talisman | Talisman helps with upgrade and wipe of a Portworx cluster | Job Orchestrator library

It seems to me that your mail server is closing the connection because you are making more requests than its configuration allows. If you are using a third party mail provider you might want to check if the service you use offers any way to send bulk emails, e.g. through an API or file upload. Or if they have a way to change that configuration for you.

If that is not possible:

One solution would be to make a blocking call (time.sleep()) in order for you to lower the frequency at which you send your mails:

You will need to turn these strings into vectors, and pad them to equal length. I'll show you an example with just partial_x_train_actors_array:

No, it's because swagger-ui uses inline scripts and styles -- here's the open issue tracker for swagger-ui and here's the open issue for flask-restplus.

flask-talisman allows control on a 'per-view' basis, so you could add the 'unsafe-inline' keyword to your CSP for that endpoint. If that's not possible with flask-restplus, you could also modify your CSP using before_request for whatever the swagger route prefix is, as outlined here.

Edit:

A workaround is to use a different CSP for the Swagger view that allows inline scripts and styles:

I posted this question for two reasons:

• To answer it because I believe I found an edge case to this error.
• To start a thread specifically for when Flask throws this error.

My solution:

I was connected to public / a different WiFi than I normally connect to.

Once I connected to my personal WiFi, the program ran normally and did not throw this error.

What I would recommend doing is setting the left property to 50% on the left-most and right-most ::before pseudo-classes, and then adjusting the width of the left-most and middle pseudo-classes to cover the offset.

I'd also recommend increasing the top of the downwards connectors by 2px just to avoid spiky 'overhangs'.

A bit sloppy, but here's my attempt:

If we remove one character from "Jeff" at different positions we end up at "eff", "Jff", "Jef" and "Jef". If we do the same with "jeff", we get "eff", "jff", "Jef" and "jef". Now if you look closely, you'll see that both strings produce "eff" as a result, which means that we could create a Map of those combinations to their original version, then for each string generate all combinations and look them up in the Map. Through the lookup, you'll get results that are similar, e.g. "abc" and "cab" but they do not necessarily have a levenshtein distance of 1, so we have to check that afterwards.

Now why is that better?

Well iterating all names is O(n) (n being the number of words), creating all combinations is O(m) (m being the average number of characters in a word) and looking up in a Map is O(1), therefore this runs in O(n * m), whereas your algorithm is O(n * n * m), which means for 10.000 words, mine is 10.000 times faster (or my calculation is wrong :))

I streamlined your filtering by first filtering keys that have valid values. If there are none, show all rows.

Then use Array#every() to match all the columns that have valid filters.

Where you had a problem is your result would only depend on the last key in the Object.keys()

No changes were made in bindDropdownFilters() or in the html

Thanks a lot to michael_heath for their answer.

I was using delayed expansion for an earlier part of the code. For what ever reason I needed to use the '!' variable deliminator instead of the default '%' deliminator. Thanks also to Squashman and Mofi as I used these suggestions to improve my code further.

Thanks a lot this have given me a great first impression of Stack Overflow.

Evyn

The Talisman is written by both Stephen King and Peter Straub. Right now it can only connect to one author.

Sounds like you need many to many relation here, because a book can belong to multiple authors and an author can write multiple books, so yes, specifying has_and_belongs_to_many relation and create a join table is the right approach here.

Or for example if the same name of a book was being used by two different authors.

I think different books should have different records and ids in the database, but sure depends on your specific use cases.