Your application code should not be dealing with PID files, log redirection or other low-level concerns.

Ashes, oyster shells, my mid-Atlantic bones. My grandmama at twelve, walking away from the farm in Virginia, leaving the little Negro school that only went up to sixth grade.

Monopoly is not played on a cartesian plane. It's played on a directed circular graph. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use the Euclidean distance metric to compare the distances between places on the board. We must instead use minimum path lengths. Example: If we used Euclidean distance, then you would have to agree that the distance between, say, Go and Jail is equal to the distance between the Short Line and the Pennsylvania Railroad. Clearly, this is not the intention. In your example, the "nearest railroad" would be the railroad square having the shortest path from wherever you stand. With the game board representing a directed graph, there are no "backwards" paths. Thus, the distance from the pink Chance square to the Reading railroad is not 2. It's 38.

support server-to-client communication scenarios such as broadcasting.

Using --ours did what I was after, just discarding the incoming cherry picked file. @Juan you're totally right about those warning messages needing to say what they did't do, not just why they didn't do it. And a bit more explanation that the ambiguity from the conflict needs to be resolved (by using --ours, etc) would be super helpful to this error message.

Problem details for HTTP APIs HTTP status codes are sometimes not sufficient to convey enough information about an error to be helpful. The RFC 7807 defines simple JSON and XML document formats to inform the client about a problem in a HTTP API. It's a great start point for reporting errors in your API. It also defines the application/problem+json and application/problem+xml media types.

2.    Penseur en détail face à l’enseignement global

"detail": [ { "loc": [ "body", "name" ], "message": "Field required" }, { "loc": [ "body", "email" ], "message": "'not-email' is not an 'email'" } ]

For example, let’s consider the type property. For most of the projects I am working on, it isn’t practical to have a webpage dedicated to each type of possible error.

For the instance property, the most practical way I’ve found of implementing this is to define a URN that encapsulates additional information regarding the error. Here is an example URN for reference. urn:companyname:api:error:protocol:badRequest:f29f57d7-e1f8-4643-b226-fa18f15e9b71

"type": "https://example.com/problems/request-parameters-missing"

Everything else in this issue is just figuring out how to make that happen, which turns out to be rather involved.

Interestingly, Rails doesn't see this in their test suite because they set this value during setup:

Markdown's supported, as long as you have a blank line between the </summary> tag and the following content.

Most of the descriptions I’ve seen focus on mechanisms - block chains, smart contracts, tokens, etc - but I would argue those are implementation details and some are much more likely to succeed than others. (E.g. I think using private keys for authentication/authorization is obviously better if you can get over the UX hump - SSH has shown us that for decades.)

I am firmly convinced that asserting on the state of the interface is in every way superior to asserting on the state of your model objects in a full-stack test.

300 counts at a LED power of 50 %

For me the diagrams make it easier to talk about what the tests do without getting bogged down by how they do it.

Do not test the internal implementation of the child components:

"Put as much information about the problem itself into the email". This is where you show your ability to know what is important and relevant and establish your technical level. Don't be brief, don't imply, and break it down Barney style so the person receiving it knows to escalate your ticket.

Look for certain questions that have been asked every time, and put those answers into the initial email you send about the new problem. Try to add things that make the potential problem sound local. The more information you give them that you know they will be asking for in their script, the faster you will get someone who can help you. And they will thank you for it.

If you email helpdesk (us specifically), if you use appropriate technical detail you will probably get someone who knows what they're doing, and will greatly appreciate it. If you call, you will get me only. I will ask you lots of questions, with awkward pauses in between while I write my notes, and at the end of it I probably won't be able to help you. Technical detail is still welcome, but there are some questions I will ask you anyway even if they sound useless to you

Put as much information about the problem itself into the email, within reason. No need to write a paragraph, that takes time away from you and from us. Bullet points are perfect (preferred).

(Yes, I realize from a technical, end-user perspective this really doesn't matter.)

What produces that text, and what do you want to use it for?

I`m getting "rsync warning: some files vanished before they could be transferred (code 24) at main.c(1518) [generator=3.0.9]" on one of my systems i`m backing up with rsync , but rsync doesn`t show WHICH files.

“Who cares? Let’s just go with the style-guide” — to which my response is that caring about the details is in the heart of much of our doings. Yes, this is not a major issue; def self.method is not even a code smell. Actually, that whole debate is on the verge of being incidental. Yet the learning process and the gained knowledge involved in understanding each choice is alone worth the discussion. Furthermore, I believe that the class << self notation echoes a better, more stable understanding of Ruby and Object Orientation in Ruby. Lastly, remember that style-guides may change or be altered (carefully, though!).

Also, the img is liquid/fluid, the height of the div/img are unknown, and the width is set to 800px and max-width to 80%.

React and Svelte are very similar in many ways, but what I've found is that in all the little ways that they are different, I prefer Svelte.

However, since you haven't yet provided any details about how you built with Qt (Qt isn't officially supported, so you must have used a third party derivative of vim), and you haven't provided any detailed information about what error messages or malfunctions you're having with python-complete, it's not really possible to tell you how to fix the problem and get vim working with Qt.

Reopening #162

There’s no need to test controllers, models, service objects, etc. in isolation

After being denied admission at three colleges

short stories, poetry, and novels as well as non-fiction autobiographical works

Stuart served in the US Navy during World War II but did not see combat as his mission in his life.[

Stuart served in the US Navy during World War II but did not see combat as his mission in his life.[5]

They settled in W Hollow and had one daughter, Jessica Jane.[6

Stuart relied heavily on the rural locale of northeastern Kentucky for his writings.[1]

Later he was appointed principal at McKell High School, but resigned after one year to attend graduate school at Vanderbilt University, where Edwin Mims was one of his professors.[7]

He then served as superintendent of the Greenup County Schools before ending his career as an English teacher at Portsmouth High School in Portsmouth, Ohio.[8]

In 1939, Stuart married Naomi Deane Norris, a school teacher.

The Subprocess macro will go through all outputs of the nested activity, query their semantics and search for tracks with the same semantic.

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.

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.

in this post, we’ll look at how to use this as the basis for an accessible dropdown navigation element that can be opened equally well by keyboard users tabbing through the page, and mouse users hovering on the nav item

The HTML details element comes with a surprise – in most browsers it has the ability to hide and show content with no additional JavaScript or CSS whatsoever. Here’s a little bit about how it works. details has with a child called summary, and when a page first loads, the summary is the only part of the element that’s visible, along with a triangle that browsers display by default, to suggest the expandable nature of the content. Interacting with the summary element, by clicking or using the keyboard, will make the rest of the details element visible and add an open attribute to the details element itself.

I think some of the design details are insane (I dislike the binary logs, for example), but those are details, not big issues.

Most users frankly don’t care how software is packaged. They don’t understand the difference between deb / rpm / flatpak / snap. They just want a button that installs Spotify so they can listen to their music.

I don't think this is what really matters at the end, since whatever is the implementation the goal should be to provide a library that people actually like to use.

well... it's the same question

light microscopes

setClient in _layout.svelte

The feature is highly likely to be implemented, the API and implementation are the only real topics of discussion right now.

It would be nice if the tests weren't so implementation specific, but rather tested the essence of the functionality. I tried to make them less brittle but failed. To that end, re-writing all the tests in rspec would be (IMHO) a brilliant improvement and pave the way for better tests in the future and more flexibility in implementation.

Running the same code in the browser and on the server in order to avoid code duplication is a very different problem. It is simply a matter of good development practices to avoid code duplication. This however is not limited to isomorphic applications. A utility library such as Lodash is “universal”, but has nothing to do with isomorphism. Sharing code between environments does not give you an isomorphic application. What we’re referring to with Universal JavaScript is simply the fact that it is JavaScript code which is environment agnostic. It can run anywhere. In fact most JavaScript code will run fine on any JavaScript platform.

Having the server render the HTML on first page load is the functional part, the thing that provides for a better user experience. The technical part is where we use the same code in both environments, which no user ever asked for, but makes a developer’s life easier (at least in theory).

Devise-Two-Factor only worries about the backend, leaving the details of the integration up to you. This means that you're responsible for building the UI that drives the gem. While there is an example Rails application included in the gem, it is important to remember that this gem is intentionally very open-ended, and you should build a user experience which fits your individual application.

Describe the problem fully Link to a test case showing the problem.

Without this information, very likely your question will not be answered, frustrating both yourself and anyone else who does want to help, because they are unable to do so

it doesn't even render in-file components. For example, the <Fade /> component we have above is an implementation detail of the <HiddenMessage /> component, but because we're shallow rendering <Fade /> isn't rendered so changes to that component could break our application but not our test. That's a major issue in my mind and is evidence to me that we're testing implementation details.

The reason this kind of test fails those considerations is because it's testing irrelevant implementation details. The user doesn't care one bit what things are called. In fact, that test doesn't even verify that the message is hidden properly when the show state is false or shown when the show state is true. So not only does the test not do a great job keeping us safe from breakages, it's also flakey and doesn't actually test the reason the component exists in the first place.

I could rename toggle to handleButtonClick (and update the corresponding onClick reference). My test breaks despite this being a refactor.

I could mistakenly set onClick of the button to this.tgogle instead of this.toggle. My test continues to work, but my component is broken.

Will this test break when there's a mistake that would break the component in production?Will this test continue to work when there's a fully backward compatible refactor of the component?

Why is testing implementation details bad?There are two distinct reasons that it's important to avoid testing implementation details. Tests which test implementation details:Can break when you refactor application code. False negativesMay not fail when you break application code. False positives

But far too often, I see tests which are testing implementation details (read this before continuing if you haven't already). When you do this, you introduce a third user. The developer user and the end user are really all that matters for this component. So long as it serves those two, then it has a reason to exist. And when you're maintaining the component you need to keep those two users in mind to make sure that if you break the contract with them, you do something to handle that change.But as soon as you start testing things which your developer user and end user don't know or care about (implementation details), you add a third testing user, you're now having to keep that third user in your head and make sure you account for changes that affect the testing user as well.

You want to write maintainable tests for your React components. As a part of this goal, you want your tests to avoid including implementation details of your components and rather focus on making your tests give you the confidence for which they are intended. As part of this, you want your testbase to be maintainable in the long run so refactors of your components (changes to implementation but not functionality) don't break your tests and slow you and your team down.

Thus, even though these numbers turned out to be exaggerated, the authority of their source—the INS—meant that they entered public discourse as a symbol of alarm.29For example, the December 1974 cover of the American Legion Magazinedepicted the United States being overrun by “illegal aliens” (Figure 1.1). Most of the cartoon people in the image are Mexicans storming, en masse, across the U.S.-Mexico border, breaking down a sign that reads “usa border” and another one reading “keep out.” Other immigrants are landing by boats along theEast Coast, flying in and swimming from the Caribbean, parachuting acrossthe Canadian border, and all of them are converging upon, and inundat-ing, the nation’s institutions, most notably welfare, education, housing, jobs, and medical care. Such images were to become more frequent in the nation’s magazines over the next three decades, contributing to an increasingly alarmist d

Murine macrophage cell line J774A.1 (ATCC no. TIB-67) was maintained in phenol red free DMEM supplemented with 10% heat inactivated (45 min at 65°C) foetal bovine serum at 37°C in 5% C02 and 95% air. The cultures were sub-cultured every three days or at the attainment of 80 % confluency.

his job

It’s not the activities that prevent them from getting enough sleep — it’s the school start

Les fouilles se poursuivent pendant une décennie suivant la découverte, sous le regard des autorités jordaniennes mais nous avons peu de détails sur le déroulement de celles-ci.

Recount stories, including fables, folktales, and myths from diverse cultures; determine the central message, lesson, or moral and explain how it is conveyed through key details in the text

full loss function as coming from a Gaussian prior over the weight matrix WW, where instead of MLE we are performing the Maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation. We mention these interpretations to help your intuitions, but the full details of this derivation are beyond the scope of this class.

I regret that the documentation does not focus on what is most relevant; by focusing on a largely irrelevant implementation detail, we enlarge the importance of that implementation detail and obscure the importance of what makes a value type semantically useful. I dearly wish that all those articles explaining what “the stack” is would instead spend time explaining what exactly “copied by value” means and how misunderstanding or misusing “copy by value” can cause bugs.