cashier | 基于C#实现的一个童装收银小软件

“No such...” errors are usually caused by either a mismatch in API keys (e.g. using a mixture of your test plus live keys) or by trying to access objects that exist on a different account (e.g. trying to perform an operation from your platform account on an object that was created on a connected account)

Unless there is a better way to do this that comes around, here is what works for me.
I ended up feeding the result of Get-ADUser to a variable and loop thru that variable to skip the 1st value which is the unwanted header.

• query from tolls collection
• $project to show required fields and add new field type for "tolls"
• $unionWith with fuel collection and $project to show required fields add new field type for "fuel"
• now we have merged both collections document in root and added type for each document
• $group by date and type, count total elements
• $group by only date and construct the array of both type with its count in key-value format
• $addFields to convert that analytic field to object using $arrayToObject

Use GroupBy.cumcount with Series.str.cat:

Unfortunately, this is indeed "too broad a question". (The shortest possible answer is "read everything ever written on the differences between conceptual modeling and formal logical modeling, and how to go from the former to the latter.".) I can only provide a number of hints.

It seems like you use an E/R syntax where entities are rectangles and relationships are diamonds. The ellipses indicate "properties" of the entities. However, E/R is a conceptual modeling technique while normalization theory applies to formalized models in which everyting is represented as relations (mathematical sense of the word). So you need to worry about how you are going to make everything in this conceptual model represented as "relations with attributes". Hint : for the entities, you seem to have them already, but what about the relationships (note carefully : relationSHIP is not the same thing as relation !!!). For example, if a given cashier works 40% for one restaurant and 60% for another one, how are you going to represent that ? Is that situation supposed to be supported ?

Then, it seems like you have already thought about identifiers, because you underlined them. The thing that normalization theory is about, +-, is to facilitate the identification of all the keys that apply to a relation in the logical schema. Look at your "restaurant" entity. You seem to already have decided that, in FD terms, {Name} -> {Address, ContactNo}. What you need to worry about is questions like "is it also the case that {ContactNo} -> {Name, Address} ?". Or iow, "can it be the case that two distinct restaurants have the very same contact n° ?".

Further, look at the "OrderDetail" property in "Bill". Formalizing to a logical model means you're going to have to decide on a data type for this property. So what "data type" are you going to use ? To my mind, the "detail" of an order is the entire list of items ordered, with their quantities ordered etc etc. Is that something you are going to represent as a column in some table in your db ? (I'm not implying to say that your model is wrong here. Yes, orders have order details. It's just that saying so remains at a very high level of abstraction that +- conflicts with the lower level of abstraction that you managed to achieve for the other entities. By including that as a property, you are communicating that "it's there and I know it is there, but I still don't have a clue as to what it looks like". And that calls for "then elaborate that first". (Hint : you might find that actually there is also a relationship between "order" and "bill" because "bill" only gets created in the context of on order that was served. This of course also means that you are going to have to formalize that relationship.)

I'm going to stop here.

So for anyone wondering what the problem was. For some reason the handlebarsjs doesn't notice it's variable calls when inside double quotes"" To get it to work I had to put the iframe src in single quotes like below:

Illuminate/Database is currently at version 8.29.0. This means you're installing some Laravel 5.x dependency (likely on Laravel 8.x), which might be incompatible - if not already abandoned. If you cannot find a current version, you'd likely have to fix what you have - or use it with Laravel 5.x.

You can use two left joins: