handling to return a 404 status code in this case. However, the request spec still raises the exception.

This will no longer be necessary if this MR is merged #101

If this MR had been merged it would have saved us a lot of time and trouble.

Not trying to be presumptuous, but thought this proposal would be best served with a PR.

let's not mix code changes with prettier. This is a bad practise which complicates code review and history review. Let's apply prettier in a separate PR/commit.

Formalize your Pull Request etiquette.

Between each run, you will need to delete the bisectNNNN.coverage files, otherwise the report will contain information from those previous runs:

When you are using postman they are not restricted by this policy. Quoted from Cross-Origin XMLHttpRequest: Regular web pages can use the XMLHttpRequest object to send and receive data from remote servers, but they're limited by the same origin policy. Extensions aren't so limited. An extension can talk to remote servers outside of its origin, as long as it first requests cross-origin permissions.

Sending body/payload in a GET request may cause some existing implementations to reject the request — while not prohibited by the specification, the semantics are undefined. It is better to just avoid sending payloads in GET requests.

Requests using GET should only be used to request data (they shouldn't include data).

Has the Linux Mint team decided whether it might please add this sorely missed feature? I'm keeping Nautilus around in addition to Nemo just for this one feature. This feature is so much more efficient than other methods when you have a giant folder of many files and want to organize it into subfolders (which you can then easily move or rename afterwards — but at least this helps with the first step, which is to get the correct files into a folder together). P.S. This was also requested in #560.

If you do need to passthrough your mydomain.com cookies to a thirdparty.com domain, you can technically already do that now by implementing it as an endpoint and calling fetch('/my-endpoint')

No it doesn't. I've simply told SvelteKit to ignore the type error from credentials missing. If there's some other issue or missing feature it's not blocked by this. That being said, I wouldn't mind getting this change in

If you would like to make a code change, go ahead. Fork the repository, open a pull request. Do this early, and talk about the change you want to make. Maybe we can work together on it.

Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities (even in other applications running on the same domain) allow attackers to bypass essentially all CSRF preventions.

Sure sometimes my changes get rejected, but it almost always comes with a reason why and I can work together with the maintainer to come up with a sensible solution to my issue.

Any idea @AaronLasseigne if this is mergeable?

Take 3, Previously attempted in 2012 (#8189) and 2015 (#19709). This new version uses ActiveModel Attributes API.

When your digital news feed doesn’t contain links, when it cannot be linked to, when it can’t be indexed, when you can’t copy a paragraph and paste it into another application: when this happens your news feed is not flawed or backwards looking or frustrating. It is broken.

You can afford to make a proper PR to upstream.

No more waiting around for pull requests to be merged and published. No more forking repos just to fix that one tiny thing preventing your app from working.

Can this be merged please, this fixes a problem I have

Better community building: At the moment, MDN content edits are published instantly, and then reverted if they are not suitable. This is really bad for community relations. With a PR model, we can review edits and provide feedback, actually having conversations with contributors, building relationships with them, and helping them learn.

Better contribution workflow: We will be using GitHub’s contribution tools and features, essentially moving MDN from a Wiki model to a pull request (PR) model. This is so much better for contribution, allowing for intelligent linting, mass edits, and inclusion of MDN docs in whatever workflows you want to add it to (you can edit MDN source files directly in your favorite code editor).

So before using GET with Body parameter, you must first ensure the servers are supporting it. It is possible that some servers might ignore the body of GET request or behavior like caching GET/HEAD requests might cause issues.

A payload within a GET request message has no defined semantics; sending a payload body on a GET request might cause some existing implementations to reject the request.

When you email me, please include a minimal bash script that demonstrates the problem in the body of the email (not as an attachment). Also very clearly state what the desired output or effect should be, and what error or failure you are getting instead. You are much more likely to get a response if your script isn't some giant monster with obtuse identifiers that I would have to spend all afternoon parsing.

req

Don’t fetch stuff unless you actually need it Judging from the response to our 503 errors, much of the software requesting DTDs and schemata from our site doesn’t even need them in the first place, so requesting them just wastes bandwidth and slows down the application. If you don’t need it, don’t fetch it!

Use ponyfill.com for linking here.

Art by O’Hare and Bell highlight - both visually and conceptually - the dialogic quality of annotation expressing power.

(Note sure if this is a feature request or a bug...)

But maybe this PR should still be merged until he finds time for that?

Sorry this sat for so long!

Wow, no answers to this question. That's too bad. Did you ever find the solution?

TBH It is a bit disheartening to see this issue closed when all proposed solutions do not sufficiently solve the issue at hand, I really like svelte but if this is how feature requests are handled I am probably not going to use it in the future.

The collection of changes to fix the issues we want to address would be probably of the same size, but it would make easier to review and merge if we could break this PR in many steps. I find it really hard to believe we need to change 170 lines in a single commit to be able to fix this issue. We probably could break the first commit in many commits, test the class better and that would give more confidence over what is being changed. Right now I see a huge diff, with a few assertions changes and no real reason why all those lines had to change.

New information that would be useful toward the future usage or troubleshooting of GitLab should not be written directly in a forum or other messaging system, but added to a docs MR and then referenced, as described above.

When you encounter new information not available in GitLab’s documentation (for example, when working on a support case or testing a feature), your first step should be to create a merge request (MR) to add this information to the docs. You can then share the MR in order to communicate this information.

Problem is, everyone's busy, so it can be days or even weeks before even a small PR is merged. So I'm stashing my stuff here as I write it. I'll still try to keep the PRs in motion, to gradually get some of this merged.

Sometimes, the line between 'bug' and 'feature' is a hard one to draw. Generally, a feature is anything that adds new behavior, while a bug is anything that causes incorrect behavior. Sometimes, the core team will have to make a judgment call.

Please don't put "feature request" items into GitHub Issues. If there's a new feature that you want to see added to Ruby on Rails, you'll need to write the code yourself - or convince someone else to partner with you to write the code. Later in this guide, you'll find detailed instructions for proposing a patch to Ruby on Rails. If you enter a wish list item in GitHub Issues with no code, you can expect it to be marked "invalid" as soon as it's reviewed.

We iterate to deliver features, so we often don't have functionality that people expect. For this reason, 'people could reasonably expect this functionality' does not make it a bug.

If people care about a missing feature, then ideally the issue should be marked as ~"Accepting merge requests"

With single-commit MRs I often can copy the commit message directly into the MR description, which is convenient.

Unfortunately, the WordPress.org plugin repository doesn’t provide a way to maintain your plugin with Git.

Some months ago, I wrote about using Git and Github with the wordpress.org plugin repository.

I wish Mozilla would recognize the importance of built-in translation that Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge have.

The Authenticity Token is a countermeasure to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). What is CSRF, you ask? It's a way that an attacker can potentially hijack sessions without even knowing session tokens.

Rails does not issue the same stored token with every form. Neither does it generate and store a different token every time. It generates and stores a cryptographic hash in a session and issues new cryptographic tokens, which can be matched against the stored one, every time a page is rendered.

Since the authenticity token is stored in the session, the client cannot know its value. This prevents people from submitting forms to a Rails app without viewing the form within that app itself. Imagine that you are using service A, you logged into the service and everything is ok. Now imagine that you went to use service B, and you saw a picture you like, and pressed on the picture to view a larger size of it. Now, if some evil code was there at service B, it might send a request to service A (which you are logged into), and ask to delete your account, by sending a request to http://serviceA.com/close_account. This is what is known as CSRF (Cross Site Request Forgery). If service A is using authenticity tokens, this attack vector is no longer applicable, since the request from service B would not contain the correct authenticity token, and will not be allowed to continue.

[link](url){:target="_blank"} Works for jekyll or more specifically kramdown, which is a superset of markdown, as part of Jekyll's (default) configuration. But not for plain markdown. ^_^

For ghost markdown use: [Google](https://google.com" target="_blank) Found it here: https://cmatskas.com/open-external-links-in-a-new-window-ghost/

since mobile Chrome still doesn't support extensions (Google plz)

This API uses request body in GET requests. For a long time this was prohibited in RFC2616 HTTP specification, but since RFCs 7230-7237, it is only discouraged, since older implementations could reject such requests. However, given that major APIs such as ElasticSearch's already implement GET with request bodies, there is precedence to such implementation.

Maybe you could provide a patch with tests and we could discuss on top of it?

descriptive study of a large develop-ment team—roughly 450 people producing about 9,000 annotationson about 1,250 documents over 10 months—using a Web-based anno-tation system.

“But, if you’re unsure or haven’t mapped out entirely your processing activities,” he said, “it’s impossible to accurately reflect what your users or clients are consenting to when they complete a consent request.”

An example of an extended consent form that allows users to give consent in a more granular manner – i.e. selectively for a number of processing purposes (analytics, remarketing or content personalization)

A single consent form is useful when consent is requested for a single purpose. Here: analytics

Don't be discouraged when you get feedback about a method that isn't all sunshine and roses. Facets has been around long enough now that it needs to maintain a certain degree of quality control, and that means serious discernment about what goes into the library. That includes having in depth discussions the merits of methods, even about the best name for a method --even if the functionality has been accepted the name may not.

Request features

it is worth opening a merge request with the minimal viable change instead of opening an issue encouraging open feedback on the problem without proposing any specific change directly.

Although unexpected, a high-3He/4He source dominating the isotope ratio could explain why the R/Ra values are higher than those found for MORBs. This would be most visible in rocks that have low helium concentrations and low U-Th-Sm contents, such as recycled pelagic sediments strongly depleted in almost all their helium and U-Th during subduction

[8 ± 1 R/Ra (SD)]

Feature requests are great, but they usually end up lying around the issue tracker indefinitely. Sending a pull request is a much better way of getting a particular feature into Capybara.

For every question you might have, please create a discussion thread, not a single comment. This makes it a bit easier to see and reply to the question, instead of questions and answers getting mixed together:

Watch the Video Request Quote

Two great Mother Earth defenders were present on the last day of COP 21 in the public area.

Annotate

n