Robust | Robust is an Android HotFix solution with high compatibility and high stability. Robust can fix bugs

I'm completely new to trying to implement GitLab's CI/CD pipelines, but it's been going quite well. In fact, for my ASP.NET project, if I specify a Publish Profile in the msbuild command that uses Web Deploy, it actually deploys the code successfully to the web server.

However, I'm now wanting to have the "build" job create artifacts which are uploaded to GitLab that I can then subsequently deploy. We're using a self-hosted instance of GitLab, for which I'm not an admin, but I can speak to the admin if I know what I'm asking for!

So I've configured my gitlab-ci.yml file like this:

The 3rd March 2022 is the end of this Hijri Month (month of Rajab for this year 1443 AH); i.e. 30 Rajab 1443 AH.

The month of Rajab for the year 1443 AH is 30 days in accordance with the Islamic (Hijri) Calendar in accordance with all websites, applications, MS Office, and Windows calendars.

When using the javascript Intl.DateTimeFormat() to display the Islamic (Hijri) date for the 3 March 2022 using the islamic calendar option, it will give the Islamic Hijri Date of (1 Shaʻban 1443 AH). This result is one day after the month of Rajab (i.e. the 1st of the following month) and it calculated the month Rajab to be 29 days rather than 30 days.

However, if the option passed to the Intl.DateTimeFormat() is ar-SA (i.e. arabic-Saudi Arabia), it will give the correct result. This is strange because the ar-SA locale uses the Islamic (Hijri) calendar by default.

Is this an error/bug or is it the correct internal workings of javascript?

Is there a more robust method to get the Islamic Date in Javascript other than using the 'ar-SA' locale (but not using external libraries)?

See the code example below:

I have tested this in node and chrome and it gives the same resulting discrepancy.

I would like to be able to robustly stop a video when the video arrives on some specified frames in order to do oral presentations based on videos made with Blender, Manim...

I'm aware of this question, but the problem is that the video does not stops exactly at the good frame. Sometimes it continues forward for one frame and when I force it to come back to the initial frame we see the video going backward, which is weird. Even worse, if the next frame is completely different (different background...) this will be very visible.

To illustrate my issues, I created a demo project here (just click "next" and see that when the video stops, sometimes it goes backward). The full code is here.

The important part of the code I'm using is:

I am trying to learn to fit a linear integer programming optimization model in R using the ompr package that a colleague had previously fit using CPLEX/GAMS (specifically, the one described here: Haight et al. 2021). I am running my implementation on a Linux Supercomputing server at my University that has 248gb of memory, which I'd think would be sufficient for the job.

Here is my code and output from the failure report from the server:

I am working on embedded C. Could somebody help me which piece of code?

Is efficient in terms of robustness, memory as well as Misra friendly?

Code1:

I am trying to get to grips with the specifics of the (C++20) standards requirements for container classes with a view to writing some container classes that are compatible with the standard library. To begin looking into this matter I have looked up the references for named requirements, specifically around container requirements, and have only found one general container requirement called Container given by the standard. Reading this requirement has given my two queries that I am unsure about and would like some clarification on:

1. The requirement for the expression a == b for two container type C has as precondition on the element type T that it is equality comparable. However, noted later on the same page under the header 'other requirements' is the explicitly requirement that T be always equality comparable. Thus, on my reading the precondition for the aforementioned requirement is redundant and need not be given. Am I correct in this thinking, or is there something else at play here that I should take into account?

2. I was surprised to see explicit requirements on T at all: notably the equality comparable requirement above and the named requirement destructible. Does this mean it is undefined behaviour to ever construct standard containers of types failing these requirements, or only to perform certain standard library function calls on them?

Apologies if these two questions sound asinine, I am currently trying to transition my C++ knowledge from a place of having a basic understanding of how to use features to a robust understanding so that I may write good generic code. Whilst I am trying to use (a draft of) the standard to look up behaviour where possible, its verbiage is oft too verbose for me to completely understand what is actually being said.

In an attempt to seek the answer I cooked up a a quick test .cpp file to try an compile, given below. All uncommented code compiles with MSVC compiler set to C++20. All commented code will not compile, and visa versa all uncommented code will. It seems that what one naively thinks should work does In particular:

• We cannot construct any object without a destructor, though the objects type is valid and can be used for other things (for example as a template parameter!)
• We cannot create an object of vector, where T has no destructor, even if we don't attempt to create any objects T. Presumably because creating the destructor for vector tries to access a destructor for T.
• We can create an object of type vector, T where T has no operator ==, so long as we do not try to use operator ==, which would require T to have operator ==.

However, just because my compiler lets me make an object of vector where T is not equality-comparable does not mean I have achieved standards compliant behaviour/ all of our behaviour is not undefined - which is what I want I concerned about, especially as at least some of the usual requirements on the container object have been violated.

Code:

I run a glm() using robust standard errors. For a subsequent model comparison I calculate the difference of two regression models (coefficients & se). For that calculation I use the summary() function. However, the summary function of the models show different standard errors than the ones I get from coeftest(). Values for coefficients remain identical.

Input:

I've been using Laravel (5.4) and PHP both for the very first time in a legacy app I've been tasked to maintain, and over the past couple of months I have noticed a pain point, which is mass assignment.

I believe I have a well-enough grasp of what is is, but I am not sure if I am really utilizing it correctly. The official documentation illustrates the problem using a (good, but extreme) example of a user's role. I understand the significance of this and why I should guard such variables. However, I don't think I really have a solid understanding of determining what fields to guard or not (if at all), in general.

It seems that a lot of the nice features of Laravel don't seem to have mass-assignment in mind, which is the main source of my frustration. For example, if I had an endpoint that had some optional fields (i.e. you could just not specify them in the request), then doing a mymodel->update(request->all()) would only update the fields that you provided. If many of the fields were guarded, I would have to have many repeated isset() checks if I wanted to achieve the same behaviour, which seems unnecessary. I also know that request->all() shouldn't really be used like this, but I am just trying to illustrate a point.

It becomes more cumbersome when you consider that you're probably going to use robust validation alongside something like request->only([...]) to make sure your data is correct and filtered to only what you expect.

So ultimately what I am asking is:

In the presence of robust validation and input-shaping methods, is mass-assigning nearly anything still worth doing? In general it seems that I am jumping through so many more hoops for no reason, when it seems that my validation steps already took care of the problem. If it is still worth doing, what am I missing? Should mass-assignment protection only be delegated to super-important fields, like a user's role, and nothing else?

std::common_type is a helper template in C++ which can find the common type which all of T1 ... TN are implicitly convertible to.

According the C++ spec, a user may specialize std::common_type if certain conditions apply, and:

std::common_type::type and std::common_type::type must denote the same type.

However, common_type might be a very complicated specialization for user types T1 and T2: