craft | nystudio107 Craft 3 CMS scaffolding project | Plugin library

I am trying to understand the usage of existentially quantifying. What I know by now is this technique is used with setof, findall, bagof. Further, I found a tutorial. However, I am not sure when and how I do the Vars^Goal (existentially quantifying) in Prolog.

Here is the example, my goal is to find two employees who know each other but work at different companies, binding the result with L showing Name1-Name2:

I am trying to craft a command that would run against all of my Windows machines to check if the "Audit Distribution Group Management" audit policy setting is set to "Success and Failure". I would only like to apply this check to Domain Controller servers and for any other server type to echo out something like "NoCheckRequired", is this possible?

I tried to create an if-else statement on PowerShell for this, but it was not successful.

There is this question to discover existing types:

• Getting Python Tkinter Object Type

However I've just developed tooltips (balloons) I've assigned to some buttons and would like to be able to recall all of them as a unique type. Also down the road I'd like to hand-craft canvas objects which will operate like pseudo buttons with , , , and events. How might I declare a new object type for them?

All descriptions of links referenced in the question below are from 2021/05/31.

I have trained a deep Q network following the version of the TF Agents tutorial on a custom problem. Now I would like to feed it some hand-crafted observations to see what actions it recommends. I have some utility functions for creating these feature vectors that I use in my PyEnvironment. However, I am not sure how to convert these bits to feed into the network.

What I would like to have is something like the following:

1. Feed in an initial state, and see the recommended action from the network.
2. Manally alter the state, and see what the network recomends, next.
3. And so on...

My environment has a stochastic component, so I want to manually modify the environment state rather than have the agent explicitly take a path through the environment.

To make progress on this question, I have been examining this tutorial on policies. It looks like, my use case might be similar to the section "Random TF Policy" or the one below on "Actor policies". However, in my use case I have a loaded agent and have Python (non TF) observation, time specs, and action specs. What is the ideal approach to drive my network to produce actions from these components?

Here is something I have tried:

Lately I have started implementing TLS for the sport as a fun project and I'm currently trying to self make and send locally a client hello TLS packet (a minimal one).

When observed via the loopback interface in Wireshark it appears as pure data instead of a tls layer with all of the various fields and after lots of trying I decided to ask here the following questions:

1. What's the difference between my self made packet and a real TLS client hello one?
2. How does Wireshark selectively makes one appear as a TLS layered instead of pure data, is there an identifier field in the packet that declares it as pure data or a TLS layered one?
3. How can I make my packet to appear as a client hello TLS packet instead of pure data?

Here is my server and client that send basically my c code output (remember that they are not made for real TLS handling but just to show the packet in Wireshark):

server.py

I have been trying to loop over a scriptable object (the orderList) to determine if an item (included in the orderList) can be delivered (which means, if for a specific job, the craft time allocated is enough to have the item created). The problem is that I found out that the second item in the orderList was always missed while looping over and I can't identify why.

I checked the parameter of the second itemObject and the attributed job is correct, as well as the craft duration. I added a debug log to check if the if condition rejected the item, but it seems that the function does just not loop over the second item, and goes directly from orderList.Container[0] to orderList.Container[2].

Does anybody have an idea on why the second item is ignored?

Here is the code for information:

I am using a bootstrap navbar in my react app and the code is as follows -

I have some text that I wish to place in quotes [1] in a conf file. Assume for the time being that the string does not contain single or double quotes within it: no ' or ",

[1] Single or double quotes would work here. For simplicity all examples below use single-quotes.

Before:

I am using the MERN stack and I have a component that will create resources to store on the database. This component has an associated redux slice to store its state. The state includes the status of the request made to the server for posting the resource to create.

When React first executes, the main display component uses a redux-thunk to load some important resources. Currently, it loads the authentication status of the user in a redux slice. When the person logs in or logs out, this authentication status is changed.

When a user loses their authentication status while already having loaded up a protected component, the server denies access to protected resources and allows the client to sync its authentication status. For example, the user logs in and goes to the protected component that creates resources. The user then logs out on a different tab. Now, the client still believes the user is authenticated but the server knows they are not. If the client makes a request to create a new resource, the server will reject it and the client will sync its authentication status with the server.

The problem I am facing is in a redux-thunk inside the redux slice that is associated with the protected component. If the server rejects the create request because the user is unauthenticated, the thunk dispatches an action to update the authentication status of the user.

When the authentication status of the user changes, a ProtectedRoute component immediately unmounts the protected components and mounts the login component (here). Upon being unmounted, the protected component dispatches an action to reset its redux state.

Now, all of this happens as the action to reset authentication has been dispatched. The redux-thunk promise resolves after this and a reducer changes the protected component's redux state. This makes the reset state action useless.