search for: fearlessly

Hi, I''d like to announce a little tool I have written, called cucumber- puppet. It supports writing behavioural tests for your puppet manifest, using cucumber. This allows for BDD-style manifest development and fearless refactorings. http://blog.nistu.de/cucumber_puppet_0_0_3_released.html Let me know what you think! cheers, Nikolay -- You received this message because you are

I''m stymied at how to create a fixture that establishes a has_many :through relationship. I''ve watched the railscast at: http://media.railscasts.com/videos/081_fixtures_in_rails_2.mov ... but that''s for HABTM relationships. I''ve read: http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/145676 but that ultimately doesn''t answer any question. So with no further ado:

I''ve loaded (and updated) thousands of these MeteredUsage records. In the middle of a run, I suddenly get: ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: Mysql::Error: Unknown column ''id'' in ''where clause'': UPDATE `metered_usages` SET `cost` = 12603.46 WHERE `id` = NULL I can''t see anything that''s different about this particular record compared to

Does ActiveRecord.connection.execute(string) perform any modifications on the given string? If so, what quoting do I need to add? Here''s why: I''m trying to use execute(string) to load a stored procedure. I can hand-load the procedure without error (i.e. via dbconsole), but when I call the function below, it throws the error: ==== ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: Mysql::Error:

In our app, users give us sensitive information (credentials for logging into a third party site). At some point, we need those credentials in cleartext in order to access the third party site, but while they''re in our database, we want to make best effort for protecting them. What techniques have people used for this? I find myself asking "WWMD (What Would Mint.com Do?) -- any

I have two models with a straightforward has_many / belongs_to relationship: class Premise < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :metered_services, :dependent => :destroy ... end class MeteredService < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :premise ... end and nested routes to match: Demo::Application.routes.draw do devise_for :users resources :premises do resources :metered_services

...hat are known to be broken), so the important question is whether "shl i16 poison, 8" _can_ be defined to be poison only on the higher 8 bits in a world with bitwise poison. If we could make that happen, we'd also get some other fringe benefits, like ComputeKnownBits would be able to fearlessly return "the low 8 bits of `shl i16 %val, 8` are 0" as opposed to "the low 8 bits of `shl i16 %val, 8` are 0 or poison". One problem with shl always generating non-poison zeroes in the lower bits is that it then is not equivalent to multiplication. This breaks optimizations lik...

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1424 Bug ID: 1424 Summary: v0.9.0: segfault when using nft -f <file> and issuing "ruleset flush" twice Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal

I have isolated what appears to be a bug in the Rails extensions to DateTime, but I don''t know where to report it. I have a standalone file to demonstrate the bug, but the punch line is that this code: TestRecord.create!(:f_datetime => (expected = DateTime.jd(2000000))) found = TestRecord.first.f_datetime puts("expected == found => #{expected == found}")

In an app where ordinary users are limited to viewing and editing their own "stuff", but someone with admin privs can view and edit anybody''s stuff, what''s the right strategy for routing? At first blush, I''d think that an ordinary user (e.g. with id 565) should see something like: http://example.com/mystuff.html ... where the controller assumes

I have an ActiveRecord that has several foreign keys, where the foreign keys act as a single compound key that needs to be unique: class CreateRelations < ActiveRecord::Migration def change create_table :relations do |t| t.references :src, :null => false t.references :dst, :null => false end add_index :relations, [:src_id, :dst_id], :unique => true end end

How does one generate a form within a view using javascript? Specifically, assume views/premise/new.html.erb looks like this: <%= form_for(Premise.new) do |f| %> <%= f.hidden_field :full_address, :value => $FULL_ADDRESS %> <%= f.hidden_field :geocoding, :value => $GEOCODING %> <%= f.submit :value => "use this address" %> <%= f.label

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 4:48 PM Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > It looks like the key controversial point is the bit about the extra > control dependence on loads and stores[0]. Generally the consensus is > that (please chime if you think otherwise) it is not reasonable to > make the safety (or semantics) of a load instruction

...rtant question is whether "shl i16 >> poison, 8" _can_ be defined to be poison only on the higher 8 bits in >> a world with bitwise poison. If we could make that happen, we'd also >> get some other fringe benefits, like ComputeKnownBits would be able to >> fearlessly return "the low 8 bits of `shl i16 %val, 8` are 0" as >> opposed to "the low 8 bits of `shl i16 %val, 8` are 0 or poison". >> >> One problem with shl always generating non-poison zeroes in the lower >> bits is that it then is not equivalent to multiplic...

I''m doing RSpec controller testing with CanCan authorization, and I''m seeing something I''ve never seen in RSpec before: the same test run twice fails on the second one. I am NOT doing before(:all) or other things that should cause state to persist between tests: Here''s the relevant code: context "POST create" do context "with user logged

Hi list, I''ve been playing with XCP for the first time the last couple of days. I like the ''xe'' commands. With other systems that have a complex command line tool, I often have trouble remembering all the different command names and exceptions to arguments (''koji'' is the latest that really pains me), but ''xe'' is clean and clear,

When I asked, | > If you're going to run flac -t later to test | > the .flac file, isn't it redundant to have verification on during | > encoding? Fearless Leader Ace Coalson responded, | yep. OK. | > If you know ... that -V was used | > during encoding and that flac reported "Verify OK," is there any | > reason to test the file? | nope, unless you suspect

I just noticed that our fearless park ranger is listed as a presenter at RailsConf Europe in London: http://europe.railsconf.org/articles/2006/05/03/announcing-railsconf- europe Are there any Londoners on this mailing list? Maybe we can get together and have a mini camp-out at lunch or something. Geoff boss at topfunky.com

I find myself writing the following frequently: r = MyActiveRecord.where(:attr1 => cond1, :attr2 => cond2, ...) r.exists? ? r.first : r.create ... which has the effect of returning an instance of MyActiveRecord if all the conditions are met, or creating one if it doesn''t. A variant of this: c = MyActiveRecord.new(:attr1 => val1, :attr2 => val2, ...) r =

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1283 Bug ID: 1283 Summary: names must be strings Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: nft Assignee: pablo at netfilter.org Reporter: