SEAL | Link Prediction Based on Graph Neural Networks | Machine Learning library

After a while trying to find solutions to this problem, I saw that an emulator running outside android studio provides these options. To run a standalone Android Studio emulator see the official documentation or simply enter the command:

You can follow this link for examples.

In short sealed classes gives you the control of which models, classes etc. that can implement or extend that class/interface.

Example from the link:

To test a MRJAR the classes must be packaged as a jar, so don't use surefire with target/classes, but instead use failsafe during the verify phase. And you must run it at least twice, once per targeted Java version. I would write a unittest, that works for all Java versions, but might skip certain tests.

Nesting of NavHost is not allowed. It results in ViewModelStore should be set before setGraph call Exception. Generally, the bottom nav is outside of the NavHost, which is what the docs show. The recommended approach is a single NavHost, where you hide and show your bottom nav based on what destination you are on.

You need to specify the type of your TRequest parameter in your abstract class as well. It has to be at least specific as the parameter in the interface you're trying to implement.

I think option 2 is the way to go. But to make it work you have to disable the warning selectively. This is supported starting with Scala 2.13.2 and 2.12.13

We could use match with sort

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.

Rather than placing your logic right inside composable place them inside