Counterpart | wrapper script for rsync | Incremental Backup library

I had to use the event DOMContentLoaded to make app check work with my angularJS app, maybe you can try it:

I managed to solve this. I will post relevant parts of the code, the rest is unchanged

The problem I am facing comes from the fact that a pointer to an array of unknown bound is, by my understanding, illegal C++.

You're mistaken. Pointer to an array of unknown bound is not illegal in C++.

I am in fact invoking undefined behaviour. (Or, possibly, some non-standard compiler extension?)

Neither (as long as the pointer is valid). The shown function is standard conforming even if T is an array of unknown bound.

why are pointers and references to arrays of unknown bound illegal?

They aren't illegal.

_{There used to be a special case that pointers and references to arrays of unknown bound were illegal as function parameters. That was made legal in a defect resolution in 2014}

Static initialization in C++ is a nightmare... Draft n4659 for C++17 says in 6.6.3 Dynamic initialization of non-local variables[basic.start.dynamic] §1

Dynamic initialization of a non-local variable with static storage duration is unordered if the variable is an implicitly or explicitly instantiated specialization, is partially-ordered if the variable is an inline variable that is not an implicitly or explicitly instantiated specialization, and otherwise is ordered.

When the Static class is not templated, you have a partially-ordered intialization to guarantee the initialization of Static::s_a to happen before the initialization of s_user. But when you use templates, the initialization becomes unordered and the implementation can choose what it wants. In my tests, gcc 10 gives same results as what you have got (s_users initialized before Static::s_a), but clang 12 gives the opposite order...

You are lucky to have used gcc and seen the problem. Had you used Clang, you would have proceed at dev time and problem could have happened later. The worse here, is that I am not sure whether explicit instanciation really guarantees the initialization order. If I have correctly understood the standard, I would say no and anyway, I would never rely on that for production code.

Constructor public () - Warning: Visibility for constructor is ignored. If you want the contract to be non-deployable, making it "abstract" is sufficient.

The warning message says it all. You can safely remove the public visibility modifier because it's ignored anyway.

If you marked the BEP20Token contract abstract, you would need to have a child contract inheriting from it, could not deploy the BEP20Token itself, but would have to deploy the child contract. Which is not what you want in this case.

See how we use:

The biggest issue is the fact that you are measuring the first execution of build_params_numba, which includes the compilation (it is compiled Just-In-Time, just as you requested). This is like measuring the time-to-dinner between a classic meal and a microwave meal, but you're including the time to buy and install a microwave oven as part of the latter. Measure the second invocation of build_params_numba, when the compilation has been already completed, to see how the compiled function performs.

The second issue is that numba might not be of much help with your code. AFAIK it is designed to speed up numerical algorithms and numpy code. By necessity, namedtuple and dict are Python data structures and numba has to treat them as such; so even though you requested nopython mode, Numba cannot oblige, as it only works when a native data type can be detected for all values in your code (I think — not 100% sure on this point though).

You can rename const_new to just new. When a trait method and an inherent method have the same name, the inherent method is always picked; it is not considered ambiguous.

This way, the same call can be written in both const and generic contexts, and there is no unusual name. (I would also suggest documenting the two functions to mention each other, so people don't assume that because one exists the other doesn't.)

That said, I can't say this idea is idiomatic; I haven't seen it done in a library I've used.

It looks like you are using the request python library in your python code which has cookie persistence. However, It seems as if your post request in the Java code does not have a CSRF cookie token tacked on to it. You would need to get the cookies by making a get request then when you make a post request add the cookies. I will show an example below using Jsoup.