Values | Simple immutable value objects for ruby | Application Framework library

You can use sub to extract data in two capture groups and separate them by : -

I thought that in your situation, it is required to retrieve 6/17 from 06/17/2021. For this, how about the following modification?

In this case, please modify doPost as follows.

We can calculate the labels that we want to display and use it in geom_label.

In the Map, set the value not to the cumulative total time for the employee so far, but to a whole employee object that contains the total time inside it. Spread the first object found so as not to mutate the input.

You can use a conditional expression:

The next-fire-base-auth config documentation links to the cookies package. Under the cookies example, I found:

You are writing message.text into the database inside the photo function. However, that function is only triggered for messages containing a photo. When the message contains a photo, message.text is None. Any caption the photo might have will be in message.caption.

Since, I am not 100% sure the context in which you are trying to apply the MVC pattern, a good generic explanation of MVC can be found in GoF's 1995 book, Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object Oriented Software.

In the book, they state the following.

The Model is the application object, the View is its screen presentation, and the Controller defines the way the user interface reacts to user input.

A more robust explanation can be found from Martin Fowler where he also makes the case for a variation of Model View Controller that uses a Presentation Model.

If you are referring to Spring MVC then there is some magic that blurs the lines a bit. But in general, you have a controller that represents some screen or an encapsulated piece of functionality that the user (web requests) interact with. The controller serves up responses that are derived from the domain, usually via a Spring Service (i.e. @Service). The domain (Model) doesn't know anything about the View and the View may or may not know anything about the domain.

Given that, the View should be derived from the Model. But that's not always the case since sometimes how we present things to a screen is not the best logical way to model things in our domain - not to mention, the domain should be presentation agnostic. This leads into Fowler's argument for a Presentation Model, which is a model that belongs to the Presentation.

I call this a Presentation Model because it's a model that is really designed for and thus part of the presentation layer.

Microsoft took that idea and ran with it in a variant of MVC called MVVM (Model View ViewModel).

You can read more about that in Microsoft's documentation on ASP.Net Core.

So, back to your original question of "Should you pass the model directly to the view?" If you are using MVC then the controller is what provides the interaction. But if you're really asking, "Can you bind your view directly to the model?" If your model has all the stuff you need organized how your view needs it, then sure. And if it's simple enough, maybe that's the way to go. Otherwise, you could go with something like a Presentation Model or MVVM.

Use this code after you calculate s to get slope column with desired values: