2,003 karma · joined September 11, 2014
New project: https://supplywarden.com
On my screen, the very first line (third sentence, but the first two are pretty short):
> COSMIC, our new desktop environment for Pop!_OS and other Linux distros
After that, a link to the very page you linked. What more should a release post do?
I even know of more people using Usenet then torrents! The amount of work to use torrents safely just isn't worth it for most people.
Some criticism to the article:
The "more unit testing" section reminds me of junior devs asking why they can't test private methods in Java. If I'm testing a unit, I want to test the contract it promises (in this case, a method that does some checks and then sends something). That the behavior is split between multiple methods is an implementation detail, and writing tests around that makes changes harder (now I can't refactor the methods without also having to update the tests, even if the contract doesn't change) and it doesn't even test the contract! (There's nothing that makes sure that the mail is actually sent - we could be testing methods that aren't used by anything but the test code)
For the "easier to test IO" section: just don't. Your tests now depend on some in-memory implementation that will behave differently than the real thing. That's just mocking with extra steps, you still don't know whether your application will work. If you want to do io, do the real io
"Separation of logic and IO": this is in general the right thing to do, but the way it's described is weird. First, it does the same as in the "more unit testing" section with the same problems. Then, the code is refactored until it's barely understandable and the article even admits it with the Greenspan quote. In the end, the production code is worse, just to ... Not test whether there's actually some code doing the IO.
I actually think there are some good ideas in there: separating the logic from the IO (and treating them as separate units) is important, not just for better testability, but also for easier refactoring and (if done with care) to be easier to reason about. In the end, you will need both unit and integration tests (and if your system is large enough, e2e tests). Whether you're using mocks for your unit tests or not, doesn't make much of a difference in the grand picture.
Just don't mock stuff in integration or e2e if you absolutely can't prevent it.
Also, financial troubles is probably the most Gainax thing possible
how? Because they link against a third-party library?
> is there a dependency graph that would show how many programs use a specific utility library
Agree, important topic
> is there a dependency graph that would show how many programs use a specific utility library
Depends on the distro, but your package manager should be able to do that. On a global scale, that's likely impossible, because there's no true register of how programs are linked - in fact, the inclusion of libsystemd was distro-specific
Two suggestion for improvements:
- Add a skip button. If I don't have a clue which film it might be, I need to write some nonsense answer to get a clue, a skip button would be nicer. - Play the song immediately when I click the play button. I was wondering why it doesn't start, even though I clicked the Play button!
Sidenote: I spoiled myself because Imagus showed me the movie pictures in the archive ;) Not your fault of course, but I found it funny
It's likely better that way. If the app would allow this, I'd already decompiled the app and tried to reverse engineer the protocol to allow her to set a bolus when she's wearing something that makes it hard to access the pump or carry her phone with her (like a dress). Setting the bolus via e.g. a smartwatch would be really nice, but I'd be very afraid of creating a life-threatening bug.