zephyr | A unified grading platform for student code | Learning library

I had the same problem and I solve it by adding those lines to my .conf file:

So what is the difference between a serial driver and a tty driver?

A serial driver makes no assumption about the kind of device attached, it merely sends and receives raw "bytes" (see note), and probably offers some way to configure the communication (which baud rate, how many data bits, what kind of parity scheme, what kind of flow control, etc). The device attached to the serial port could be a serial mouse, or a bar code scanner, or a printer, or ... - the serial driver doesn't care.

Note: "byte" might not be a synonym for "octet" - e.g. it could be a group of 7 bits.

A TTY driver is tied to the assumption that the device is an type writer with a keyboard. Note: For the history; before computers existed we went from "people waving flags at each other" (semaphores) to "morse code with a single key" (telegraph) to teleprinters/teletypewriter (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleprinter ); and when computers got invented the (mechanical/electric) teleprinters were simply replaced with (computerized) dumb terminals.

Mostly; TTY is all about what bytes mean (and doesn't care much how the bytes are sent/received); and a serial driver is all about how bytes are sent/received (and doesn't care what the bytes mean).

Is there any interdependence relation between them? I mean to write a tty driver should I write by first a serial driver, that will be a base to the tty driver or what?

Crudely; a TTY driver has IO in 4 directions - getting key press info from local keyboard, sending bytes to remote whatever, receiving bytes from remote whatever, and putting characters on the local screen. For sending/receiving bytes with "remote whatever" you can use a serial driver; but (especially during development/testing) you could use anything else (TCP/IP stream, pipes, file IO, ...) instead - you don't necessarily need to implement the serial driver first.

I think the easiest way to achieve this is to define a tidy_custom.polr method as described here in the documentation.. For instance, you could do:

You were almost there. I found a few typos in your HTML code like the

on debugging the code i found out that the cards have margin property in minus

as you can see the structure.

1. the cards wrapper is moved where the dynamic desc is being appended.
2. the style: adding position: relative; and removing the margin: -(value); to the same element.

hope this helped.

With @kleopatra's help. My solution is to create a class responsible for parsing the date selected by the user on the DatePickers default choice box. Furthermore, the date picker is set to editable so that the user can also edit it manually. However, there is a restriction where a user can ONLY insert numerical value when editing manually, also I wanted to make sure that the user should input only valid dates.

From what I understand your image does not appear when the screen size is greater than 1024px. I made some changes to the code and got it to work as you wish, I think ...

I hope that's what you want

It looks like it is doing it's job. Everything there is complying to greater than the specified date.

If you wish to filter by that specific date only, change the -gt (greater than) to -eq (equal) and it should do so.

CoAP messages are typically limited by the application's buffer in size, and practically limited to one MTU (as IP fragmentation is rarely used together with CoAP). Unlike the message's payload, an option can not be split across multiple messages using block-wise transfer. On the Zephyr side, the error went unnoticed because you discarded the coap_packet_append_option result code.

For the concrete case of this URI, you can work around the limitation using a larger message buffer (how that is done depends on how you initialized request in the first place).

Note that transporting a JWT in the URI for authentication purposes is not how authentication is typically done in CoAP applications. If your HTTP server accepts TLS client certificates instead of CWTs, you may consider provisioning the proxy with a suitable client certificate (to be used when the CoAP client is authenticated properly, eg. using DTLS or OSCORE), and then use only the almost reasonably sized token-less path.

[edit after question clarification]

The lack of errors indicates a flaw in the Zephyr code, either Zephyr itself or the concrete network interface used (which should not silently truncate outgoing messages without letting the OS know), and would best be addressed inside the Zephyr issue tracker.