suggestion | 搜索输入框-下拉提示 提示词根据权重排序.基于double-array-trie的darts

For me, cleaning and getting the packages didn't work. This error started after I upgraded flutter. I was on the master channel, a quick fix for me was to switch to stable.

It all makes sense and has a simple pattern besides () -> null being a Callable I think. The Runnable is clearly different from the Supplier/Callable as it has no input and output values. The difference between Callable and Supplier is that with the Callable you have to handle exceptions.

The reason that () -> null is a Callable without an exception is the return type of your definition Callable. It requires you to return the reference to some object. The only possible reference to return for Void is null. This means that the lambda () -> null is exactly what your definition demands. It would also work for your Supplier example if you would remove the Callable definition. However, it uses Callable over Supplier as the Callable has the exact type.

Callable is chosen over Supplier as it is more specific (as a comment already suggested). The Java Docs state that it chooses the most specific type if possible:

Type inference is a Java compiler's ability to look at each method invocation and corresponding declaration to determine the type argument (or arguments) that make the invocation applicable. The inference algorithm determines the types of the arguments and, if available, the type that the result is being assigned, or returned. Finally, the inference algorithm tries to find the most specific type that works with all of the arguments.

I have solved it by forcing update flutter_math_fork adding to pubspec:

I've been getting the same error no matter what I've tried. I think there might be an error on setting the command line tools path with the Xcode version 13. So deleting XCode 13 (How to uninstall XCode) and reinstalling 12.5.1.(XCode12.5.1) solved the problem for me temporarily.

Update the Rust to satisfy the new edition 2021.

rustup default nightly && rustup update

Thanks to @ken. Yes, you can use the stable channel too!

But I love nightly personally.

NA is a statistical or data integrity concept: the idea of a "missing value". Eg if your data comes from people filling in forms, a bad entry or missing entry would be treated as NA.

NaN is a numerical or computational concept: something that is "not a number". Eg 0/0 is NAN, because the result of this computation is undefined (but note that 1/0 is Inf, or infinity, and similarly -1/0 is -Inf).

The way that R handles these concepts internally isn't something that you should ever be concerned about.

One way to solve this issue is to create an .editorconfig for the solution and then add the following line to that .editorconfig file:

dotnet_diagnostic.CA1416.severity = none

This will make all "Validate platform compatibility" warnings go away.

The reason is this breaking change:

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:

The logic of comparing files seems alright, I don't find any outstanding problem with it, it is ok to prepend the "/" to match what you need. Could be even better if you could use the System.IO.Path.DirectorySeparatorChar for the directory root path as well, so if you run on windows or Linux you will have no issues.

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.