ddd | Domain Driven Design framework for software simplicity | Functional Programming library

You can use pd.cut and avoid loops inside the binning function:

made the code for the toggle you probably don't need that. The main part is the fade-out animation:

Preface:

• The top, right, bottom, and left properties are collectively referred to as "box inset" properties.
• Keep in mind that all CSS properties that aren't explicitly set will have default values that are either "initial" values or inherited values.
  • So unless explicitly specified otherwise, every element has position: static;.
  • The initial value for all of the box-inset properties is auto, regardless of their element's position and display property.
    • But the behaviour of the auto value does depend on the element's position and/or formatting context.
• CSS has a lot of surprising and counter-intuitive behaviour.
  • This is not intentional, but a consequence of how CSS evolved over time over the past ~25 years it's existed.
    • Originally CSS wasn't capable of any layout control at all, it was only useful for things like font and text styling.
    • In fact, CSS's main layout features (like flex, grid, etc) weren't added (let alone supported by browsers) until well into the 2010s.
      • For example, the original 2008 spec for flex was abandoned. It was reinvented in 2011, and not widely supported until 2014.

• has display: flex;, which makes it a flex-parent.

  • All immediate child elements (with certain exceptions) of a flex-parent, that have position: static, are flex-items.

  • Therefore

    is a flex-item.

  • Therefore

    is not a flex-item because it has position: absolute;.

    • (Generally speaking) elements with position: absolute; are not subject to their layout-container's layout rules and are re-positioned with absolute-coordinates where the origin is in their-closet-ancestor-element-without-position: static; (yes, that's a mouthful).
      • This is why position: relative; is being applied to .
• Therefore is a flex-parent with only one flex-item, despite having two element children.
  • And because it has justify-content: center; it means that its single flex-item () will be centered.
• Also, because has display: flex; (rather than display: inline-flex) it means that is a block-level element, so it fills the width of its container, which is , which fills the width of the viewport.
  • And because also has width: 100%; (which becomes flex-basis: 100%;) it means the will fill the width of .
  • Therefore , , and (in that order) will fill the width of the viewport.

is centered:

• As

  uses auto for all its box inset properties (i.e. top, right, etc) with position: absolute; then the computed value of those properties is the same as if

  was position: static;.

  • However, if

    was position: static; then it would be a flex-item and would share its flex row with

    - which would mean it would be located somewhere off to the right of the line (due to justify-content: center;).

    • But it's actually centered, because this is a special-case scenario that's specifically specified in the specification...

      https://www.w3.org/TR/css-flexbox-1/#abspos-items

      4.1. Absolutely-Positioned Flex Children

      As it is out-of-flow, an absolutely-positioned child of a flex container does not participate in flex layout.

      The static position of an absolutely-positioned child of a flex container is determined such that the child is positioned as if it were the sole flex item in the flex container, assuming both the child and the flex container were fixed-size boxes of their used size. For this purpose, auto margins are treated as zero.

It's well-worth reading the rest of the section as it also covers other brain-stretching scenarios, like "what if align-self: center; is used"?

The documentation states, that the corner radius is applied to both ends of the arc. Additionally, you want the arcs to overlap, which is also not the case.

You can add the one-sided rounded corners the following way:

1. Use arcs arc with no corner radius for the data.
2. Add additional path objects corner just for the rounded corner. These need to be shifted to the end of each arc.
3. Since corner has rounded corners on both sides, add a clipPath that clips half of this arc. The clipPath contains a path for every corner. This is essential for arcs smaller than two times the length of the rounded corners.
4. raise all elements of corner to the front and then sort them descending by index, so that they overlap the right way.

The solution from JvdV in the comments solves the problem:

You can keep Company as the aggregate root, but I'd use domain events to guard against duplicate emails.

My approach would be along the following lines:

I had to import the metada of the Table I manually defined

Something like this?

The TypeScript error is unrelated to your module augmentation. The issue is just that defaultColors is of type PaletteOptions. PaletteOptions defines primary to be of type PaletteColorOptions.

Here's the definition of PaletteColorOptions and the types it is built from: