sailboat | NSOAP Router for ReactJS | Frontend Framework library

You are comparing different things so you get different results. Multiple fails here.

1. mapEd.values()[0].BoatPick__c - this takes 1st element. At random. Are you sure you have only 1 element in there? You might be getting random results, good luck debugging.

2. normalizeSpace() and trim() - you trim the string but after splitting you don't trim the components. You don't have Sailboat, you have {space}Sailboat

It is because your click of .modalclose bubbles up to .activities. So you got this effect:

1. Click on .modalclose
2. Close modal function executed
3. Event bubbles up to .activities
4. Click event is executed again on .activities
5. Modal is shown again

To see this in effect add console.log() to each of your functions

You must pass event in function call and then do event.stopPropagation()

You tagged your question as C++, but your code technically suggests "C", which is fine with me.

A "C" solution

You have two signers, both with ClientUserId set, which means you create two views for them to both sign using embedded signing? And after the first one signed, the second would sign.

This is probably the reason. If you want it done at the same time - set the RoutingOrder to both be "1". If you want an email sent - remove the ClientUserId.

And of course, you need to two separate requests for the embedded signing - one for each signer.

If you expect exactly 3 elements after splitting by ':', you may want to use filter before collecting:

I'd write it like this:

I believe your goal as follows.

• You want to retrieve the value of Mom usually acts as {it}umpire{/it} in our frequent squabbles over the sailboat. from def[0].sseq[0][0][1].dt[1][1][0].t.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find the method for directly retrieving the value you expect using ImportJson. So in this answer, I would like to propose 2 patterns of scripts for retrieving the value using Google Apps Script.

In this pattern, a recursive function is used for retrieving the value. When you use this script, please put =SAMPLE1(CONCATENATE("https://dictionaryapi.com/api/v3/references/ithesaurus/json/"&$A4&"?key=")) to a cell.

This was a tricky one for someone new to MongoDb's aggregate. I'll break down my answer into steps to demonstrate to other attempting to aggregate an array with referencing multiple collections.

The $match is accepts the same queries as db.collection.find({}) and returns an array of matching results in the case below, I select 4 specific records here

We say that a FD (functional dependency) is satisfied (holds) in a given relation value iff/when what it states is true of the value. We say that a FD is satisfied (holds) in a given relation variable/schema iff/when it is satisfied (holds) in every value that can arise for it under given business rules.

Neither of your quotes gives a definition of when a FD is trivial in a given relation value or variable/schema, because they say "if" instead of iff/when. They only give a sufficient condition; they don't give a necessary & sufficient condition. So they don't tell you exactly when a FD is trivial for a given relation value or variable/schema.

They would be definitions if they said iff/when.

Let's take their "if" to mean iff/when.

"satisfied by all instances of a relation" is sloppy, unhelpful & misleading. It is phrasing meant to apply to a relation variable/schema. It is trying to say, would be satisfied even if you didn't know what constraints held, ie, would be satisfied even if no constraints held. It doesn't make much sense to use it given a relation value, since certain FDs do & don't hold for a given relation value at all times. (Clearly a value is constrained to be itself.)

A correct phrasing that applies to both variables/schemas & values is, satisfied given just the attributes, or, implied given just the attributes, or, able to be shown to be satisfied if all you knew were the attributes.

At the bottom of the slide it says

In general, α → β is trivial if β ⊆ α

This isn't a definition either, for the same reason, namely (ab)using "if" when iff/when is intended. But taking "if" as iff/when, you get a definition. It is essentially the same phrasing as your 2nd quote, with α for X, β for Y & ⊆ for subset of.

So the trivial FDs in your example value are exactly the ones X → Y where Y ⊆ X. A → B & C → B are not of that form so they are not trivial FDs of that value.

The exercise then goes on to discuss the non-trivial FDs that hold, applying the definition of an FD holding to that relation value. Some non-trivial FDs hold & some don't. But the trivial ones must hold by definition; they are the ones that hold no matter what value you are given with given attributes.