71–80 of 336 posts
Of note -- their company services seem to be that you pay them to return you Google search results via API. Isn't that against the Google search Terms of Service??? If google wanted there to be a paid search api, I'm pretty sure they would just provide one. Also, I'm pretty sure I've seen these types of startups before, and then they vanish quickly thereafter....
(Of course, "everything is working" might not be true, in which case you could be trading one bug for some others. But the sad state of "modern" software development is a rant I won't go into here...)
Here's how true professionals would handle this: "We recently became aware of some erroneous subscription renewals made by our platform and traced the root cause to a major bug in downstream database technology affecting a very small number of accounts. Nonetheless, we working hard with our database provider to resolve the issue. In the meantime, if you are affected and believe you might have an unsolicited subscript…
Aside from being more modern than to suggest a fax, that seems to be exactly what they did?
Of note -- their company services seem to be that you pay them to return you Google search results via API. Isn't that against the Google search Terms of Service??? If google wanted there to be a paid search api, I'm pretty sure they would just provide one. Also, I'm pretty sure I've seen these types of startups before, and then they vanish quickly thereafter....
They do[0]. It's not as complete though.
[0]: https://developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/introduction
Mongoid docs[1] seem to be pretty cool about this change: "As of Mongoid 7.1, logical operators (and, or, nor and not) have been changed to have the the same semantics as those of ActiveRecord. To obtain the semantics of or as it behaved in Mongoid 7.0 and earlier, use any_of which is described below." Is it just me or is this one of the most terrible breaking changes in a popular, official library ever? [1] https://…
It's clearly a breaking change how a core feature of the library behaves. This is extremely unprofessional on the part of the maintainers. I'd completely lose trust in the gem. They knew they were making a breaking change, documented it, and didn't increment a major version number. That breaks the entire point of semver. Also, this is generating SQL ffs. Like how more nasty of a breaking change could you make in term…
If you update your dependencies and ship it based on version numbers alone, you can’t blame the maintainers
That sounds like a major, incredibly dangerous update to the DB driver. Their 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 versions seem to all have breaking changes [1]. Yet they are in obvious violation of SemVer expectations, which they declare to follow [2]: > Mongoid follows versioning guidelines as outlined by the Semantic Versioning Specification, so you can expect only backwards incompatible changes in major versions [sic] [1] https://docs…
Semantic Versioning does not mean you can update without reading the changelog. Blame here remains with the developer who updated without reading the changelog.
Mongoid docs[1] seem to be pretty cool about this change: "As of Mongoid 7.1, logical operators (and, or, nor and not) have been changed to have the the same semantics as those of ActiveRecord. To obtain the semantics of or as it behaved in Mongoid 7.0 and earlier, use any_of which is described below." Is it just me or is this one of the most terrible breaking changes in a popular, official library ever? [1] https://…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mongoid follows versioning guidelines as outlined by the Semantic Versioning Specification, so you can expect only backwards incompatible changes in major versions I will note that this reverses the direction of implications. In SemVer, you should expect breaking changes only in major versions. (All version changes with breaking changes should be major, but nonbreaking changes can occur in major or minor versions.)…
I'm guessing the sentence they wrote is just a consequence of English not being the author's primary language. I frequently see ESL speakers get adjective and adverb positions wrong in ways that unintentially change the meaning. Even skilled English speakers make mistakes here because English is both very permissive about word order, but also tends to give different shades of meaning to each other. "Only" is a pernic…
I remember a puzzle which presented a (fairly long) sentence and asked "provide a word that can be correctly inserted at any point in this sentence".
The answer was "only". (Of course the meaning would change according to where the "only" was placed, but still... you'd have a hard time inserting "experience" at every position of a sentence.)