abstractions | build abstract drawings with # Rstats and physarum model | Machine Learning library

Rust is not designed for Java's dependency injection mindset, indeed.

UserService is now aware of the fact that UserDatabase is used elsewhere. The UserService only needs the UserDatabase to call 1 function. Why should it have to be aware of the fact that the UserDatabase is referenced elsewhere?

Because this is exactly the kind of things Rust wants to be explicit about.

This is not just a limitation: Rust wants you to know who owns your objects. The ownership system should design your mind and your program. This "share-style" is indeed not very Rusty - and one of the reasons Rc and friends are not commonly seen in idiomatic Rust (they do appear, but not at the same amount as GC'd languages).

Do not think about services - think about data. Instead of asking who needs access to the user database, ask of whom it is. The owner does not inject the DB to whoever needs it, he just let them take a look. If main() owns the database, the services should take a reference to it (or not exist at all). If both services own it, it should be Rc. Either way, you have to be explicit about that. And that's a good thing!

As alluded to in the comment from @Daniel A. White, you are doing a risky thing -- trying to write to a file, in a handler that's provided on an "if all else fails" basis. Some examples:

• if the disk is full and the File Logger can't write (File sinks dont necessarily do that, but if they wanted to communicate failure, it would be via the SelfLog)
• if a message string is malformed (Serilog logging calls will never throw; this is based on a fundamental tenet in the wiki about the logging not being important enough to stop a working app from working)

While the Serilog debugging and diagnostics Wiki page currently shows an example of writing to a file, that's simply not the nature of the contract -- it must not fail.

Hence, if you actually want to emit the SelfLog to a file, you will need to add a try/catch and swallow the exception in the handler.

I would say its pretty questionable value to have a file as a backup when the File Sink is your primary output. This is doubly the case as you don't have any mechanism to ensure it gets trimmed (imagine you had a tight loop logging with a malformed message string - it would fill your disk eventually).

I personally have handled this tradeoff by echoing the SelfLog to my Console Sink (which logging won't throw, per the above) on the basis that the operating environment (think Kubernetes) can be trusted to capture it, or alert.

Your first error almost gives you the solution, you have to import spark.implicits._ for Product types.

You could do this:

The ILogger interface requires that you can log objects of any type, but you're trying to log only those of type 'TState.

Take the signature of BeginScope:

The Rx does not support backpressure, so there is no easy way to fetch the records from the DB at the same tempo that the records are processed. Maybe you could use a Subject as a signaling mechanism, push a value every time a record is processed, and devise a way to use these signals at the producing site to fetch a new record from the DB when a signal is received. But it will be a messy and idiomatic solution. The TPL Dataflow is a more suitable tool than the Rx for doing this kind of work. It supports natively the BoundedCapacity configuration option.

Some comments regarding the code you've posted, that are not directly related to the backpressure issue:

The Merge operator with a maxConcurrent parameter imposes a limit on the concurrent subscriptions to the inner sequences, but this will have no effect in case the inner sequences are already up and running. So you have to ensure that the inner sequences are cold, and a handy way to do this is the Defer operator:

The logic of comparing files seems alright, I don't find any outstanding problem with it, it is ok to prepend the "/" to match what you need. Could be even better if you could use the System.IO.Path.DirectorySeparatorChar for the directory root path as well, so if you run on windows or Linux you will have no issues.

But there may be a conceptual problem with what you are doing. To my understanding you aim to verify existence of specific configuration files required for your program to work right, if those files are missing than the program should fail. But that kind of failure due to missing configuration files, is an expected and valid result of your code. Yet, you unit-test this as if missing files should fail the test, as if missing files are an indication that something wrong with your code, this is wrong.

Missing files are not indication of your code not working correct and Unit-test should not be used as a validator to make sure the files exist prior executing the program, you will likely agree that unit-test is not part of the actual process and it should only aim to test your code and not preconditions, the test should compare an expected result (mock result of your code) vs. actual result and certainly not meant to become part of the code. That unit test looks like a validator that should be in the code.

So unless those files are produced by your specific code (and not the deployment) there is no sense testing that. In such case you need to create a configuration validator code - and your unit test could test that instead. So it will test that the validator expected result with a mock input you provide. But the thing here is that you would know that you only testing the validation logic and not the actual existence of the files.

In my case, it was the SDK not running the proper net6.0 version.

While the whole project was using new net6.0 NuGet packages, the local SDK on that one machine I was working on was still net5.0. After installing .net6.0, Swashbuckle 6.2.3 was working again, and all was as expected.

"As long as they are from an acceptable input range" is not the same "don't care".

If a parameter value needs to be valid, but the actual value does not matter for the test case, I usually define the value as a constant or variable named as such, that it is clear to the reader that the value does not matter for the case. Example: A_VALID_USER_NAME, which communicates that the test case is about calling the function/method with a valid user name.

is exists any way to increase "Maximum blob size via single write operation (via Put Blob)" limit for BLOB storage?

The limits can not be change because its designed.

Based on the Microsoft document :

Azure Storage standard accounts support higher capacity limits and higher limits for ingress and egress by request. To request an increase in account limits, contact Azure Support.

As you said , here is the table describes the maximum block and blob sizes permitted by service version.

For more information please refer this Azure Blog: Run high scale workloads on Blob storage with new 200 TB object sizes