labofsahil/github-event-dataset-2012 huggingface dataset:
If you want to add it go ahead, but I don't think it is/was necessary since the condition we are testing/protecting from in the onInit() method is for non-compatible which is anything that is NOT a ConverterRegistry
This makes me very nervous; that there is a server round trip in each project that is interested.
Lets take a "real world" scenario:
We have about 3k projects that are triggering on Gerrit events on our server, refs are being updated every other second and some gits are quite central and could potentially start 5 builds on average.
That is 4 queries too much for one event. Multiply that by a couple of hundred over the day and we could potentially overload the Gerrit server.

One idea to leverage this and make as few round trips to Gerrit as possible could be to in this class only "register the interest to auto rebuild" if this project (this GerritTrigger instance) is interested of autorebuild; to do that registration in some singelton class called something like AutoRebuildListener.
The AutoRebuildListener registers itself as a GerritEventLifecycleListener on the event (unless it already is registered by a previous instance of GerritTrigger from another project) and when "triggerScanDone" is called thats when the query for open changes is called and you can pass the AutoRebuildPatchset in via PluginImpl.triggerEvent() that will add the new event to the normal event queue flow.

That way there would be only one querry callback per "interesting" event, instead of one per event and interested project as it is now.

One thing that needs to be changed is that today only PatchsetCreated events has GerritEventLifecycleListener handling and RefUpdated doesn't have it. The lifecycle handling needs to be moved up to the base class GerritTriggeredEvent, but I don't think that would cause any problems.

There are probably other ways of solving the unnecessary roundtrips, but it is one suggested way of doing it at least.
опечатка в "метаданнх"
I'll ask our Akamai contact whether they respect stale controls, and if so I'll send out an email with some suggestions.
This may be a dumb question, but what does the 'f' stand for?
There should only be one assertion per `it`/`specify`.  I would suggest writing it this way:

```ruby
describe '#generate_password' do
  subject { GoogleAuthenticatorRails::generate_password("test", counter) }

  context 'counter = 1' do
    let(:counter) { 1 }
    it { should == 812658 }
  end

  context 'counter = 2' do
    let(:counter) { 2 }
    it { should == 73348 }
  end
end
```
Should CLI be a doc hyperlink?
For some reason I get a 404 on every page to [1].

Can you check whether this is the case for you as well?

[1] `http://localhost:3000/assets/prettify-sakai-edited.css `
@bp323 even though this is the admin area, it would be good to keep up with the built-in practices in RoR.

The more annoying thing here is the double confirmation, which isn't very user (even admin) friendly.
Instead I would prefer to add something to the first confirmation message.
test Util class
Wrapped everything into a _PrivilegedAction_. That seems to be the easier and more readable approach.
This is not our code style. Not sure if we should care, but we always use {'s even for 1 liners
I think there is potentially a use case not covered properly here. If the user specifies `--error` and `--warn` you default to warn thinking it's the most verbose. However, the way it's coded currently, it won't display any errors unless loglevel=error. In this case it would be `warn`.

User enters `--error` `--warn`

Expected: Gets both errors and warnings.
Actual: Only gets warnings.
If you have the endpoint and token you shouldn't need OS_USERNAME/PASSWORD or OS_AUTH_URL
Why `base` is not good? `models.base.subclass_exception` is really long?
I rewrote these loops a bit, to make them faster and more readable:
```python


	for settlement in _get_player_settlements(session):
		building_to_check.extend(settlement.buildings_by_id[building_class])
		for b_class in classes:
			check_inrange.extend(settlement.buildings_by_id[b_class])

	for building in building_to_check:
		buildings_in_range = building.get_buildings_in_range()
		for check in check_inrange:
			if check in buildings_in_range:
				return True # building found in range
	return False # building not found in range
```
or a very condensed version:

```python
	for settlement in _get_player_settlements(session):
		for building in settlement.buildings_by_id[building_class]:
			for other_class in classes:
				for building2 in settlement.buildings_by_id[other_class]:
					if building.position.distance( building2.position ) <= building.radius:
						return True
	return False
```


The second one should be the fastest version, as it breaks out of the loop as fast as possible, so I would prefer that one. I haven't tested the code, so this should be done before using it :) what do you think?
I think it would be a good idea to ensure mod_enconding is also loaded on RedHat/CentOS, even if it's the case by default. Just to be sure no one unloads it somewhere else and causes time-consuming errors with exotic browsers or something like this...
Josh pointed me that the instance variable is the one which is receiving the copy; but since we're dealing with a copy property, we can use the property accessor for that: [self setProvider:provider];
Good comment, i actually thought the same thing, because this is something that you mentioned earlier, didn't really know how to test for a new session being created. I was thinking on something like:

Then I get w new session from the system (in here we should validate that the system created a new session)
And I see a successful sign in message

I will see what i can do.
I ran it and no errors and test passed
original conventions in this code is w/o curved brackets for single-line
conditions. Regarding good arguments: most of 'em are about potential
influence of the bad style of one who is changing code after. This
arguments are very contradictory: code reviews must catch such issues
easily but it reduces readability. E.g. in linux kernel brackets for one
line branches are not allowed. So, it is a matter of taste and it is better
to follow conventions already used in modified code.

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Vesa Halttunen <notifications@github.com>wrote:

> In src/ck_property.cpp:
>
> >  {
> > -        if (prop)
> > -                prop->unsubscribe();
> > +        if (prop && subscribed != this->subscribed) {
> > +                if (subscribed) {
> > +                        prop->subscribe();
> > +                } else {
>
> Yes, it compiles without them, but IMHO there are many good arguments for
> having them. This is a code style issue though and depends on which
> conventions are followed. I found it hard that indentation in the original
> code seemed to be 8 instead of 4. :)
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/nemomobile/nemo-qml-plugin-contextkit/pull/1/files#r1929171>.
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Denis Zalevskiy
TestConfig.php should not be checked in, only the ".dist" file. That allows
the non-dist variant to override.
On Oct 21, 2012 5:23 AM, "Oleg Lobach" <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In module/Application/test/TestConfig.php:
>
> > @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
> > +<?php
> > +define('ZF2_PATH', getenv('HOME') . '/workspace/zf2/library');
>
> Hardcoded path to ZF2?
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/zendframework/ZendSkeletonApplication/pull/127/files#r1898439>.
>
>
"it" -> "this proxy"
lala :-)
Instrumented the files with lots of printfs, then sifted through the logs looking for where the boundary was that led to inf's later on, plus just a guess about how small the derivs would have to be before substituting the unfiltered gabor would not plausibly make a visual difference.  And it turns out with this change, none of our testsuite entries alter at all.
Instead of littering our maven build with the antrun plugin, we can avoid that in this instance, by using filtered resources and this property:
- maven.build.timestamp	The timestamp that denotes the start of the build. Since Maven 2.1.0-M1
See http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-pom.html

So just put that xml file in the filtered-resources and use ${maven.build.timestamp} where you need the timestamp.
It's also more reliable as it's the same timestamp during the entire build.
typo here, `Add in your`
use i18n "trans"
ooo great idea; added!
It is not possible to automate navigation / api tests without hosting a page. We are (rather appropriately) running into Cross Site scripting errors.

Can we host the pages on github, or is there another external server we could use?
I didn't even notice that there _was_ such a macro (though I should have, since it's used a few lines below that). Does that mean that the online documentation can also be generated for D1 using the same files? I wouldn't have thought that would have worked at all, given the large differences between them. Well, at least we'll be able to ditch macros like that come the first of next year.

In any case, I've now added the macros.
Any reason you guys moved this from "initialize on startup" to "lazy init"?