extensions | Angular Material Extensions Library

Dependency: androidx.lifecycle:lifecycle-runtime-ktx:2.4.0. The issue is with this dependency, there may be some transitive dependency error. I would suggest use the alpha version of this dependency, worked for me. Replace with this dependency : androidx.lifecycle:lifecycle-*:2.4.0-alpha03

I managed to fix this by upgrading compileSdk to 31 and kotlin gradle plugin to 1.5.10

You missed adding this in your eslint.json file.

It looks like you have defined custom paths in your TypeScript config (usually tsconfig.json). The import plugin doesn't know about the correct location of the TypeScript config and hence cannot resolve those paths. What you need to do, is to specify the correct path to your TypeScript config via the project parameter in the resolver options:

You can add both NUnit Framework and NUnit Test Adapter using NuGet Packages.

To do that, right click on your project in Solution Explorer, go to Manage NuGet packages..., in the Browse section type nunit, install NUnit package and the corresponding version adapter (NUnitTestAdapter for NUnit 2.x or NUnit3TestAdapter for NUnit 3.x).

Ok, so I don't know if it is the correct answer, but finally changing the settings in Eslint helped me to change the type of function for Components. I added the following rule to my .eslintrc.js file:

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.

I'm unsure as to the cause of that log message, but I do see that you are returning a response from your function before it completes all of its work. In a deployed function, as soon as the function returns, all further actions should be treated as if they will never be executed as documented here. An "inactive" function might be terminated at any time, is severely throttled and any network calls you make (like setting data in the RTDB) may never be executed.

I know you are new to this, but its a good habit to get into now: don't assume the person calling your function is you. Check for problems like missing query parameters and dodgy data before you blindly action something. The Admin SDK bypasses your database's security rules and if you are not careful a malicious user can cause some damage (e.g. a user that updates /users/$theirUid/roles/admin to true).

For C. The program is valid. The only requirement that applies here is "strict aliasing rule" saying that the object can be accessed only via a l-value of a compatible type (+ a few exception described in 6.5p7).

The compatibility of structures/unions defined in separate translation units is defined in 6.2.7p1.

... two structure, union, or enumerated types declared in separate translation units are compatible if their tags and members satisfy the following requirements: If one is declared with a tag, the other shall be declared with the same tag. If both are completed anywhere within their respective translation units, then the following additional requirements apply: there shall be a one-to-one correspondence between their members such that each pair of corresponding members are declared with compatible types; if one member of the pair is declared with an alignment specifier, the other is declared with an equivalent alignment specifier; and if one member of the pair is declared with a name, the other is declared with the same name. For two structures, corresponding members shall be declared in the same order. For two structures or unions, corresponding bit-fields shall have the same widths. For two enumerations, corresponding members shall have the same values.

Therefore the structures are not compatible in the example.

However, it is not an issue because the f object is created and accessed via locally defined type. UB would be invoked if the object was created with Foo type defined in one translation unit and accessed via other Foo type in the other translation unit: