in-c | Terry Riley 's 1964 composition | State Container library

There is not much you can do except casting dynamicObject to object at the call site:

In C++, it is the remainder operator, whereas, in Python, it is the modulus operator – and, when the two operands have different signs, these aren't necessarily the same thing. There are some fine explanations of the difference between these operators in the answers to: What's the difference between “mod” and “remainder”?

Now, considering this difference, the rounding (truncation) modes for integer division have to be as they are in the two languages, to ensure that the relationship you quoted, (m/n)*n + m%n == m, remains valid.

Here are two short programs that demonstrate this in action (please forgive my somewhat naïve Python code – I'm a beginner in that language):

C++:

In general I think generics is not what you want to use here. Generics always require compile time constant parameters.

As I am only on the phone and don't know I can't give you a full solution right now but I hope I can bring you into the right track.

I think the simplest thing would rather be a common interface such as e.g.

DeflateStream, GZipStream, and CryptoStream diverged from typical Stream.Read and Stream.ReadAsync behavior in two ways:

They didn't complete the read operation until either the buffer passed to the read operation was completely filled or the end of the stream was reached.

And the new behaviour is:

Starting in .NET 6, when Stream.Read or Stream.ReadAsync is called on one of the affected stream types with a buffer of length N, the operation completes when:

At least one byte has been read from the stream, or The underlying stream they wrap returns 0 from a call to its read, indicating no more data is available.

In your case you are affected because of this code in Decrypt method:

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.

It stores a hash value, and supports == based off owner_before().

You must make these from shared_ptrs, as a weak ptr with no strong references cannot be hashed to match its owner; this could create two augmented weak ptrs that compare equal but hash differently.

I ran with docker a bitcoin node based in the ulamlabs/bitcoind-custom-regtest:latest image you provided: