propagate | Propagate events from one event emitter | Pub Sub library

From the question, I believe you have understood most of it so I'm not going to details about why this multi-loss architecture can be useful. I think the main part that has made you confused is why does "loss1" back-propagate through "B"? and the answer is: It doesn't. The fact is that loss1 is calculated using this formula:

You can use catchError(buildResult: 'SUCCESS', stageResult: 'FAILURE') in this case, so that the pipeline is successful, but stage is showed as failed. You can choose the status of buildResult and stageResult in case you want it to be unstable or fail.
Example pipeline: In the below example, even if stage "Testing" fails , other stages will still be executed and the stage "Testing" will be marked as failure in the view.

I found a really great answer and explanation to my question. Roman Elizarov discussed exactly my problem in one of his articles: https://elizarov.medium.com/coroutine-context-and-scope-c8b255d59055

He explained that while it is technically possible to "capture" a current context of a suspending function and use it to launch background coroutines, it is highly discouraged to do this:

Do not do this! It makes the scope in which the coroutine is launched opaque and implicit, capturing some outer Job to launch a new coroutine without explicitly announcing it in the function signature. A coroutine is a piece of work that is concurrent with the rest of your code and its launch has to be explicit.

If you need to launch a coroutine that keeps running after your function returns, then make your function an extension of CoroutineScope or pass scope: CoroutineScope as parameter to make your intent clear in your function signature. Do not make these functions suspending.

I knew I could just pass a CoroutineScope/CoroutineContext to a function, but I thought suspending function would be a shorter and more elegant approach. However, above explanation makes hell a lot of sense. If our function needs to acquire a coroutine scope/context of the caller, make it explicit about this - it can't be simpler.

This is also related to the concept of "hot"/"cold" execution. One great thing about suspending functions is that they allow us to easily create "cold" implementations of long-running tasks. While I believe it is not explicitly specified in the coroutines docs that suspend functions should be "cold", it is generally a good idea to meet this requirement as callers of our suspending function could assume it is "cold". Capturing the coroutine context makes our function "hot", so the caller should be notified about this.

You can store it in an httponly cookie, but you need to make sure to handle CSRF attacks if you do so. Flask-JWT-Extended has built in support for this which you might find useful, either as a solution or as a reference for whatever you end up doing:

https://flask-jwt-extended.readthedocs.io/en/stable/token_locations/#cookies

You can also just send the token back as part of the JSON body and then storing it in local/session storage, which is probably the most common pattern.

One solution is to explicitly throw SystemExit from a.py

Update for compose version 1.0.0-beta08:

Use the new experimental overload of Surface that accepts onClick.

aws dynamodb list-tables, aws ec2 describe-instances and List item do not work because List*, Get* and Describe* API events are not supported by CloudWatch Events:

If you want to capture such events, you have to do it through CloudWatch Logs. Namely, setup your CT trail to push events to CloudWatch Logs. Then, setup a subscription filter to your lambda. This will push all API events to your lambda through CloudWatch Logs. Subsequently, you will be able to detect AccessDenied errors in the events and perform other actions you require.

Other possibility would be to setup metric filter on the logs so that AccessDenied errors are captured to create a CloudWatch metric. Then you setup a CloudWatch Alarm based on the metric. This will trigger an alarm, but it will not pass the details of event that triggered the alarm to your function. You will only know that access denied happened, but without further details.

Update

create-table works as expected. I used the following rule in my tests which I hooked up to SQS for quick checks:

This will get you started. We:

• Follow the states of shorts/longs, which makes it possible to plot stop and entry levels only when we are in a trade.
• Made the doLongs/doShorts inputs part of the entry conditions.
• Added the breach of stops to the exit conditions.

Note that this logic does not replicate that of the Engine, as here you are entering on closes, whereas the Engine is entering on the next bar following the detection of the entry/exit conditions, which is more realistic. You can also adapt your code to proceed that way:

Not sure this is the best approach, but you can ignore keydown events from the event handler by inspecting its target. If the target is an input, then do nothing: