checker | Golang parameter validation , which can replace go | Validation library

Lifetimes are part of type itself

In your first example, you are specifying same i.e 'a to all of x, y and return value. If you were receiving single value as reference you wont have to pass lifetime specifier right?

Edit: see blackgreen's answer, which I also found later on my own while scanning through the same documentation they linked. I was going to edit this answer to update based on that, but now I don't have to. :-)

There is probably a better way—this one seems a bit clumsy—but I was able to work around this with reflect:

Typescript infers BaseModel's database getter to be of type void. This is because you neither return a value, nor do you have an explicit type on that getter. Then Animal tries to extend that, and it returns an async function, which is not void, and you get the type error.

The correct fix here is to properly type the BaseModel.database return value. In this case, I believe it should return an async function, which returns a promise, which wraps your database object.

No, not until closure HRTB inference is fixed. Current workarounds include using function pointers instead or implementing a helper trait on custom structs -- the helper trait is needed regardless of approach until higher-kinded types are introduced in Rust.

Playground

To avoid returning a Box, you would need the type parameter I to be generic over the lifetime 'a, so that you can use it with any lifetime (in a for<'a> bound, for example). Unfortunately, as discussed in a similar question, Rust does not yet support higher-kinded types (type parameters that are themselves generic over other type parameters), so we must use a helper trait:

You are going to run into problems with this approach because the call to start a new flow may not immediately cause the list_executions() to show a new number. There may be some seconds between requesting that a new workflow start, and the workflow actually starting. As far as I'm aware there are no strong consistency guarantees for the list_executions() API call.

You need something that is strongly consistent, and DynamoDB atomic counters is a great solution for this problem. Amazon published a blog post detailing the use of DynamoDB for this exact scenario. The gist is that you would attempt to increment an atomic counter in DynamoDB, with a limit expression that causes the increment to fail if it would cause the counter to go above a certain value. Catching that failure/exception is how your Lambda function knows to send the message back to the queue. Then at the end of the workflow you call another Lambda function to decrement the counter.

IIRC it's simply based on the unification of the provided type and the expected type. (&&) has type Bool -> Lazy Bool -> Bool. Unifying the second argument with y: Bool converts it to (delay y) value. On the other hand, if you'd pass x : Lazy Bool as the first argument, it converts to (force x). And this will be done with any values/function with Lazy a types.

Those are peer dependencies, not actual dependencies. Here is a good article explaining the difference. Peer dependencies are just to let users know what versions of various packages your installed package is compatible with. You don't need to fix these issues, as they are just letting you know which versions of various packages are compatible IF you want to use those packages sometime in the future.

In short, you can just start you project as-is, there is nothing that needs fixing.

Returning a MutView<'s> from subview is unsound.

It would allow users to call subview multiple times and yield potentially overlapping ranges which would violate Rust's referential guarantees that mutable references are exclusive. This can be done easily with immutable references since they can be shared, but there are much stricter requirements for mutable references. For this reason, mutable references derived from self must have their lifetime bound to self in order to "lock out" access to it while the mutable borrow is still in use. The compiler is enforcing that by telling you &mut self.data[..] is &'a mut [u8] instead of &'s mut [u8].

The only option I see is to add an into_subview and into_slice method that consumes self.

That the main option I see, the key part you need to need to guarantee is exclusivity, and consuming self would remove it from the equation. You can also take inspiration from the mutable methods on slices like split_mut, split_at_mut, chunks_mut, etc. which are carefully designed to get multiple mutable elements/sub-slices at the same time.

You could use std::mem::transmute to force the lifetimes to be what you want (Warning: transmute is very unsafe and is easy to use incorrectly), however, you then are burdened with upholding the referential guarantees mentioned above yourself. The subview() -> MutView<'s> function should then be marked unsafe with the safety requirement that the ranges are exclusive. I do not recommend doing that except in exceptional cases where you are returning multiple mutable references and have checked that they don't overlap.

I'd have to see exactly what kind of API you're hoping to design to give better advice.

I don't think a class name would be directly interpreted as a groovy codeSource argument in a declarative pipeline (as opposed to a scripted one)

Try the approach of "How to import a file of classes in a Jenkins Pipeline?", with: