prize | 红包算法和抽奖算法 , 抽奖算法适合老虎机 , 刮刮卡 , 大转盘 , 摇一摇 , 九宫格抽奖等等

The code you have shows how to have a common ratelimit between commands in a cog, to have a cooldown on the on_raw_reaction_add event you need a different approach.

Since json_array_elements() can only be used with JSON arrays, split cases and UNION ALL:

It's not what you want to hear, but there's really only one way to initialize a variable "at the language level" in standard C++ -- and that's to initialize it. It really is that straight-forward. You're basically stuck with either this, or NOLINTing it, as you've already described in your question. It's not a glamorous solution, and it's not what you're after; but there really aren't any better ways.

I'm sure there may be ways to "trick" the tooling into thinking it's initialized, but any such suggestions would amounts to hacks at best.

That said; assuming the clang-tidy check causing grief is the cppcoreguidelines-init-variables rule, it's worth noting that this only triggers for integers, booleans, floats, doubles, and pointers -- and the cost to default-initialize such a value is generally negligible. Unless you've benchmarked this cost and found default-initializing this to be a true bottleneck, there's very little reason to avoid this practice.

In general, initializing the variable is the cleanest / safest way to silence this issue, and is ultimately the best practice anyway. Without initializing, all it takes is a small bug in f_legacy to cause unexpected UB. If f_legacy has any bugs such that it returns success but forgets to set a value to v, then v will not be initialized and will formally be UB -- and this is all just to save default-initializing a primitive.

Just a suggestion:

Rather than NOLINTing the callers or having to initialize someone-else's uninitialized value, as per your "worst-case" f_wrapper example, could the API possibly be altered to return the initialized value rather than initialize what is passed in?

If you did this, you could either NOLINT it internally, so there are less NOLINTs required, or just initialize the value yourself to prevent other potential issues. Since the value is encapsulated in the function, this would be much less egregious than initializing the caller's maybe-uninitialized value, in my opinion:

The answer to your 1 question is: history does not change after first set because your getAllPrizes returns always the same value so the useEffect is triggered only once (on mount).

For the 2 question, the problem is that you are trying to log the history value right after a call to setHistory, which is async. If you want to log history each time it is updated you have to do something like:

I've used your code to assemble a small example, which you can see below.

1. Inside svg > defs, create one pattern per node and use that pattern (with the ID of the company) to fetch the logo of that company;
2. Reference the pattern for the node using the information you already have.

Some pointers on your code:

1. You already use ES6 logic, so you can also use Array.prototype.map and other functions. They're generally much more readable (and natively implemented!) than d3.map;
2. There is no need to keep so many arrays of values, generally having fewer sources of truth for your data will make the code simpler to maintain and update in the future;
3. Use clear variable names! LS and LT are logical when you know the context, but when you revisit this code in 6 months you might not instantly know what you were talking about when you wrote it.

with() doesn't actually filter the User Collection being returned. To do that, you need to use whereHas():

Have you checked your if-statement ever becomes true?

One thought is, that chosen might includes string-values as numbers. Try running:

Mission accomplished: