decouple | Do n't look

The code in the OP resembles a well-known variation of the Visitor design pattern known as an Internal Visitor (see e.g. Extensibility for the Masses. Practical Extensibility with Object Algebras by Bruno C. d. S. Oliveira and William R. Cook). That variation, however, uses generics and return values (instead of void) to solve some of the problems that the Visitor pattern addresses.

Which problem is that, and why is the OP variation probably insufficient?

The main problem addressed by the Visitor pattern is when you have heterogenous objects that you need to treat the same. As the Gang of Four, (the authors of Design Patterns) states, you use the pattern when

"an object structure contains many classes of objects with differing interfaces, and you want to perform operations on these objects that depend on their concrete classes."

What's missing from this sentence is that while you'd like to "perform operations on these objects that depend on their concrete classes", you want to treat those concrete classes as though they have a single polymorphic type.

Using the animal domain is rarely illustrative (I'll get back to that later), so here's another more realistic example. Examples are in C# - I hope they're still useful to you.

Imagine that you're developing an online restaurant reservation system. As part of that system, you need to be able to show a calendar to users. This calendar could display how many remaining seats are available on a given day, or list all reservations on the day.

Sometimes, you want to display a single day, but at other times, you want to display an entire month as a single calendar object. Throw in an entire year for good measure. This means that you have three periods: year, month, and day. Each has differing interfaces:

Yes, the Matplotlib developers have dealt with that. And the practice they've established is this:

• Write a test that produces a plot figure.
• Save that figure as an image file in a temporary folder.
• Assert that output image and corresponding "baseline" image are the same.

The test will fail the first time it is run. You then inspect the image, that one time, and use it as the reference for future tests simply by copying the file to the folder holding baseline images.

You may be able to re-use the Matplotlib test fixtures (source code, API documentation) and look at the Matplotlib tests to see how they are used in practice. Essentially, the comparison mechanism loads both image files via PIL, converts them to NumPy arrays, and tests that the two arrays are equal. Though there is also a way to specify a tolerance and allow minor deviations.

Error Code 3 means the ad request is successful, but the server does not return any available ad asset. Currently, Huawei Ad Kit supports Huawei devices, please use Huawei phones to test your app.

If you do not have an Huawei phone, you can use Cloud Debugging of AppGallery Connect to test it. Cloud Debugging tests your app using mainstream Huawei devices provided by Huawei. You can run your app on the latest and most popular Huawei devices to test app functions.

Please kindly refer to: https://stackoverflow.com/a/63877454/13329100

For more details, see: Error Codes Supported Devices

I solved it after finding a reference to THREE.UVMapping in the docs. When sending the geometry to the GPU, textures coordinates need to be a biyection from the vertices coordinates. To achieve this, I defined the following three attributes in my blocks:

You don't want to unit test a module, you want to unit test a modules individual components in isolation.

Although you can create a TestModule and simply import your module as you have done above, I would only consider doing that when the module contained a single component (even then I wouldn't as I don't think its very good practice).

The more components you bring into your test:

• The more moving parts you need to manage
• The more you have to mock
• The less portability you have with the unit and its test
• The more aspirin you ingest trying resolve self induced headaches that occur every time you modify its parent module

Nests TestingModule enables you to "rig" up an independent module with the bare minimum needed to test your component in isolation. It simplifies your test setups and mock creation/management.

Always try to look at unit testing as a stand alone, independent processes. Limit the scope and dependencies wherever possible to make testing as effective and easy as possible.

Here is an example of the approach I take for unit testing a service where I mock out its dependencies:

First of all, this navbar is added by Django 3.1+ and not by any other 3rd part packages.

Copy & Pasting from Django 3.X admin showing all models in a new navbar,

From the django-3.1 release notes,

The admin now has a sidebar on larger screens for easier navigation. It is enabled by default but can be disabled by using a custom AdminSite and setting AdminSite.enable_nav_sidebar to False.

So, this is a feature that added in Django 3.1 and can be removed by settings AdminSite.enable_nav_sidebar = False (see How to customize AdminSite class)

You don't have to edit any CSS or HTML file to fix the styling, because Django comes with a new set of CSS and HTML, which usually fix the issue. (That is, it is not recommended to alter the styling file only for this)

If that doesn't work for you, it might be because of your browser cache.

If you are using Chrome,

1. Go to the admin page
2. Ctrl + Shift + i and select Network tab and then tick Disable Cache
3. Refresh the page

The way I do it is by "injecting" something that returns the core object:

Instead of doing:

Why are you using the windows wheel (PyICU-2.7.3-cp38-cp38m-win_amd64.whl)? You probably need a manylinux wheel.

You can also try pyicu-binary package.

As per the docs:

"The Procfile must live in your app’s root directory. It does not function if placed anywhere else."

That is the same directory where manage.py is.