refactoring | We want to refactor this code

This is what i was doing

Here's one method (among many I'd guess). This is not production ready - just a hackish tool for you to assemble a list that you can parse out later. Or an idea you can take and make more robust.

create a php file in a directory

tracker.php

Yes, this works. There's nothing wrong with adding two Bridge relationships to one abstraction (beyond the complexity of juggling three different hierarchies).

Decorator would certainly not work for this purpose, because it maintains a single hierarchy, which is known to the client. The Implementor hierarchy in a Bridge (or hierarchies in this case) are unknown to the client.

I would make a clarification to the linked article, where it says,

You want to extend this [shape] class hierarchy to incorporate colors

I think this oversimplifies the motivation for a Bridge. The Implementors are not just some attributes you choose to add to your Abstraction to enhance it. Your Abstraction requires an Implementor in order to function at all. The method implementations within subclasses of Abstraction generally do little except call methods of the Implementor.

The Abstraction represents your high-level, business API, while the Implementor represents a lower-level, primitive API. They are both abstractions, but at different levels. I don't think this is conveyed adequately by shape & color examples because shape and color seem like abstractions at the same level. Both shape and color would be known to the clients, and neither one strictly depends on the other.

So a Bridge is applied for more specific reasons than the given example, but you certainly can have two.

Your dynamic block should be:

Let's start with your question

what is meant by 'Use small, specific instances instead' as well for option and array?

Prior to fp-ts v2.10.0, type class instances were grouped together as a single record implementing the interfaces of multiple classes, and the type class record was named after the data type for which the classes were defined. So for the Array module, array was exported containing all the instances; it had map for Functor and ap for Apply etc. For Option, the option record was exported with all the instances. And so on.

Many functions, like getFoldableComposition and sequenceT are defined very generically using "higher-kinded types" and require you to pass in the type class instance for the data type you wanted the function to use. So, e.g., sequenceT requires you to pass an Apply instance like

This implementation is a circular dependency, which roughly looks like:

While it will likely work in Java, imagine what would happen if you no longer included the class MyAuthorDaoImpl when later you decided to implement ABetterAuthorDaoImpl. Now you have to change the interface. It is a minor change in this case, but imagine it on a larger scale.

Normally a factory method returns the interface type rather than the implementation type. Example:

You are returning a function reference to cy.get() when you call cy.get(loginPage.forgotPasswordLink). Change It to:

So, two things are going to bite you here:

First, docker stack deploy is fussy about the version you specify, so you need to strictly specify a valid compose version equal or higher than the feature you are trying to use. Not sure when anchor support was added, but it definately works when the version is specified as "3.9".

Your next problem is that merging is shallow. In your example case this isn't a problem because x-test contains only one setting which is already on its default value, but more generally to handle complex cases something like this is needed:

The compiler needs to be able to deduce the type of the argument in some way, this can happen through explicit type annotations as in num: i32 or through contextual information such as