[Bug]: instead of spaces appears unicode character �

Bug Description

When I extract the pdf annotations, the md document is filled with � characters instead of spaces. When I extract using Zotero, it looks normal.

Apart from the first paragraph, the rest of the annotations are meshed into one single quote block. How can it make sure to separate the annotations into separate quote blocks?

Is it possible to include a link to the page of the pdf by the reference? When I extract with Zotero, that's what it does & it's very useful. If I ever want to see the context of an annotation, I just click it and it opens.

Relevant Screenshot

To Reproduce
Hit hot key or select command from Alfred window to extract.
 Doesn’t the doctrine of mixed relations teach that all contingency is ultimately grounded in something other than God?","date":"2022-09-06T13:39:30Z","id":"highlight-p25x90y489","page":25,"pageLabel":"25","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":489.38},{"annotatedText":"in�answer�to�the�“could�you�do�otherwise”�question,�classical compatibilism�says�you�could�do�otherwise�in�this�sense:�if�you�had�wanted�to�do otherwise,�then�you�would�have.�The�point�here�is�that�“can”�in�the�question�“can you�do�otherwise”�is�ambiguous.�Thus,�as�long�as�“freedom�to�do�otherwise”�is given�this�hypothetical�gloss,�classical�compatibilism�allows�for�ability�to�do otherwise.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T11:25:40Z","id":"highlight-p35x90y537","page":35,"pageLabel":"35","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":537.14},{"annotatedText":"They�deny�the�hypothetical�analysis�of�‘can’�and�claim�it�is� fraught�with�problems,�and�so�claim�that�freedom�(in�the�sense�of�ability�to�do otherwise)�cannot�be�had�on�determinism.�However,�they�claim�that�moral responsibility�does�not�require�ability�to�do�otherwise.�So�it’s�‘semi-‘ compatibilism:�compatibilism�about�moral�responsibility,�incompatibilism�about ability�to�do�otherwise.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T11:35:08Z","id":"highlight-p39x90y214","page":39,"pageLabel":"39","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":214.58},{"annotatedText":"two�kinds�of�control: regulative�control�and�guidance�control.�The�former�requires�the�ability�to�do otherwise,�the�latter�does�not;�and�it�is�only�the�latter,�they�argue,�that�is required�for�responsibility.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T11:35:39Z","id":"highlight-p41x90y476","page":41,"pageLabel":"41","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":476.42},{"annotatedText":"They�claim�that�the�morally responsible�individual�would�have�to�be�responsive�to�different�reasons�(reasons responsiveness)�if�she�or�he�were�to�have�them.�The�turning�of�the�car�could�not be�done�out�of�compulsion,�something�done�regardless�of�reasons�to�the contrary.�On�top�of�this,�they�argue�that�the�reasoning�mechanism�must�be�the person’s�‘own,’�and�that�he�or�she�would�‘take�responsibility’�or�‘ownership’�of their�actions,�especially�when�they�have�been�informed�of�the�determinism involved.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T11:36:15Z","id":"highlight-p42x90y537","page":42,"pageLabel":"42","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":537.14},{"annotatedText":"d�Frankfurt�libertarians,49�claim�that�the�relevant�factor�required�for�moral responsibility�is�that�the�agent�be�the�ultimate�source�of�her�actions,�whether�or not�they�have�alternative�possibilities�available�to�them.�They�are�libertarians","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-06T14:23:20Z","id":"highlight-p45x90y163","page":45,"pageLabel":"45","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":163.46},{"annotatedText":"because�they�claim�that�ultimate�sourcehood�is�incompatible�with�our�wills�or character�being�determined�by�anything�other�than�us.�This�view�is�also sometimes�known�as�narrow�source�incompatibilism.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-06T14:23:27Z","id":"highlight-p46x90y656","page":46,"pageLabel":"46","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":656.18},{"annotatedText":"Wide�source�incompatibilism�means�that�moral responsibility�is�incompatible�with�determinism�and�requires�alternative possibilities�at�the�moment�of�character�forming�or�will-setting�to�ensure�ultimate sourcehood.�","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-06T14:24:43Z","id":"highlight-p46x90y203","page":46,"pageLabel":"46","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":203.78},{"annotatedText":"Perhaps�the�idea�that�we�really�can�do�other�than�God�decrees— not�in�any�of�the�compatibilist�or�conditional�senses�above,�but�that�we�could really�do�any�action�we�want�regardless�of�God’s�decree?�That�is:�same�decree,� possible�different�futures.�If�not,�then�compatibilism�must�be�affirmed.�","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-06T14:33:58Z","id":"highlight-p55x90y537","page":55,"pageLabel":"55","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":537.14},{"annotatedText":"What�I�do�is�conditionally�necessary�on God’s�decree,�contingent�on�his�decree.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-06T15:06:49Z","id":"highlight-p58x90y537","page":58,"pageLabel":"58","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":537.14},{"annotatedText":"�James�Frank,�“Duns�Scotus�on�Autonomous�Freedom�and�Divine�Co-Causality,” in�Medieval�Philosophy�and�Theology.�Vol�2.�Ed.�By�Norman�Kretzmann,�et�al. (University�of�Notre�Dame�Press,�1992","date":"2022-09-06T15:07:21Z","id":"highlight-p58x90y71","page":58,"pageLabel":"58","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":71.65},{"annotatedText":"�Thomas�Williams,�“Human�Nature�and�Free�Will”�forthcoming�in�the�Oxford� Handbook�of�Aquinas�(Oxford�University�Press),�available�online,�\u003c� http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~thomasw/Human%20freedom%20and%20agency%20(A quinas).pdf\u003e,�last�accessed�7/17/11.�","date":"2022-09-06T15:08:13Z","id":"highlight-p59x90y85","page":59,"pageLabel":"59","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":85.57},{"annotatedText":"the�two�main contingency�desiderata�needed�for�Reformed�orthodoxy�(epistemic�contingency and�secondary�causes)�are�completely�consistent�with�determinism.�","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-06T15:08:42Z","id":"highlight-p60x90y654","page":60,"pageLabel":"60","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":654.26},{"annotatedText":"�John�Duns�Scotus,�Contingency�and�Freedom.�Lectura�I,�39,�eds.�A.�Vos�Jaczn.,�H. Veldhuis,�A.�H.�Looman-Graaskamp,�E.�Dekker�and�N.�W.�den�Bok�(Springer�1994)","date":"2022-09-06T15:13:17Z","id":"highlight-p60x90y127","page":60,"pageLabel":"60","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":127.81},{"annotatedText":"necessity�and�freedom�are�neither contraries�nor�contradictories:�the�contrary�of�necessity�is�impossibility;�the contrary�of�freedom�is�coercion.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T07:42:03Z","id":"highlight-p63x90y190","page":63,"pageLabel":"63","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":190.82},{"annotatedText":"if�the contingency�is�only�a�human�epistemic�one,�then�that�fits�with�determinism�and compatibilism.�If�the�contingency�needed�is�that�of�secondary�causality,�that�fits with�determinism�too—so�long�as�the�secondary�cause�cannot�do�otherwise given�the�same�prior�conditions,�and�so�long�as�the�secondary�cause�is�not�the ultimate�source�or�originator�of�its�actions.�If�the�contingency�needed�is�supposed to�be�logical,�that�fits�with�determinism�too�(determinism�simpliciter,�not�logical� determinism).","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T07:55:48Z","id":"highlight-p68x90y210","page":68,"pageLabel":"68","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":210.98},{"annotatedText":"how�God could�bring�about�an�inspired�and�inerrant�Bible�if�all�the�writers�wrote�with libertarian�free�will.�","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T08:16:46Z","id":"highlight-p70x90y192","page":70,"pageLabel":"70","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":192.5},{"annotatedText":"how�God could�bring�about�an�inspired�and�inerrant�Bible�if�all�the�writers�wrote�with libertarian�free�will.�","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T08:16:49Z","id":"strike-p70x90y192","page":70,"pageLabel":"70","type":"strike","x":90.57,"y":192.5}]
' to Conditional
[12:36:45.520] PDF Annotation Extractor[Conditional] Processing complete
[12:36:45.522] PDF Annotation Extractor[Conditional] Passing output '[{"annotatedText":"men’s�actions�may�be�free�(because�done�spontaneously�and�by a�previous�judgment�of�reason),�they�do�not�cease�to�be�necessary�with respect�to�the�divine�decree�and�foreknowledge.�Now�the�foreknowledge of�God�implies�indeed�the�infallibility�of�futurition�and�of�the�event�and�the necessity�of�consequence,�and�yet�does�not�imply�coaction�or�violence,�nor take�away�from�the�will�its�intrinsic�liberty.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","comment":"An action being ‘done spontaneously \u0026 by a previous judgment of reason’ is what makes it free, despite it also being necessary w.r.t. God’s plan or intentions.","date":"2022-09-06T13:22:33Z","id":"highlight-p24x126y405","page":24,"pageLabel":"24","type":"highlight","x":126.57,"y":405.14},{"annotatedText":"�the�ground�of�God’s�foreknowledge�is�God’s�decree�according to�the�counsel�of�his�will.�The�truths�about�all�that�happens�in�time�are�ultimately grounded�in�God,�not�in�the�creature.�","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","comment":"Classical theism, though? Doesn’t the doctrine of mixed relations teach that all contingency is ultimately grounded in something other than God?","date":"2022-09-06T13:39:30Z","id":"highlight-p25x90y489","page":25,"pageLabel":"25","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":489.38},{"annotatedText":"in�answer�to�the�“could�you�do�otherwise”�question,�classical compatibilism�says�you�could�do�otherwise�in�this�sense:�if�you�had�wanted�to�do otherwise,�then�you�would�have.�The�point�here�is�that�“can”�in�the�question�“can you�do�otherwise”�is�ambiguous.�Thus,�as�long�as�“freedom�to�do�otherwise”�is given�this�hypothetical�gloss,�classical�compatibilism�allows�for�ability�to�do otherwise.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T11:25:40Z","id":"highlight-p35x90y537","page":35,"pageLabel":"35","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":537.14},{"annotatedText":"They�deny�the�hypothetical�analysis�of�‘can’�and�claim�it�is� fraught�with�problems,�and�so�claim�that�freedom�(in�the�sense�of�ability�to�do otherwise)�cannot�be�had�on�determinism.�However,�they�claim�that�moral responsibility�does�not�require�ability�to�do�otherwise.�So�it’s�‘semi-‘ compatibilism:�compatibilism�about�moral�responsibility,�incompatibilism�about ability�to�do�otherwise.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T11:35:08Z","id":"highlight-p39x90y214","page":39,"pageLabel":"39","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":214.58},{"annotatedText":"two�kinds�of�control: regulative�control�and�guidance�control.�The�former�requires�the�ability�to�do otherwise,�the�latter�does�not;�and�it�is�only�the�latter,�they�argue,�that�is required�for�responsibility.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T11:35:39Z","id":"highlight-p41x90y476","page":41,"pageLabel":"41","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":476.42},{"annotatedText":"They�claim�that�the�morally responsible�individual�would�have�to�be�responsive�to�different�reasons�(reasons responsiveness)�if�she�or�he�were�to�have�them.�The�turning�of�the�car�could�not be�done�out�of�compulsion,�something�done�regardless�of�reasons�to�the contrary.�On�top�of�this,�they�argue�that�the�reasoning�mechanism�must�be�the person’s�‘own,’�and�that�he�or�she�would�‘take�responsibility’�or�‘ownership’�of their�actions,�especially�when�they�have�been�informed�of�the�determinism involved.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T11:36:15Z","id":"highlight-p42x90y537","page":42,"pageLabel":"42","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":537.14},{"annotatedText":"d�Frankfurt�libertarians,49�claim�that�the�relevant�factor�required�for�moral responsibility�is�that�the�agent�be�the�ultimate�source�of�her�actions,�whether�or not�they�have�alternative�possibilities�available�to�them.�They�are�libertarians","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-06T14:23:20Z","id":"highlight-p45x90y163","page":45,"pageLabel":"45","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":163.46},{"annotatedText":"because�they�claim�that�ultimate�sourcehood�is�incompatible�with�our�wills�or character�being�determined�by�anything�other�than�us.�This�view�is�also sometimes�known�as�narrow�source�incompatibilism.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-06T14:23:27Z","id":"highlight-p46x90y656","page":46,"pageLabel":"46","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":656.18},{"annotatedText":"Wide�source�incompatibilism�means�that�moral responsibility�is�incompatible�with�determinism�and�requires�alternative possibilities�at�the�moment�of�character�forming�or�will-setting�to�ensure�ultimate sourcehood.�","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-06T14:24:43Z","id":"highlight-p46x90y203","page":46,"pageLabel":"46","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":203.78},{"annotatedText":"Perhaps�the�idea�that�we�really�can�do�other�than�God�decrees— not�in�any�of�the�compatibilist�or�conditional�senses�above,�but�that�we�could really�do�any�action�we�want�regardless�of�God’s�decree?�That�is:�same�decree,� possible�different�futures.�If�not,�then�compatibilism�must�be�affirmed.�","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-06T14:33:58Z","id":"highlight-p55x90y537","page":55,"pageLabel":"55","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":537.14},{"annotatedText":"What�I�do�is�conditionally�necessary�on God’s�decree,�contingent�on�his�decree.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-06T15:06:49Z","id":"highlight-p58x90y537","page":58,"pageLabel":"58","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":537.14},{"annotatedText":"�James�Frank,�“Duns�Scotus�on�Autonomous�Freedom�and�Divine�Co-Causality,” in�Medieval�Philosophy�and�Theology.�Vol�2.�Ed.�By�Norman�Kretzmann,�et�al. (University�of�Notre�Dame�Press,�1992","date":"2022-09-06T15:07:21Z","id":"highlight-p58x90y71","page":58,"pageLabel":"58","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":71.65},{"annotatedText":"�Thomas�Williams,�“Human�Nature�and�Free�Will”�forthcoming�in�the�Oxford� Handbook�of�Aquinas�(Oxford�University�Press),�available�online,�\u003c� http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~thomasw/Human%20freedom%20and%20agency%20(A quinas).pdf\u003e,�last�accessed�7/17/11.�","date":"2022-09-06T15:08:13Z","id":"highlight-p59x90y85","page":59,"pageLabel":"59","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":85.57},{"annotatedText":"the�two�main contingency�desiderata�needed�for�Reformed�orthodoxy�(epistemic�contingency and�secondary�causes)�are�completely�consistent�with�determinism.�","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-06T15:08:42Z","id":"highlight-p60x90y654","page":60,"pageLabel":"60","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":654.26},{"annotatedText":"�John�Duns�Scotus,�Contingency�and�Freedom.�Lectura�I,�39,�eds.�A.�Vos�Jaczn.,�H. Veldhuis,�A.�H.�Looman-Graaskamp,�E.�Dekker�and�N.�W.�den�Bok�(Springer�1994)","date":"2022-09-06T15:13:17Z","id":"highlight-p60x90y127","page":60,"pageLabel":"60","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":127.81},{"annotatedText":"necessity�and�freedom�are�neither contraries�nor�contradictories:�the�contrary�of�necessity�is�impossibility;�the contrary�of�freedom�is�coercion.","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T07:42:03Z","id":"highlight-p63x90y190","page":63,"pageLabel":"63","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":190.82},{"annotatedText":"if�the contingency�is�only�a�human�epistemic�one,�then�that�fits�with�determinism�and compatibilism.�If�the�contingency�needed�is�that�of�secondary�causality,�that�fits with�determinism�too—so�long�as�the�secondary�cause�cannot�do�otherwise given�the�same�prior�conditions,�and�so�long�as�the�secondary�cause�is�not�the ultimate�source�or�originator�of�its�actions.�If�the�contingency�needed�is�supposed to�be�logical,�that�fits�with�determinism�too�(determinism�simpliciter,�not�logical� determinism).","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T07:55:48Z","id":"highlight-p68x90y210","page":68,"pageLabel":"68","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":210.98},{"annotatedText":"how�God could�bring�about�an�inspired�and�inerrant�Bible�if�all�the�writers�wrote�with libertarian�free�will.�","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T08:16:46Z","id":"highlight-p70x90y192","page":70,"pageLabel":"70","type":"highlight","x":90.57,"y":192.5},{"annotatedText":"how�God could�bring�about�an�inspired�and�inerrant�Bible�if�all�the�writers�wrote�with libertarian�free�will.�","color":"#ffff7f","colorCategory":"Yellow","date":"2022-09-07T08:16:49Z","id":"strike-p70x90y192","page":70,"pageLabel":"70","type":"strike","x":90.57,"y":192.5}]
' to Run Script
[12:36:46.539] PDF Annotation Extractor[Run Script] Processing complete
[12:36:46.543] PDF Annotation Extractor[Run Script] Passing output '- __An action being ‘done spontaneously & by a previous judgment of reason’ is what makes it free, despite it also being necessary w.r.t. God’s plan or intentions.:__ "men’s�actions�may�be�free�(because�done�spontaneously�and�by a�previous�judgment�of�reason),�they�do�not�cease�to�be�necessary�with respect�to�the�divine�decree�and�foreknowledge.�Now�the�foreknowledge of�God�implies�indeed�the�infallibility�of�futurition�and�of�the�event�and�the necessity�of�consequence,�and�yet�does�not�imply�coaction�or�violence,�nor take�away�from�the�will�its�intrinsic�liberty." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 102]
- __Classical theism, though? Doesn’t the doctrine of mixed relations teach that all contingency is ultimately grounded in something other than God?:__ "�the�ground�of�God’s�foreknowledge�is�God’s�decree�according to�the�counsel�of�his�will.�The�truths�about�all�that�happens�in�time�are�ultimately grounded�in�God,�not�in�the�creature.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 103]
> "in�answer�to�the�“could�you�do�otherwise'�question,�classical compatibilism�says�you�could�do�otherwise�in�this�sense:�if�you�had�wanted�to�do otherwise,�then�you�would�have.�The�point�here�is�that�“can'�in�the�question�“can you�do�otherwise'�is�ambiguous.�Thus,�as�long�as�“freedom�to�do�otherwise'�is given�this�hypothetical�gloss,�classical�compatibilism�allows�for�ability�to�do otherwise." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 113]
> "They�deny�the�hypothetical�analysis�of�‘can’�and�claim�it�is� fraught�with�problems,�and�so�claim�that�freedom�(in�the�sense�of�ability�to�do otherwise)�cannot�be�had�on�determinism.�However,�they�claim�that�moral responsibility�does�not�require�ability�to�do�otherwise.�So�it’s�‘semi-‘ compatibilism:�compatibilism�about�moral�responsibility,�incompatibilism�about ability�to�do�otherwise." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 117]
> "two�kinds�of�control: regulative�control�and�guidance�control.�The�former�requires�the�ability�to�do otherwise,�the�latter�does�not;�and�it�is�only�the�latter,�they�argue,�that�is required�for�responsibility." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 119]
> "They�claim�that�the�morally responsible�individual�would�have�to�be�responsive�to�different�reasons�(reasons responsiveness)�if�she�or�he�were�to�have�them.�The�turning�of�the�car�could�not be�done�out�of�compulsion,�something�done�regardless�of�reasons�to�the contrary.�On�top�of�this,�they�argue�that�the�reasoning�mechanism�must�be�the person’s�‘own,’�and�that�he�or�she�would�‘take�responsibility’�or�‘ownership’�of their�actions,�especially�when�they�have�been�informed�of�the�determinism involved." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 120]
> "d�Frankfurt�libertarians9�claim�that�the�relevant�factor�required�for�moral responsibility�is�that�the�agent�be�the�ultimate�source�of�her�actions,�whether�or not�they�have�alternative�possibilities�available�to�them.�They�are�libertarians" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 123]
> "because�they�claim�that�ultimate�sourcehood�is�incompatible�with�our�wills�or character�being�determined�by�anything�other�than�us.�This�view�is�also sometimes�known�as�narrow�source�incompatibilism." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 124]
> "Wide�source�incompatibilism�means�that�moral responsibility�is�incompatible�with�determinism�and�requires�alternative possibilities�at�the�moment�of�character�forming�or�will-setting�to�ensure�ultimate sourcehood.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 124]
> "Perhaps�the�idea�that�we�really�can�do�other�than�God�decrees— not�in�any�of�the�compatibilist�or�conditional�senses�above,�but�that�we�could really�do�any�action�we�want�regardless�of�God’s�decree?�That�is:�same�decree,� possible�different�futures.�If�not,�then�compatibilism�must�be�affirmed.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 133]
> "What�I�do�is�conditionally�necessary�on God’s�decree,�contingent�on�his�decree." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 136]
> "�James�Frank,�“Duns�Scotus�on�Autonomous�Freedom�and�Divine�Co-Causality,' in�Medieval�Philosophy�and�Theology.�Vol�2.�Ed.�By�Norman�Kretzmann,�et�al. (University�of�Notre�Dame�Press,�1992" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 136]
> "�Thomas�Williams,�“Human�Nature�and�Free�Will'�forthcoming�in�the�Oxford� Handbook�of�Aquinas�(Oxford�University�Press),�available�online,�<� http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~thomasw/Human%20freedom%20and%20agency%20(A quinas).pdf>,�last�accessed�7/17/11.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 137]
> "the�two�main contingency�desiderata�needed�for�Reformed�orthodoxy�(epistemic�contingency and�secondary�causes)�are�completely�consistent�with�determinism.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 138]
> "�John�Duns�Scotus,�Contingency�and�Freedom.�Lectura�I,�39,�eds.�A.�Vos�Jaczn.,�H. Veldhuis,�A.�H.�Looman-Graaskamp,�E.�Dekker�and�N.�W.�den�Bok�(Springer�1994)" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 138]
> "necessity�and�freedom�are�neither contraries�nor�contradictories:�the�contrary�of�necessity�is�impossibility;�the contrary�of�freedom�is�coercion." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 141]
> "if�the contingency�is�only�a�human�epistemic�one,�then�that�fits�with�determinism�and compatibilism.�If�the�contingency�needed�is�that�of�secondary�causality,�that�fits with�determinism�too—so�long�as�the�secondary�cause�cannot�do�otherwise given�the�same�prior�conditions,�and�so�long�as�the�secondary�cause�is�not�the ultimate�source�or�originator�of�its�actions.�If�the�contingency�needed�is�supposed to�be�logical,�that�fits�with�determinism�too�(determinism�simpliciter,�not�logical� determinism)." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 146]
> "how�God could�bring�about�an�inspired�and�inerrant�Bible�if�all�the�writers�wrote�with libertarian�free�will.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 148]
> ~~"how�God could�bring�about�an�inspired�and�inerrant�Bible�if�all�the�writers�wrote�with libertarian�free�will.�"~~ [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 148]

' to Conditional
[12:36:46.552] PDF Annotation Extractor[Conditional] Processing complete
[12:36:46.554] PDF Annotation Extractor[Conditional] Passing output '- __An action being ‘done spontaneously & by a previous judgment of reason’ is what makes it free, despite it also being necessary w.r.t. God’s plan or intentions.:__ "men’s�actions�may�be�free�(because�done�spontaneously�and�by a�previous�judgment�of�reason),�they�do�not�cease�to�be�necessary�with respect�to�the�divine�decree�and�foreknowledge.�Now�the�foreknowledge of�God�implies�indeed�the�infallibility�of�futurition�and�of�the�event�and�the necessity�of�consequence,�and�yet�does�not�imply�coaction�or�violence,�nor take�away�from�the�will�its�intrinsic�liberty." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 102]
- __Classical theism, though? Doesn’t the doctrine of mixed relations teach that all contingency is ultimately grounded in something other than God?:__ "�the�ground�of�God’s�foreknowledge�is�God’s�decree�according to�the�counsel�of�his�will.�The�truths�about�all�that�happens�in�time�are�ultimately grounded�in�God,�not�in�the�creature.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 103]
> "in�answer�to�the�“could�you�do�otherwise'�question,�classical compatibilism�says�you�could�do�otherwise�in�this�sense:�if�you�had�wanted�to�do otherwise,�then�you�would�have.�The�point�here�is�that�“can'�in�the�question�“can you�do�otherwise'�is�ambiguous.�Thus,�as�long�as�“freedom�to�do�otherwise'�is given�this�hypothetical�gloss,�classical�compatibilism�allows�for�ability�to�do otherwise." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 113]
> "They�deny�the�hypothetical�analysis�of�‘can’�and�claim�it�is� fraught�with�problems,�and�so�claim�that�freedom�(in�the�sense�of�ability�to�do otherwise)�cannot�be�had�on�determinism.�However,�they�claim�that�moral responsibility�does�not�require�ability�to�do�otherwise.�So�it’s�‘semi-‘ compatibilism:�compatibilism�about�moral�responsibility,�incompatibilism�about ability�to�do�otherwise." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 117]
> "two�kinds�of�control: regulative�control�and�guidance�control.�The�former�requires�the�ability�to�do otherwise,�the�latter�does�not;�and�it�is�only�the�latter,�they�argue,�that�is required�for�responsibility." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 119]
> "They�claim�that�the�morally responsible�individual�would�have�to�be�responsive�to�different�reasons�(reasons responsiveness)�if�she�or�he�were�to�have�them.�The�turning�of�the�car�could�not be�done�out�of�compulsion,�something�done�regardless�of�reasons�to�the contrary.�On�top�of�this,�they�argue�that�the�reasoning�mechanism�must�be�the person’s�‘own,’�and�that�he�or�she�would�‘take�responsibility’�or�‘ownership’�of their�actions,�especially�when�they�have�been�informed�of�the�determinism involved." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 120]
> "d�Frankfurt�libertarians9�claim�that�the�relevant�factor�required�for�moral responsibility�is�that�the�agent�be�the�ultimate�source�of�her�actions,�whether�or not�they�have�alternative�possibilities�available�to�them.�They�are�libertarians" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 123]
> "because�they�claim�that�ultimate�sourcehood�is�incompatible�with�our�wills�or character�being�determined�by�anything�other�than�us.�This�view�is�also sometimes�known�as�narrow�source�incompatibilism." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 124]
> "Wide�source�incompatibilism�means�that�moral responsibility�is�incompatible�with�determinism�and�requires�alternative possibilities�at�the�moment�of�character�forming�or�will-setting�to�ensure�ultimate sourcehood.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 124]
> "Perhaps�the�idea�that�we�really�can�do�other�than�God�decrees— not�in�any�of�the�compatibilist�or�conditional�senses�above,�but�that�we�could really�do�any�action�we�want�regardless�of�God’s�decree?�That�is:�same�decree,� possible�different�futures.�If�not,�then�compatibilism�must�be�affirmed.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 133]
> "What�I�do�is�conditionally�necessary�on God’s�decree,�contingent�on�his�decree." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 136]
> "�James�Frank,�“Duns�Scotus�on�Autonomous�Freedom�and�Divine�Co-Causality,' in�Medieval�Philosophy�and�Theology.�Vol�2.�Ed.�By�Norman�Kretzmann,�et�al. (University�of�Notre�Dame�Press,�1992" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 136]
> "�Thomas�Williams,�“Human�Nature�and�Free�Will'�forthcoming�in�the�Oxford� Handbook�of�Aquinas�(Oxford�University�Press),�available�online,�<� http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~thomasw/Human%20freedom%20and%20agency%20(A quinas).pdf>,�last�accessed�7/17/11.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 137]
> "the�two�main contingency�desiderata�needed�for�Reformed�orthodoxy�(epistemic�contingency and�secondary�causes)�are�completely�consistent�with�determinism.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 138]
> "�John�Duns�Scotus,�Contingency�and�Freedom.�Lectura�I,�39,�eds.�A.�Vos�Jaczn.,�H. Veldhuis,�A.�H.�Looman-Graaskamp,�E.�Dekker�and�N.�W.�den�Bok�(Springer�1994)" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 138]
> "necessity�and�freedom�are�neither contraries�nor�contradictories:�the�contrary�of�necessity�is�impossibility;�the contrary�of�freedom�is�coercion." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 141]
> "if�the contingency�is�only�a�human�epistemic�one,�then�that�fits�with�determinism�and compatibilism.�If�the�contingency�needed�is�that�of�secondary�causality,�that�fits with�determinism�too—so�long�as�the�secondary�cause�cannot�do�otherwise given�the�same�prior�conditions,�and�so�long�as�the�secondary�cause�is�not�the ultimate�source�or�originator�of�its�actions.�If�the�contingency�needed�is�supposed to�be�logical,�that�fits�with�determinism�too�(determinism�simpliciter,�not�logical� determinism)." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 146]
> "how�God could�bring�about�an�inspired�and�inerrant�Bible�if�all�the�writers�wrote�with libertarian�free�will.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 148]
> ~~"how�God could�bring�about�an�inspired�and�inerrant�Bible�if�all�the�writers�wrote�with libertarian�free�will.�"~~ [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 148]

' to Conditional
[12:36:46.564] PDF Annotation Extractor[Conditional] Processing complete
[12:36:46.565] PDF Annotation Extractor[Conditional] Passing output '- __An action being ‘done spontaneously & by a previous judgment of reason’ is what makes it free, despite it also being necessary w.r.t. God’s plan or intentions.:__ "men’s�actions�may�be�free�(because�done�spontaneously�and�by a�previous�judgment�of�reason),�they�do�not�cease�to�be�necessary�with respect�to�the�divine�decree�and�foreknowledge.�Now�the�foreknowledge of�God�implies�indeed�the�infallibility�of�futurition�and�of�the�event�and�the necessity�of�consequence,�and�yet�does�not�imply�coaction�or�violence,�nor take�away�from�the�will�its�intrinsic�liberty." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 102]
- __Classical theism, though? Doesn’t the doctrine of mixed relations teach that all contingency is ultimately grounded in something other than God?:__ "�the�ground�of�God’s�foreknowledge�is�God’s�decree�according to�the�counsel�of�his�will.�The�truths�about�all�that�happens�in�time�are�ultimately grounded�in�God,�not�in�the�creature.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 103]
> "in�answer�to�the�“could�you�do�otherwise'�question,�classical compatibilism�says�you�could�do�otherwise�in�this�sense:�if�you�had�wanted�to�do otherwise,�then�you�would�have.�The�point�here�is�that�“can'�in�the�question�“can you�do�otherwise'�is�ambiguous.�Thus,�as�long�as�“freedom�to�do�otherwise'�is given�this�hypothetical�gloss,�classical�compatibilism�allows�for�ability�to�do otherwise." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 113]
> "They�deny�the�hypothetical�analysis�of�‘can’�and�claim�it�is� fraught�with�problems,�and�so�claim�that�freedom�(in�the�sense�of�ability�to�do otherwise)�cannot�be�had�on�determinism.�However,�they�claim�that�moral responsibility�does�not�require�ability�to�do�otherwise.�So�it’s�‘semi-‘ compatibilism:�compatibilism�about�moral�responsibility,�incompatibilism�about ability�to�do�otherwise." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 117]
> "two�kinds�of�control: regulative�control�and�guidance�control.�The�former�requires�the�ability�to�do otherwise,�the�latter�does�not;�and�it�is�only�the�latter,�they�argue,�that�is required�for�responsibility." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 119]
> "They�claim�that�the�morally responsible�individual�would�have�to�be�responsive�to�different�reasons�(reasons responsiveness)�if�she�or�he�were�to�have�them.�The�turning�of�the�car�could�not be�done�out�of�compulsion,�something�done�regardless�of�reasons�to�the contrary.�On�top�of�this,�they�argue�that�the�reasoning�mechanism�must�be�the person’s�‘own,’�and�that�he�or�she�would�‘take�responsibility’�or�‘ownership’�of their�actions,�especially�when�they�have�been�informed�of�the�determinism involved." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 120]
> "d�Frankfurt�libertarians9�claim�that�the�relevant�factor�required�for�moral responsibility�is�that�the�agent�be�the�ultimate�source�of�her�actions,�whether�or not�they�have�alternative�possibilities�available�to�them.�They�are�libertarians" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 123]
> "because�they�claim�that�ultimate�sourcehood�is�incompatible�with�our�wills�or character�being�determined�by�anything�other�than�us.�This�view�is�also sometimes�known�as�narrow�source�incompatibilism." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 124]
> "Wide�source�incompatibilism�means�that�moral responsibility�is�incompatible�with�determinism�and�requires�alternative possibilities�at�the�moment�of�character�forming�or�will-setting�to�ensure�ultimate sourcehood.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 124]
> "Perhaps�the�idea�that�we�really�can�do�other�than�God�decrees— not�in�any�of�the�compatibilist�or�conditional�senses�above,�but�that�we�could really�do�any�action�we�want�regardless�of�God’s�decree?�That�is:�same�decree,� possible�different�futures.�If�not,�then�compatibilism�must�be�affirmed.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 133]
> "What�I�do�is�conditionally�necessary�on God’s�decree,�contingent�on�his�decree." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 136]
> "�James�Frank,�“Duns�Scotus�on�Autonomous�Freedom�and�Divine�Co-Causality,' in�Medieval�Philosophy�and�Theology.�Vol�2.�Ed.�By�Norman�Kretzmann,�et�al. (University�of�Notre�Dame�Press,�1992" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 136]
> "�Thomas�Williams,�“Human�Nature�and�Free�Will'�forthcoming�in�the�Oxford� Handbook�of�Aquinas�(Oxford�University�Press),�available�online,�<� http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~thomasw/Human%20freedom%20and%20agency%20(A quinas).pdf>,�last�accessed�7/17/11.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 137]
> "the�two�main contingency�desiderata�needed�for�Reformed�orthodoxy�(epistemic�contingency and�secondary�causes)�are�completely�consistent�with�determinism.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 138]
> "�John�Duns�Scotus,�Contingency�and�Freedom.�Lectura�I,�39,�eds.�A.�Vos�Jaczn.,�H. Veldhuis,�A.�H.�Looman-Graaskamp,�E.�Dekker�and�N.�W.�den�Bok�(Springer�1994)" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 138]
> "necessity�and�freedom�are�neither contraries�nor�contradictories:�the�contrary�of�necessity�is�impossibility;�the contrary�of�freedom�is�coercion." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 141]
> "if�the contingency�is�only�a�human�epistemic�one,�then�that�fits�with�determinism�and compatibilism.�If�the�contingency�needed�is�that�of�secondary�causality,�that�fits with�determinism�too—so�long�as�the�secondary�cause�cannot�do�otherwise given�the�same�prior�conditions,�and�so�long�as�the�secondary�cause�is�not�the ultimate�source�or�originator�of�its�actions.�If�the�contingency�needed�is�supposed to�be�logical,�that�fits�with�determinism�too�(determinism�simpliciter,�not�logical� determinism)." [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 146]
> "how�God could�bring�about�an�inspired�and�inerrant�Bible�if�all�the�writers�wrote�with libertarian�free�will.�" [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 148]
> ~~"how�God could�bring�about�an�inspired�and�inerrant�Bible�if�all�the�writers�wrote�with libertarian�free�will.�"~~ [@manata2011FreeWillMoral, p. 148]

' to Write Text File
[12:36:46.574] PDF Annotation Extractor[Write Text File] Processing complete
[12:36:46.590] PDF Annotation Extractor[Write Text File] Passing output '/Users/michaelbaldwin/Library/Mobile Documents/iCloud~md~obsidian/Documents/Zettelkasten/manata2011FreeWillMoral.md' to Run Script
[12:36:47.447] PDF Annotation Extractor[Run Script] Processing complete
[12:36:47.450] PDF Annotation Extractor[Run Script] Passing output '' to Copy to Clipboard
[12:36:47.452] PDF Annotation Extractor[Copy to Clipboard] Processing complete
[12:36:47.455] PDF Annotation Extractor[Copy to Clipboard] Passing output '' to Post Notification
[12:36:47.457] PDF Annotation Extractor[Post Notification] Processing complete
[12:36:47.459] PDF Annotation Extractor[Post Notification] Passing output '' to Play Sound
[12:36:47.462] PDF Annotation Extractor[Play Sound] Processing complete
[12:36:47.465] PDF Annotation Extractor[Play Sound] Passing output '' to Conditional
[12:36:47.510] PDF Annotation Extractor[Conditional] Processing complete
[12:36:47.536] PDF Annotation Extractor[Conditional] Passing output '' to Run Script
[12:36:47.538] PDF Annotation Extractor[Play Sound] Passing output '' to Run Script

Workflow Configuration

Checklist

[X] I have updated to the latest version of this workflow.
[X] I checked out the available options under aconf and there isn't one that enables the desired behavior.

Is it possible to include a link to the page of the pdf by the reference?

Not, that feature is unfortunately only possible with Zotero.

The jumbled quality is unfortunately not an issue of this Alfred workflow, but rather of the underlying engine, pdfannots2json. I'd suggest opening a bug report there.

Is it possible to include a link to the page of the pdf by the reference?

Not, that feature is unfortunately only possible with Zotero.
The jumbled quality is unfortunately not an issue of this Alfred workflow, but rather of the underlying engine, pdfannots2json. I'd suggest opening a bug report there.

OK will do and thanks for your replies!


Full parsing test

Add a full parsing test (old season) which checks if the generated Gesamtspielplan struct will be correctly parsed and created.

test for func ParseGesamtspielplanTable was added in #16


ValueError: Operands could not be broadcast together with shapes

Dear heitzmann,
I have made a piece of code that gives me quite a weird error.
The code itself is kinda hard to show due to IP rights.
Would you have any clue where this error could come from?
This is the error:
File "/anaconda3/lib/python3.7/site-packages/gdspy/init.py", line 6648, in write_cell
self._outfile.write(cell.to_gds(self._res, timestamp))
File "/anaconda3/lib/python3.7/site-packages/gdspy/init.py", line 4878, in to_gds
data.extend(path.to_gds(multiplier) for path in self.paths)
File "/anaconda3/lib/python3.7/site-packages/gdspy/init.py", line 4878, in
data.extend(path.to_gds(multiplier) for path in self.paths)
File "/anaconda3/lib/python3.7/site-packages/gdspy/init.py", line 3103, in to_gds
return self.to_polygonset().to_gds(multiplier)
File "/anaconda3/lib/python3.7/site-packages/gdspy/init.py", line 3070, in to_polygonset
polygons = self.get_polygons(True)
File "/anaconda3/lib/python3.7/site-packages/gdspy/init.py", line 2866, in get_polygons
pa = pts[:-1] + vn * (sign * 0.5 * self.widths[:-1, kk:kk + 1])
ValueError: operands could not be broadcast together with shapes (4,2) (5,1)

The path[i] variables are points. The code runs fine if I only use the first and last line of this segment.

@dwaardenburg I can look into it to try to figure out what's wrong, but I'm quite busy this week, so it could be a few days. In the mean time, do you have by any chance a complete example so that I can reproduce the bug myself?

So far it seems that the flexpath.segment method might just continue if the point is a list of points. I thought that was an option. Let me check tomorrow if that was the case.

FlexPath.segment accepts only a single (x, y) point, not a list... is that the issue? From your code it seemed you were already passing single points, but you'd have to make sure path[i] and path_widths[i] are what you expect.
Let me know if you find out anything else...

@dwaardenburg, I believe I found the problem (completely by chance while working on something else): the line path_list.append(gd.FlexPath(to_point, to_end_width)) initializes FlexPath with to_point, which I assume is a size-2 vector. However, the first argument of FlexPath must be an N×2 array.
I believe if you replace that line with path_list.append(gd.FlexPath([to_point], to_end_width)) the issue will be solved. Could you give it a try?
This is a common enough use case that I should probably include as a special case for the first argument.

It's been a while, but I believe this commit solves the issue.


Implement: files list

Add a "files list" command to tapis-cli

In progress in 94ace9473d974061e9aac9bdf97376a909053474

Released to testing 27-09-2019 cd383f6562cb1d5370d6ad8d9cc1c6baf185e9d0


Update README.md

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 262

0 of 0   changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
2 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
Overall coverage remained the same at 94.345%

Files with Coverage Reduction
New Missed Lines
%

autokeras/net_transformer.py
2
84.38%

Totals

Change from base Build 261:
0.0%

Covered Lines:
1318

Relevant Lines:
1397

💛  - Coveralls


update change-log for version 2.2

Issue Reference
update change-log for version 2.2

You have a duplicate line :p
`

#9591 [enhancement] - There should be an Empty Space in Country Drop Down for Tax Inclusive Default Location Calculation.

#9591 [enhancement] - There should be an Empty Space in Country Drop Down for Tax Inclusive Default Location Calculation.`


defend against token reuse

see https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2064

Duplicate of #1652.


score should be normalized independent of samples

This fails the tests, and I can't understand what the purpose of the PR is. See contribution guidelines.

@shampool  Even if your code is buggy/work in progress/tests failing its fine but please do provide a detailed description on what is the problem you are try to solve (Bug fix / new feature) and how you are doing it.

Sorry I did not read the contribution guideline and not familar with the testing staff at all.  will take some time to look into it.


CLI 6.4.0 -- tofile randomly fails on Microsoft.Identity packages -- .NET 6

This is our situation:
We're installing and using the CLI tool in an Azure DevOps pipeline to generate a swagger.json file.
For some reason, the tofile command randomly fails, and always with an error similar to this:
File name: 'Microsoft.IdentityModel.Logging, Version=<IP_ADDRESS>, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35'
   at Microsoft.Identity.Web.MicrosoftIdentityBaseAuthenticationBuilder..ctor(IServiceCollection services, IConfigurationSection configurationSection)
   at Microsoft.Identity.Web.MicrosoftIdentityWebApiAuthenticationBuilder..ctor(IServiceCollection services, String jwtBearerAuthenticationScheme, Action`1 configureJwtBearerOptions, Action`1 configureMicrosoftIdentityOptions, IConfigurationSection configurationSection)
   at Microsoft.Identity.Web.MicrosoftIdentityWebApiAuthenticationBuilderWithConfiguration..ctor(IServiceCollection services, String jwtBearerAuthenticationScheme, Action`1 configureJwtBearerOptions, Action`1 configureMicrosoftIdentityOptions, IConfigurationSection configurationSection)
   at Microsoft.Identity.Web.MicrosoftIdentityWebApiAuthenticationBuilderExtensions.AddMicrosoftIdentityWebApi(AuthenticationBuilder builder, IConfigurationSection configurationSection, String jwtBearerScheme, Boolean subscribeToJwtBearerMiddlewareDiagnosticsEvents)
   at Microsoft.Identity.Web.MicrosoftIdentityWebApiAuthenticationBuilderExtensions.AddMicrosoftIdentityWebApi(AuthenticationBuilder builder, IConfiguration configuration, String configSectionName, String jwtBearerScheme, Boolean subscribeToJwtBearerMiddlewareDiagnosticsEvents)
   at Microsoft.Identity.Web.MicrosoftIdentityWebApiServiceCollectionExtensions.AddMicrosoftIdentityWebApiAuthentication(IServiceCollection services, IConfiguration configuration, String configSectionName, String jwtBearerScheme, Boolean subscribeToJwtBearerMiddlewareDiagnosticsEvents)
   at Finvictum.API.ServiceCollectionExtensions.AddAppAuthentication(IServiceCollection services, IConfiguration config) in /home/vsts/work/1/s/Finvictum.API/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs:line 60
   at Program.<<Main>$>g__CreateApplication|0_0(String[] args) in /home/vsts/work/1/s/Finvictum.API/Program.cs:line 55
   at Program.<Main>$(String[] args) in /home/vsts/work/1/s/Finvictum.API/Program.cs:line 32

As you can see in the StackTrace, the error points to this line in our code:
public static IServiceCollection AddAppAuthentication(this IServiceCollection services, IConfiguration config)
{
    services.AddMicrosoftIdentityWebApiAuthentication(config, "AzureB2C");

    ...
}

However, even when I remove that line, we have some other setup pointing to the IdentityModel packages and it will fail there...
I've logged all packages after a restore from the pipeline:

The strange thing is: Sometimes it works instantly, most of the time we have to run it at least 3 times and in some rare occasions, we had to run it ~10 times
We've tried to reproduce it locally, but it never fails... We can generate the file without fail.
This is the pipeline task:
- task: Bash@3
    displayName: 'Generate OpenAPI document'
    inputs:
      targetType: 'inline'
      script: |
        dotnet new tool-manifest --force
        cd output
        dotnet tool install swashbuckle.aspnetcore.cli --version 6.4.0
        export ASPNETCORE_ENVIRONMENT=SWAGGERBUILD
        dotnet swagger tofile --output $(Build.ArtifactStagingDirectory)/swagger.json Finvictum.API.dll v1

Some context: We build the project using the DotNetCoreCLI@2 task and output to the ./output folder

Initially I thought it had to do with this issue: #2355
Since it would spit out the same error, though that's not the cause, since we're using version 6.4.0 which has a timeout of 30s...
What I did see: When the pipeline task takes longer than 5 seconds, it will fail consistenly
If it takes 5s or less, it will succeed

Any idea what might be happening?
Or how we can debug the issue?

If you can move to .net8 you could try out if DotSwasbuckle solves this issue, if not I'm interested fixing it

This looks like it's caused by mismatching dependency versions outside of our control.


request new term: Telomeric D-loops

I am looking for "telomeric D-loop" on SO. I found a related term SO:0000297 which refers to the same D-loop (as far as the definition goes and at least structurally). Albeit the SO definition only refers to D-loops in the mitochondria and the D-loops I am annotating are in the telomeric DNA at chromosome termini.
PMID:10338204, PMID:24012755
I would like to use this in my annotation in GO so would be very useful to have it. I have quite a few annotations to a number of proteins for which telomeric D-loop SO ID would be very handy.
It might of interest to mention that a telomeric D-loop related new ontology term was requested from GO which has been approved. Here is the Github link:
https://github.com/geneontology/go-ontology/issues/12881#
if you can't access the GitHub ticket, this is the resolution:
[Term]
+id: GO:0061820
+name: telomeric D-loop disassembly
+def: "A telomere loop disassembly process that results in the disassembly of telomeric D-loops. A telomeric D-loop is a three-stranded DNA displacement loop that forms at the site where the telomeric 3' single-stranded DNA overhang (formed of the repeat sequence TTAGGG in mammals) is tucked back inside the double-stranded component of telomeric DNA molecule, thus forming a t-loop or telomeric-loop and protecting the chromosome terminus." [GOC:BHF, GOC:BHF_telomere, GOC:nc, PMID:10338204, PMID:24012755]
+is_a: GO:0090657 ! telomeric loop disassembly
+created_by: dph

Hi,
Can you please update me on whether there have been any progress with regards to this request. Thanks.
Regards
Nancy

I have added SO:0002171 telomeric_D_loop as a child of origin_of_replication. The definition is "A telomeric D-loop is a three-stranded DNA displacement loop that forms at the site where the telomeric 3' single-stranded DNA overhang (formed of the repeat sequence TTAGGG in mammals) is tucked back inside the double-stranded component of telomeric DNA molecule, thus forming a t-loop or telomeric-loop and protecting the chromosome terminus." I took this from the definition of the GO term you referenced and made a citation in the comment section.
I think we also need to have a term for telomeric_T_loop. Would this term be a sibling of telomeric_D_loop or a child of it?

Hi,
Great. Thank you. Definition looks great for SO:0002171 telomeric_D_loop. Yes please - adding telomeric-loop would certainly complete the picture. May I clarifiy the following:
Naming: telomeric-loop or t-loop (t stands for telomeric) is more accurate than telomeric_T_loop.
Synonyms: Telomeric-loop could be the main term and t-loop a synonym, if possible!?
Hierarchy: Good question! Well, in early refernces describing these two loops (the year 2000 ish), it was not made clear whether d-loop forms part of t-loop or is a separate adjacent structure. However, more recently (2017), d-loop is shown as part of the t-loop, here is an example from PMID 28183782 figure 1 B:

So it would be:
Telomeric D-loop child_of Telomeric-loop.
Regards
Nancy


[WIP] Multi image

Thus begins multi image support.

:sparkles: Awesome :grinning: It'll be good to have this working.

Is the current version of fig whiny for you too? I get this on exit:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<string>", line 3, in <module>
  File "/Users/ben/fig/build/fig/out00-PYZ.pyz/fig.cli.main", line 31, in main
  File "/Users/ben/fig/build/fig/out00-PYZ.pyz/fig.cli.docopt_command", line 21, in sys_dispatch
  File "/Users/ben/fig/build/fig/out00-PYZ.pyz/fig.cli.command", line 28, in dispatch
  File "/Users/ben/fig/build/fig/out00-PYZ.pyz/fig.cli.docopt_command", line 24, in dispatch
  File "/Users/ben/fig/build/fig/out00-PYZ.pyz/fig.cli.command", line 56, in perform_command
  File "/Users/ben/fig/build/fig/out00-PYZ.pyz/fig.cli.main", line 437, in up
  File "/Users/ben/fig/build/fig/out00-PYZ.pyz/fig.cli.log_printer", line 22, in run
  File "/Users/ben/fig/build/fig/out00-PYZ.pyz/fig.cli.multiplexer", line 25, in loop
  File "/Users/ben/fig/build/fig/out00-PYZ.pyz/Queue", line 182, in get
thread.error: release unlocked lock

Also... ben?

The question I have now is whether I clobber the layer name from multyvac or start adopting the image name to line up with Docker (and the App container specification, Rocket, etc.).

It's "alive"
In [5]: multyvac.submit(lambda: 3, _layer="test") # Should fail, image doesn't exist
Out[5]: 3

In [6]: multyvac.submit(lambda: 3, _layer="ubuntu:14.04") # Should work
Out[6]: 4

:point_down:
cloudpipe_1 | INFO[0007] Launching a job.                              account=admin jid=3
cloudpipe_1 | ERRO[0007] Created the job's container: ERROR            account=admin err=no such image jid=3
cloudpipe_1 | DEBU[0046] Administrator authenticated.                  account=admin
cloudpipe_1 | INFO[0046] Successfully submitted a job.                 account=admin jid=4 job={python -m multyvacinit.pybootstrap <nil> c1 1 true map[fname:__main__.<lambda> at <ipython-input-6-31fad64ddba5>:1] [{ubuntu:14.04}] [] map[PYTHONPATH:/pymodules] file:/tmp/.result pickle 0 [128 2 99 109 117 108 116 121 118 97 99 46 117 116 105 108 46 99 108 111 117 100 112 105 99 107 108 101 10 95 102 105 108 108 95 102 117 110 99 116 105 111 110 10 113 0 40 99 109 117 108 116 121 118 97 99 46 117 116 105 108 46 99 108 111 117 100 112 105 99 107 108 101 10 95 109 97 107 101 95 115 107 101 108 95 102 117 110 99 10 113 1 99 110 101 119 10 99 111 100 101 10 113 2 40 75 0 75 0 75 1 74 67 0 1 0 85 4 100 1 0 83 113 3 78 75 3 134 113 4 41 41 85 30 60 105 112 121 116 104 111 110 45 105 110 112 117 116 45 54 45 51 49 102 97 100 54 52 100 100 98 97 53 62 113 5 85 8 60 108 97 109 98 100 97 62 113 6 75 1 85 0 113 7 41 41 116 113 8 82 113 9 75 0 125 113 10 135 113 11 82 113 12 125 113 13 78 93 113 14 125 113 15 116 82 41 125 113 16 135 113 17 46] 0xc2080c5be0 <nil>}
cloudpipe_1 | INFO[0046] Launching a job.                              account=admin jid=4
cloudpipe_1 | DEBU[0046] Created the job's container: ok               account=admin jid=4
cloudpipe_1 | DEBU[0046] Started the container: ok                     account=admin container id=060e49bea3adb02834db2bb7895ae64dc1b42bf2da09f808549a4dbeb3ddeeea container name=job_4_unnamed jid=4
cloudpipe_1 | DEBU[0046] Received output from a job                    bytes=/bin/bash: python: command not found
cloudpipe_1 |  length=37 stream=stderr
cloudpipe_1 | DEBU[0046] Attached to the container: ok                 account=admin container id=060e49bea3adb02834db2bb7895ae64dc1b42bf2da09f808549a4dbeb3ddeeea container name=job_4_unnamed jid=4
cloudpipe_1 | DEBU[0046] Waited for the container to complete: ok      account=admin container id=060e49bea3adb02834db2bb7895ae64dc1b42bf2da09f808549a4dbeb3ddeeea container name=job_4_unnamed jid=4
cloudpipe_1 | DEBU[0046] Removed the container: ok                     account=admin container id=060e49bea3adb02834db2bb7895ae64dc1b42bf2da09f808549a4dbeb3ddeeea container name=job_4_unnamed jid=4
cloudpipe_1 | INFO[0046] Job complete.                                 account=admin jid=4 overhead=231885804 queue=30723314 runtime=186708027 status=error

:tada:
Totally need to update logging, tests, and determine if that was the right place for that.

Is the current version of fig whiny for you too?

Hmm, I haven't updated it for a while so I don't know. Maybe using docker-compose instead would work?

The question I have now is whether I clobber the layer name from multyvac or start adopting the image name to line up with Docker (and the App container specification, Rocket, etc.).

Let's go ahead and clobber the name. Multyvac will still work because the default image supports it.
We should prioritize two things now that we're diverging from the Multyvac API, though:

Creating our own SDKs. We can start with a newer Python 2/3 one.
Start documenting our API on cloudpipe.github.io.

Totally need to update logging, tests, and determine if that was the right place for that.

Awesome. I can help with the last bit - let me have a look at the diff.

We should prioritize two things now that we're diverging from the Multyvac API, though:

Creating our own SDKs. We can start with a newer Python 2/3 one.
Start documenting our API on cloudpipe.github.io.

I ended up not diverging from the multyvac API last night, but only using the very first layer. It at least worked enough that @ycombinator could rely on it.
This is definitely the path I need to start working on a Python3 (possibly backwards compatible with 2) client and runner.

Alright, I'm coming back to this branch today. :)

:metal: Nice!

Alright, now with more logging and simple trial script.
We don't have any tests for runner.go

:+1: :shipit:


Requirements and setup instructions

Hello,
I'm pleased to hear that this still works. I'm just wondering, do you have any basic setup instructions (OS already installed) for setting up a standalone server and what the requirements are? I see you have details for Heroku, however they stopped their free plan and at this point I thought that I may as well put this in a VM on a internal company server.
At one point I figured that I would do a little php script (see below) that would handle another issue that we have (we can't view links in outlook that starts with ms-mobile-apps:/// for some stupid reason) but thought that there may be a better way and want to try this out.
<?php function Redirect($url, $permanent = false) {   header('Location: ' . $url, true, $permanent ? 301 : 302);   exit(); } Redirect("ms-mobile-apps:///providers/Microsoft.PowerApps/apps/".trim($_SERVER['QUERY_STRING']), false); ?>
I guess the other thing I should ask, I guess it would be easy for me to edit the source code so that I can use the ms-mobile-apps:/// protocol instead of https?
Looking forward to having some fun with this :)

do you have any basic setup instructions (OS already installed) for setting up a standalone server and what the requirements are?

and at this point I thought that I may as well put this in a VM on a internal company server.

What VM are you planning on using? Can you use a Linux distro or need to use something specific like a Microsoft OS?
Since it's Ruby code it should work fine as long as the Ruby runtime is available. If you're comfortable with and also able to use Linux let me know and I can share with you an easy to use (almost "packaged") Docker image to run. Just FYI Ruby images aren't known for being lightweight, but I think it shouldn't be too bad and it's an easy way to run it and have the Docker daemon handle the restarts, errors, logging, etc.
If you're not into the Docker option then I'd recommend something along the lines of:

Installing Ruby 3.1.2

Using RVM (recommended) or any other version manager
Directly on OS the "manual way"

Fork the repo and clone your fork on that VM
From the repo directory install dependencies with bundle install
Run bundle exec puma -p 4567 to ensure it runs (customize the port if you want)
Find a way to handle VM restarts/failures/etc for your OS

(we can't view links in outlook that starts with ms-mobile-apps:/// for some stupid reason)

I guess the other thing I should ask, I guess it would be easy for me to edit the source code so that I can use the ms-mobile-apps:/// protocol instead of https?

I may or may not be understanding the use case exactly right, but I think what you want work with is changing the schema handled by the server.rb. Something along the lines of what I did on #22. You can checkout and test that branch to see if it works for you once you have the server up and running.
That PR was just a very quick and dirty experiment so I'm a bit skeptical of whether it will work. Let me know if it does so I can implement a more permanent solution to support these in the codebase. Otherwise talk me through the situation you want to achieve a bit more in detail to see if I can help. Perhaps something like:

I want to have users go into the URL ms-mobile-apps:///providers/Microsoft.PowerApps/apps/<appID>?tenantId=<tenantId> from an Outlook email so I want to have the browser redirect me to XXXXXXX for deep linking

I'm using Rocky Linux (https://rockylinux.org/), from what I understand is like CentOS (the free version of RedHat).
I managed to get things up and running (I went the manual route as I have no experience with docker), just had to fight with versions (I had ruby 3.1.2 for example) and open up the firewall a little. Other than that, in my quick testing, things are working as expected.
As to what I'm waiting to do, you pretty much got it. Since outlook doesn't support linking to ms-mobile-apps:// protocol properly, I thought that I could use UDL as a mini proxy where I could just link people to something like https://r.domain.com/?r=ms-mobile-apps://xxxxxx and then the browser would do the direction for me.

I managed to get things up and running (I went the manual route as I have no experience with docker), just had to fight with versions (I had ruby 3.1.2 for example) and open up the firewall a little. Other than that, in my quick testing, things are working as expected.

That's great to hear 👍🏼

As to what I'm waiting to do, you pretty much got it. Since outlook doesn't support linking to ms-mobile-apps:// protocol properly, I thought that I could use UDL as a mini proxy where I could just link people to something like https://r.domain.com/?r=ms-mobile-apps://xxxxxx and then the browser would do the direction for me

Sounds good then. If you can, let me know if what's on main works with that ms-mobile-apps scheme. If it doesn't work pull the latest from branch ms-powerapps (the branch of #22) and then let me know if that does the job. I pushed some quick changes there to better handle these custom scheme redirects.


Skip long lines (fixes #189)

This actually implements the functionality to ignore lines longer than some number of characters (default 2000) and adds an option --long-line-length to change the that number. Tested on OS X Yosemite.

If this actually works, I'm very excited.

If you want to test this now, you should be able to
git clone https://github.com/amfarrell/the_silver_searcher/ -b ignore-long-lines
cd ignore-long-lines

and then run through https://github.com/amfarrell/the_silver_searcher/tree/ignore-long-lines#building-master to install from source

Tests aren't passing due to clang-format on my machine :( All functional tests pass though! Probably also should have some new tests in place to verify that this works as intended, but it looks awesome if it works! :+1:

@epmatsw I've added a test, though I am note sure how to get it to run. make test doesn't do anything.

@amfarrell That's interesting. No errors or anything? You'll need to have cram installed, but other than that I think it should just work if you do ./build.sh && make test

ah, that was the problem. I had not installed cram.

Is anyone else able to view the Travis CI results to see what failed? Building on my local machine works.

Mine are failing locally, but still on clang-format. All functional tests (including the new one) are passing locally. Travis is failing on functional tests though, which is confusing.

The functional test it's failing on is the one that @amfarrell added. It doesn't seem like any of the other tests are failing on travis.

That functional test is succeeding on my local El Cap box, too.  I wonder what the difference is between our machines and Travis?

I'm also keen on having this default option, mostly for the minified JS use-case, also some XML, JSON etc. I went looking for it in the man page, found it documented, read the source, saw it was a TODO, investigated implementing it, saw it needs to be deep within the print logic, then found this PR. :+1:
My bike-shed input would be to reduce the default threshold to e.g. 1,000 chars; even that's 13 lines of text in ye olde 80-wide terminal.
My concern is that calling this new get_line_length() function for every matched line could be a performance regression, but I haven't tested that. It's probably duplicating some of the work done to actually print the line. Thoughts?

I hope this gets implemented :)
It would be nice if, by default, the long-line-length equals the (detected) width of the terminal, so that result lines fit nicely within the terminal, and never break to a new line.

It would be nice if, by default, the long-line-length equals the (detected) width of the terminal

Sounds like you're looking for --width / -W from https://github.com/ggreer/the_silver_searcher/pull/720 which changes how matches are displayed.
Whereas my understanding of this --print-long-lines / --long-line-length option is that it completely excludes matches from very long lines (e.g. minified version of a JS file); I wouldn't want that defaulting to to the width of my terminal, else ag would constantly be failing to find matches in reasonable length lines.
In fact I think -W in #720 does a better job at what the never-released --print-long-lines / --long-line-length feature was aiming for; avoids sending many kb of text to the terminal when matches are found in long line files.

Sounds like you're looking for --width / -W from #720 which changes how matches are displayed.

Yup, you are right, thanks! It works as I hoped, apart from the "auto-detect the term width" feature. Sorry for the noise.

In fact I think -W in #720 does a better job at what the never-released --print-long-lines / --long-line-length feature was aiming for; avoids sending many kb of text to the terminal when matches are found in long line files.

I agree, I think people want to avoid things like minified JS flooding their terminal. That's why I was looking for this option. And I think it's best if you can see concisely that those files match, I don't want them completely hidden.

I was never able to get that test to fail locally. Given that the --width option was added in #720, I'm going to whistfully close this PR.


chore: convert file registry to class and add tests

What this PR solves / how to test
Fixes #000.
This adds unit tests to the file-based registry. In order to do that, it converts the file to a class so that it can be easily re-instantiated in each test.
There are no logic changes to the source code - this is just a re-org.
Author has addressed the following

Tests

[ ] TODO (before merge)
[x] Tests included
[ ] Tests not necessary because:

E2E Tests CI Job required? (Use "e2e" label or ask maintainer to run separately)

[ ] I don't know
[x] Required
[ ] Not required because:

Changeset (Changeset guidelines)

[ ] TODO (before merge)
[x] Changeset included
[ ] Changeset not necessary because:

Public documentation

[ ] TODO (before merge)
[ ] Cloudflare docs PR(s):
[x] Documentation not necessary because: Not user-facing.

I'm feeling a lot less confident about this PR now, as it seems like there is some inherent flakiness that moving to a class somehow brings out. We now have the package tests passing on Windows, but failing on Linux and Mac.
My inclination is to close this PR for now, given the recent increase in stability after moving to the file-based registry by default.


Button | Add Shadow Variant

Reference:
https://vercel.com/design/button#variant-shadow

Reference outdated


live sass compiler is dependent on Live Server Ritwikey dey

I have tried to disable it and use another but when I use Glen sass compiler it automatically adds the live server I mention above. (which is not working)
I don't know what to use to get a live view when I right click there isn't even an option to see a live preview or open ....
Ok this may help I have installed a previous version of live server ritwikety..and wallah it has a Go live button that is working but I had to use version from 3 years ago. Would love if this issue was updated :) thanks

Sorry if I haven't got this right but it looks like you want Live Server disabled?
If so, this is actually scheduled for V5. You can download an alpha below to test it (all my tests have been fine 😁)
alpha.2 = https://github.com/glenn2223/vscode-live-sass-compiler/blob/ef03dbeea5c990326db0c5aac94bf34a43076c8d/live-sass-5.0.0-alpha.2.vsix
alpha.1 = https://github.com/glenn2223/vscode-live-sass-compiler/blob/ef03dbeea5c990326db0c5aac94bf34a43076c8d/live-sass-5.0.0-alpha.1.vsix

Closing, more info required

I just installed an earlier version and the live works but it says on this extension it’s not being updated as the person doesn’t have time.
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 18, 2021, at 7:27 AM, Glenn @.***> wrote:

Closing, more info required
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.


[MS] Create container level rules for primary input data in growing datasets

Impact of the new feature
MSTransferor
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
A sub-issue of: https://github.com/dmwm/WMCore/issues/11048
As we commission growing datasets/workflows in the system, we need to ensure that input blocks freshly created will have replica(s) in disk for re-processing.
The current design of MSTransferor does not allow it, because the workflow is processed by the service only once, blocks are locked and distributed on disk and the workflow advances to staging, thus never returning to MSTransferor.
Describe the solution you'd like
Based on the workflow attribute OpenRunningTimeout, give a different treatment to the primary dataset, such that the whole container gets a rule locking it on disk to be re-processed, instead of the block based data placement.
I'd say that OpenRunningTimeout larger than a week should trigger this feature, anything smaller than that - or not defined - should follow the standard block-based input data placement. We better make this parameter configurable as well.
Question: should we lock the whole container in only one RSE, out of the possible RSEs the workflow has been assigned to? Or should we have a number of copies > 1 whenever possible (if so, how many)?
Describe alternatives you've considered
It just came to my mind that we might struggle to move this workflow forward in MSMonitor service, since it will have only 1 rule and it should be only satisfied if we spend many hours (maybe days) without generating new blocks. Something that might require another issue/change to be considered.
Additional context
None

If anyone has an input on how we should deal with input data placement in such workflows, I'd be glad to hear.
@haozturk you might have some input to provide.

And here are two concerns raised during the P&R Dev meeting:

making a container rule against a single RSE: it could be that eventually that RSE runs out of space and we are not able to transfer more input blocks in there.
making a container rule against multiple RSEs (with grouping=ALL): it could be that eventually an RSE runs out of space, and Rucio decides to transfer (move!) everything to another RSE that has enough volume for everything (thus, changing block location).

Perhaps the best way to deal with this would be to always target multiple RSEs and define grouping=DATASET, such that blocks can be scattered in multiple RSEs. Whether or not we add copies > 1 is still to be decided as well.
@ericvaandering and Felipe, that I do not know his GH user name.


New HelloWorld Added

@akshaybetala Please review my code. Thanks

@sam0227 please check why the continuous integration failed.

@sam0227 @chenlica The Travis-CI checks have failed because the name of the file is FengHelloWorld.java whereas the name of the class is misspelt and is FengelloWorld. Correcting this will make the check pass.

@chenlica @kishore-narendran @akshaybetala  Fixed. Please review the current one.

@sam0227  I cannot see the bad code.

@akshaybetala  Please review the new version. Bad code added please leave inline commons. Thanks.

Please finish this pull request ASAP.

@akshaybetala Please review the new code. Thanks.

looks good. you can merge it to master


Update doc.go

Needs a once-over, and a new section on terminating servers.

[ ] Change all references to dispatch functions to "handlers"
[ ] Rewrite instantiation to use AddHandler()
[ ] Tell how to quit a server (see example/server.go)
[ ] Generally clean everything up and make it better


Support bitcoind rpc_cookie_file auth

This is needed to run SatSale on RaspiBolt v3.

thanks so much! Very keen to get this running once i wipe my umbrel


How to handle notification when app in background in firebase

this question should be in stackoverflow with the firebase-cloud-messaging tag

as written in the documentation and referenced in the source code, notifications that are received from the console while the application in in background will not trigger any code to run but instead will post a notification that opens the application on click

@yishai-glide thanks for the recommendation.
Closing this issue, discussion duplicated in #4.

How about my solution try it.
ttps://stackoverflow.com/questions/48897883


rect.width is undefined at IE8

https://github.com/bevacqua/dragula/blob/master/dist/dragula.js#L299
getBoundingClientRect just have four properties: left, top, right, bottom.
width & height add in Gecko 1.9.1 but IE8 didn't support
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element/getBoundingClientRect

So right - left and bottom - top, can you pull request?

They're used somewhere else too. https://github.com/bevacqua/dragula/blob/master/dist/dragula.js#L349


Disable _EFMigrationsHistory (HistoryRepository) when generating scripts in migrations

While there are ways to customize the HistoryRepository (like renaming table, renaming columns, etc). There is no current way to disable the feature.
We currently use EFCore migrations to create the migrations files and the scripts for those migrations per provider (we use SqlServer and MySql providers). We never use EFCore migrations to modify the database directly. We build a tool that does that using the generated scripts to have more control on versioning (we add more information like who created the db or who upgrade it) and script management (being able to modify the script before applying it for complex scenarios).
Everything works great, except we don't use the _EFMigrationsHistory at all. And since we don't ever use migrations to create/modify the database, neither does EFCore apparently. We can of course manually remove the create and insert portions for _EFMigrationsHistory from the script, but we would like to automate this process.
I've tried to use my own HistoryRepository and returning empty strings for scripts. But there are problems with this approach because the client for HistoryRepository (the Migrator) sometimes validates empty scripts. If I provide a comment line it would work but the migrator still adds the _sqlGenerationHelper.BatchTerminator (for SqlServer is "GO"+newline+newline), so there still some manual work to do.
Here's my HistoryRepository:
public class MySqlServerHistoryRepository : SqlServerHistoryRepository
	{
		public MySqlServerHistoryRepository(
			IDatabaseCreator databaseCreator, IRawSqlCommandBuilder rawSqlCommandBuilder,
			ISqlServerConnection connection, IDbContextOptions options,
			IMigrationsModelDiffer modelDiffer,
			IMigrationsSqlGenerator migrationsSqlGenerator,
			IRelationalAnnotationProvider annotations,
			ISqlGenerationHelper sqlGenerationHelper)
		: base(databaseCreator, rawSqlCommandBuilder, connection, options,
			modelDiffer, migrationsSqlGenerator, annotations, sqlGenerationHelper)
		{
		}

		#region Used to avoid EF history table in scripts
		public override IReadOnlyList<HistoryRow> GetAppliedMigrations() => new List<HistoryRow>();
		public override bool Exists() => true;
		public override Task<bool> ExistsAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken = default(CancellationToken)) => Task.FromResult(true);
		public override string GetCreateIfNotExistsScript() => string.Empty;
		public override string GetBeginIfExistsScript(string migrationId) => string.Empty;
		public override string GetEndIfScript() => string.Empty;
		public override string GetBeginIfNotExistsScript(string migrationId) => string.Empty;
		public override string GetCreateScript() => string.Empty;
		public override string GetDeleteScript(string migrationId) => string.Empty;
		public override string GetInsertScript(HistoryRow row) => "--";
		#endregion
	}

I am not a fan of this types of solutions, I would rather have a simple way to not include the table at all. It could be by overriding something in the HistoryRepository or an option in migration script.
Further technical details
EF Core version: 1.1.2
Database Provider: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer, Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql
Operating system: Any
IDE: Visual Studio 2017

We would consider a PR to add a flag --no-history, or similar.


navbar items setter

Why:
Closes: #3620
My stab at the problem. Trying to make a setter for the store, and expose it in the useConfig() hook, but I can't seem to get it to work. Maybe somebody else can build on this or spot the issue?

What's being changed (if available, include any code snippets, screenshots, or gifs):
Adding and exposing a setter for the store related specifically for the topLevelNavbarItems in normalizePagesResult

Check off the following:

[ ] I have reviewed my changes in staging, available via the View
deployment link in this PR's timeline (this link will be available after
opening the PR).

closing for now, until someone propose better solution


Broken quickstart guide link

The quickstart guide link is broken in
https://sysl.io/blog/welcome/

This will be resolved by deploying the new sysl-website to sysl.io


Revert "Merge pull request #181 from diokey/esccharopen"

This reverts commit 7200af44261b41777b029431f48f7dcb6c333186, reversing
changes made to 3d3b5d711b526da14374f6b674b8755313699072.

Just manually merged, sorry for the delay, thank you!


How to enable autostart /specific default settings through software deployment installation?

Provide a description of requested docs changes
We couldn't find a GPO or any other note in the documentation which explains to rollout Powertoys with specific default settings. In our case we like to enable autostart by default. Is this missing in the docs or not possible at all?

@mgutt
Currently there is no GPO or install parameter to control the autostart behavior.

@jaimecbernardo, @yuyoyuppe
Is this catched by dsc configuration?

@jaimecbernardo, @yuyoyuppe Is this catched by dsc configuration?

The Setting is there. I haven't tested it. Anyway, it's enabled by default when installed.


feat: adding password option to ssh, scp and sftp

Motivation: I want to be able to access files on an sftp server that uses username / password for authentication.
This adds the ability to parse a url like sftp://username:pwd@host:port/path.

Thank you for your contribution.
Can you please have a look at the comments here: https://github.com/RaRe-Technologies/smart_open/pull/279?
Basically, I don't want to bother with handling each individual ssh.connect parameter separately. There are many of them, and from smart_open's point of view, all those parameters are opaque (we just pass them to ssh.connect).
Can you update your PR to handle all connect parameters instead of just password? For example, we want to be able to do this:
tp = {'password': 'secret', 'compress': True}
with smart_open.open('sftp://username@host:port/path') as fin:
    ...

There is a potential for conflict, because people can specify a password in two places: 1) URL and 2) transport_params. It doesn't really matter how we resolve this conflict (override), as long as we document it clearly and warn the user when the override occurs.
Please let me know if anything above is unclear.

Thanks for your comments @mpenkov! Makes total sense, I'll see what I can do

@mpenkov I've just pushed a commit addressing your previous comment - let me know what you think.
Few comments:

I've done this quite quickly just to get it working - I'd like to add some unit tests of ssh to test the transport_params are passed through properly before merging

As mentioned in the commit, I had to move check_kwargs into a helper module in order to use it in the ssh module, let me know if this is undesirable

Just re-read the MR you linked to and seen:

Furthermore, I think instead of passing just the key, we should pass connect_kwargs as dictionary

My latest changes pass the whole of transport_params into the connect call so transport_params would be of the form:
tp = {'password': 'secret', 'compress': True}

would
tp = {connect_kwargs: {'password': 'secret', 'compress': True}}

be preferable? Do you see there being any transport params in the future that don't belong to the connect_kwargs?

I've updated the docstring of ssh.open, is there any other documentation I should update wrt. the precedence of transport_params for username and password?

Cheers

Quick note:

It doesn't really matter how we resolve this conflict (override), as long as we document it clearly and warn the user when the override occurs.

For S3 urls the transport_params take precedence over the url.

@davidwneary Thank you for making the changes, and sorry it has taken me so long to review them. Let me answer your questions first.

Yes, unit tests would be great. You can simply mock out the connect function from paramiko: as long as the parameters are all making it to that function, then it's OK.
I  don't think you need to bother with check_kwargs. It's only necessary for backwards compatibility of the deprecated smart_open.smart_open function. That function accepted **kwargs very liberally and never complained, so in order to maintain that behavior, we had to check_kwargs and log an error. With the transport_params stuff, we don't need to enforce the contract between the user and whatever they're passing keyword arguments to. The interpreter can do it for us.
I'll answer this separately below.

We need to choose between:
    tp = {'password': 'secret', 'compress': True}  # option 1
    tp = {connect_kwargs: {'password': 'secret', 'compress': True}}  # option 2

I agree that option 1 looks better (flat is better than nested, etc). However, option 2 is more powerful because it allows us to eventually pass keyword arguments to functions other than connect. The paramiko API is quite rich, and it's possible that people will want to pass other options as well. Finally, option 2 is also consistent with the rest of the API. So let's go with that.

I don't think you need to do any special handling for transport_params, username and password. We can let the interpreter handle that for us. Consider:

def function(a=1, b=2):
   pass

kwargs = {'a': 3, 'b': 4}
function(1, 2, **kwargs)

The above code will crash: TypeError: function() got multiple values for argument 'a'. I think that is acceptable behavior for us.

@davidwneary How's it going? Just wanted to check up on the progress of this PR. It looks almost done, if you have the time, let's finish it so we can merge.

hi @davidwneary
Do you plan to complete PR? or can i continue?

Closing in favor of #369