overly | An overly configurable http server for client testing | HTTP library

I'm rather new to iOS programming.

I was wondering what is the proper way to achieve permanently rounded corners (via the attribute view.layer.cornerRadius) for a view that has dynamic height.

In Android, we would just set the cornerRadius to an absurdly high number like 1000. This would result in the view always having rounded corners regardless of how tall or short it was.

Unfortunately, when I tried to do the same thing in iOS, I realized that an overly large value for cornerRadius results in the view being drawn in a distorted way - or straight up just disappearing from the layout altogether.

Anyone have any insights into this problem? Thanks.

I'm trying to run the command envsubst < myfile to replace environment variables but instead of being replaced with their values, they are being replaced with blank strings.

Here's my example command (split onto separate lines for clarity):

I'm tasked with moving some UI-Grids to AG-Grid. I need to allow the user to use a space delimited string for a column filter so "1 4 23 88" would return all rows where column has 1 or 4 or 23 or 88 as a value. AG-Grid has the drop down OR option but is added clicks and only allows two values.

With UI-Grid the filter parameter in columnDefs can have a condition:

Want to add content to bolt 4 programmatically however can only really see 1 example for Bolt 3.

Would like this to run via cron in long run however this functionality looks on the backburner for Bolt 4 too but sure I can botch a way to run.

Within Bolt 3 the below was suggested:

I have a TypeScript project that runs a backend RESTful API using Express. It is very object-heavy by design, so that lots of classes can be instantiated and injected into each other both at run time and when services classes are tested.

We have a good suite of tests across all service classes. However, we have an index.ts that brings this all together, and this presently escapes test automation. I am mulling a variety of approaches to testing this, so that endpoints and lightweight controllers are insulated against regressions. (Rather than list all my ideas that might result in an overly broad question, I shall focus on one specific idea for now).

Let me show an example of my front controller (src/index.ts):

How can I fade out an audio element using vanilla js (no jquery)? I have looked at the numerous other questions on this forum but they all seem overly complicated or use jquery. I have written this code below. However, I get the following error: "Uncaught DOMException: Failed to set the 'volume' property on 'HTMLMediaElement': The volume provided (-7.52870e-16) is outside the range [0, 1]."

I've searched and can't find a similar question where three tables come into play. I have three tables: Parent, Child, and ParentChild. ParentChild is a many-to-many join table that lets you set multiple children to multiple parents. I'm using .Net Core 5.

Here are the dto classes for the tables:

There is a warning on the Firebase best practices documentation against using Firebase with multi-tenant applications: https://firebase.google.com/docs/projects/learn-more#multi-tenancy

This is what I am most concerned about: "Multi-tenancy can lead to serious configuration and data privacy concerns problems, including unintended issues with analytics aggregation, shared authentication, overly-complex database structures, and difficulties with security rules."

There is also plenty of official Google documentation supporting the use of Firebase for multi-tenancy, for instance: https://cloud.google.com/identity-platform/docs/multi-tenancy-authentication .

Do you know why they would have these conflicting recommendations and examples? Does use of Google Identity Platform fix the core security deficits mentioned in the warning?

I am re-posting this question, with additional clarification in the title, and a few edits/removals from the body, to specify that I am only looking for why this widely used product has this particular warning in its official documentation. I have removed most subjective content. I have no opinion on this that is relevant to the question - I am only looking to understand the warning. It seemed there was one good answer before the previous question was closed, so I will link that here for reference: Why is Google Firebase not recommended by Google in their own documentation for multi-tenant applications?

There is a warning on the Firebase best practices documentation against using Firebase with multi-tenant applications: https://firebase.google.com/docs/projects/learn-more#multi-tenancy

This is what I am most concerned about: "Multi-tenancy can lead to serious configuration and data privacy concerns problems, including unintended issues with analytics aggregation, shared authentication, overly-complex database structures, and difficulties with security rules." Identity Platform looks like it should cover everything except analytics aggregation and database structures, but I can control analytics logging and my database structure is simple enough, being divided cleanly by tenant. My application is one common application, but has tenanted client data and users (managed via Google Identity Platform).

There is also plenty of official Google documentation supporting the use of Firebase for multi-tenancy: https://cloud.google.com/identity-platform/docs/multi-tenancy-authentication . There are also dozens of examples out there for how to set up multi-tenancy with Firebase and Google Identity Provider.

Do you know why they would have these conflicting recommendations and examples? Does use of Google Identity Platform fix the core security deficits mentioned in the warning? It has me strongly considering abandoning Firebase, which would be a shame given the features it gives me.