RFC | Official PyTorch Implementation of Residual Force Control

This is called "destructuring". It's used commonly in pattern matching like with if let Some(val) = option.

Essentially, this:

You can use the static method cases() for this. This returns an array of all values in the enum. The values have a "name" property that is a string representation you can check against (backed enums also have a "value" property that contains the string value you defined in the enum).

So an example implementation could be something like:

A bit of confusion on my end it seems. The docs talk about adding

Method 2:

Solution was

There's a dirty way to do this, I'll write about it till someone answers with a better idea. Here we go:

You can do this with perl:

You first have to create a structure in ABAP Dictionary (SE11), then you create a table type in SE11 as well.

You then reference the structure in the line type of the table type.

Try using the new global table type, it should work. (with typing 'TYPE')

There was a breaking change to the way DeflateStream operates in .NET 6. You can read more about it and the recommended actions in this Microsoft documentation.

Basically, you need to wrap the .Read operation and check the length read versus the expected length because the operation may now return before reading the full length. Your code might look like this (based on the example in the documentation):

There are no RFCs or standards which would say what information can end up in claims and which don't. I would try to stick to those guidelines:

1. Try to keep information in tokens as minimal as required. Don't put something in claims only because maybe one service will need it from time to time. Put only those claims which most of the service use all the time, or information which needs to be asserted by the Authorization Server. The other data usually belong to the microservices themselves or can be easily obtained through API calls. This is especially important if you're using JWTs publicly available on the Internet, as anyone can read those information.

2. Try not to put Personally Identifiable Information in a JWT, especially if the token is available publicly. When someone steals such a token they will be able to read your users' PII. If you need this kind of information in a token, then think of using the Phantom Token pattern. This way the information is safe from eavesdroppers.

3. By limiting the amount of claims in a token you can also limit the permissions of a token. It's better to have tokens with lower permissions and use token exchange whenever more information or privilege is needed.

4. Remember that the claims in the token are a contract between the Authorization Server and the consumer (usually the API). Once you add something to a token, you usually won't be able to remove it, as this will constitute a breaking change.

Have a look at these articles we wrote at Curity to get some more knowledge about dealing with claims and JWTs:

• Claims Best Practices
• JWT Security Best Practices