sub | a delicious way to organize programs | Script Programming library

The error is being caused because one of your dependencies is internally using WorkManager 2.7.0-beta01 that was released today (which needs API 31). In my case it was CheckAarMetadata.kt.

You can fix it by forcing Gradle to use an older version of Work Manager for the transitive dependency that works with API 30. In your build.gradle file add:

I've hit this same issue and have temporarily resolved it by uninstalling react-native-video (npm uninstall --save react-native-video). That's not a great answer as I need that component, but I don't have a full solution yet. I think somehow com.yqritc:android-scalablevideoview:1.0.4. is required by react-native-video but has gotten lost or removed. Other thoughts are welcome.

UPDATE: Resolved! In your build.gradle in your Android folder you need to add the repository "jcenter()" in allprojects (not in build dependencies) like this...

I'm not sure what you're using to code, but in order to set it in Android Studio, open the manifest of your project and under the "activity" section, put android:exported="true"(or false if that is what you prefer). I have attached an example.

The math module from the standard library has a sqrt function to calculate the square root of a number. It takes any type that can be converted to float (which includes int) as an argument and returns a float.

The functions provided in the Python re module do not optimize based on anchors. In particular, functions that try to apply a regex at every position - .search, .sub, .findall etc. - will do so even when the regex can only possibly match at the beginning. I.e., even without multi-line mode specified, such that ^ can only match at the beginning of the string, the call is not re-routed internally. Thus:

I think EVAL isn't strictly necessary here. You can go for indirect lookup, i.e.,

Just stumbled upon the same thing (strange windows upon attempting to refactor some code after updating to Arctic Fox). After a lot of searching around the options/menus/internet this fixed it for me:

Navigate to:

File > Settings... > Editor > Code Editing

under

Refactorings > Specify refactoring options:

select

In modal dialogs

Press OK.

Fingers crossed refactoring works.

🤞

Further step: Restart Android Studio

Given x.f(1.01);, the name f is found in the scope of class Sub, then name lookup stops; the scope of Abs won't be examined. Only Sub::f is put in overload set and then overload resolution is performed.

... name lookup examines the scopes as described below, until it finds at least one declaration of any kind, at which time the lookup stops and no further scopes are examined.

You can use using to introduce the names of Abs into Sub, then Abs::f could be found and take part in overload resolution too.

The logic of comparing files seems alright, I don't find any outstanding problem with it, it is ok to prepend the "/" to match what you need. Could be even better if you could use the System.IO.Path.DirectorySeparatorChar for the directory root path as well, so if you run on windows or Linux you will have no issues.

But there may be a conceptual problem with what you are doing. To my understanding you aim to verify existence of specific configuration files required for your program to work right, if those files are missing than the program should fail. But that kind of failure due to missing configuration files, is an expected and valid result of your code. Yet, you unit-test this as if missing files should fail the test, as if missing files are an indication that something wrong with your code, this is wrong.

Missing files are not indication of your code not working correct and Unit-test should not be used as a validator to make sure the files exist prior executing the program, you will likely agree that unit-test is not part of the actual process and it should only aim to test your code and not preconditions, the test should compare an expected result (mock result of your code) vs. actual result and certainly not meant to become part of the code. That unit test looks like a validator that should be in the code.

So unless those files are produced by your specific code (and not the deployment) there is no sense testing that. In such case you need to create a configuration validator code - and your unit test could test that instead. So it will test that the validator expected result with a mock input you provide. But the thing here is that you would know that you only testing the validation logic and not the actual existence of the files.