sharp | Laravel 8+ Content management framework | Content Management System library

I'm not familiar with all of the new features of C# 10.0, but you can achieve the desired behaviour by treating the name as an object in it's own right, and referencing the Name object in each of your Person instances. i.e. just treat it as a composition

Usually someone having a Mac M1 would have this issue. The Mac M1 processor is arm64. There was a solution posted here which requires to change terminal architecture to arch -x86_64 zsh which I did not want to do.

So, that's the workaround I was able to discover (some of the steps also mentioned in the error):

I just solve this issue by correcting the RxJS version to 7.4.0. I hope this can solve others issue as well.

Use the .Keys collection:

The problem is that you have Node 17.2.0. locally but in Netlify's environment, you are running a lower version (by default it's not set as 17.2.0). So the local environment is OK, Netlify environment is KO because of this mismatch of Node versions.

When Netlify deploys your site it installs and builds again your site so you should ensure that both environments work under the same conditions. Otherwise, both node_modules will differ so your application will have different behavior or eventually won't even build because of dependency errors.

You can easily play with the Node version in multiple ways but I'd recommend using the .nvmrc file. Just run the following command in the root of your project:

Usually I'd say your question is quite broad and the use case very tricky and requires a lot of not so trivial steps to approach. But I see you also have put quite an effort in research and your question so I'll try to do the same (little Christmas Present) ;)

In general I think generics is not what you want to use here. Generics always require compile time constant parameters.

As I am only on the phone and don't know I can't give you a full solution right now but I hope I can bring you into the right track.

I think the simplest thing would rather be a common interface such as e.g.

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:

init properties do not force the values to be initialized, only constructors do. What init does is that, if the property is to be initialized, it must be done at construction time in an object initializer (or in the constructor if you have one): it does not guarantee that it will.

If you want maximum robustness here, initialize them through the constructor instead, which allows you to add guard clauses and guarantee non-nullable properties.

This is what you want (and I do as well):

• Required Properties

This proposal adds a way of specifying that a property or field is required to be set during object initialization, forcing the instance creator to provide an initial value for the member in an object initializer at the creation site.

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.