pulumi.dynamic.ResourceProvider's constructor takes a deleteBeforeReplace option but so does its diff() method.
What is the difference between the two options?
Why is the user asked to specify this twice?
Do they do different things?
Related
I am working with a legacy scala codebase, and as is always the case modifying the code is quite difficult without touching different parts.
One of my new requirement in to make several decisions based on some input parameters. Problem is that these decisions are to be made at various points along the execution. So either I encapsulate all those parameters in a case class instance and pass it along. But it means I would have to modify multiple methods signatures, and I want to avoid this approach as much as possible.
Another approach can be to create a global object containing all those input parameters and accessible from different points in the execution. Is it a good approach in Scala?
No, using global mutable variables to pass “hidden” parameters is not a good idea, not in Scala and not in any other programming language. It makes the code hard to understand and modify, because a function's behaviour will now depend on which functions were invoked earlier. And it's extremely fragile, because you might forget setting one of those global parameters before invoking the function, which means that it will use whatever value was stored there before. This is the kind of thing that can appear to work for years, and then break when you modify a completely unrelated part of the program.
I can't stress this enough: do not use global mutable variables, period. The solution is to man up and change those method signatures. Depending on the details, dependency injection may or may not help in your particular case.
I am writing some helper functions for unit testing in Matlab. For that I need to overload Matlab functions, built-ins etc. In the documentation is written, that one shall not overload the function builtin. I also found out that one must not overload the lt operator, since it seems to get called by the UI all the time.
Is there a list of functions which one shall not overload, or do you know of any particular problems from overloading some specific functions?
Further Information:
My use case: I want to do mutation-testing and faul-injection.
in ther words, sometimes the called functions shall return wrong results or throw an error. If I overload the Matlab functions, I do not have to change the source code to do that.
These words are difficult to search online, so I can't find any information on them besides the docs, which seems to me to have almost the same description (specially for as and to).
What's the difference between as(), to() and compose() in RxJava2? When should I use any of them?
to and as are practically the same. The difference is that to uses the more broad Function interface and as uses the dedicated XConverter interface. The former can't be implemented for multiple reactive types. Issue, PR.
The difference between to/as and compose is that the former lets you turn the sequence into arbitrary result type during assembly time whereas the latter can only turn into the same reactive type but possibly different type argument(s).
I have heard this term tossed around, can anybody explain what it means and what problem it solves. Also where does this originate from.
Simplified it's when you pass a function to another function, and that other function call you back using the function you passed.
It's useful for asynchronous programming, when events can happen at any time. Or for generic handling of certain functionality to make some algorithms more generic (for example in C++ you can pass a comparison function to the std::sort function, and your comparison function will be used to compare two items when sorting).
As far as I understand, in Scala we can define a function with no parameters either by using empty parentheses after its name, or no parentheses at all, and these two definitions are not synonyms. What is the purpose of distinguishing these 2 syntaxes and when should I better use one instead of another?
It's mostly a question of convention. Methods with empty parameter lists are, by convention, evaluated for their side-effects. Methods without parameters are assumed to be side-effect free. That's the convention.
Scala Style Guide says to omit parentheses only when the method being called has no side-effects:
http://docs.scala-lang.org/style/method-invocation.html
Other answers are great, but I also think it's worth mentioning that no-param methods allow for nice access to a classes fields, like so:
person.name
Because of parameterless methods, you could easily write a method to intercept reads (or writes) to the 'name' field without breaking calling code, like so
def name = { log("Accessing name!"); _name }
This is called the Uniform Access Principal
I have another light to bring to the usefulness of the convention encouraging an empty parentheses block in the declaration of functions (and thus later in calls to them) with side effects.
It is with the debugger.
If one add a watch in a debugger, such as, say, process referring for the example to a boolean in the focused debug context, either as a variable view, or as a pure side-effect free function evaluation, it creates a nasty risk for your later troubleshooting.
Indeed, if the debugger keeps that watch as a try-to-evaluate thing whenever you change the context (change thread, move in the call stack, reach another breakpoint...), which I found to be at least the case with IntelliJ IDEA, or Visual Studio for other languages, then the side-effects of any other process function possibly found in any browsed scope would be triggered...
Just imagine the kind of puzzling troubleshooting this could lead to if you do not have that warning just in mind, because of some innocent regular naming. If the convention were enforced, with my example, the process boolean evaluation would never fall back to a process() function call in the debugger watches; it might just be allowed in your debugger to explicitly access the () function putting process() in the watches, but then it would be clear you are not directly accessing any attribute or local variables, and fallbacks to other process() functions in other browsed scopes, if maybe unlucky, would at the very least be very less surprising.