标签：#c

I had a /image endpoint capped at 3 requests per minute. Simple express-rate-limit, keyed by IP,...

The Model Context Protocol team has promoted its Enterprise-Managed Authorisation extension to stable status, adding a centralised way for organisations to control access to MCP servers through their identity provider. The project states the aim is to replace per-server consent prompts with a zero-touch flow in which users sign in once and then access approved servers without further setup. By Matt Saunders

GitHub热门项目 | A Python library for building AI agents that leverage the full power of Google Antigravity. | Stars: 2,250 | 21 stars today | 语言: Python

When a bug is fixed, most teams retest the exact failure path once and move on. That is understandable, but it leaves a gap: the team learned something from a real failure, then failed to turn that learning into reusable regression coverage. Here is a lightweight template I use for turning resolved bugs into regression test cases that can be copied into a spreadsheet, Jira, TestRail, Qase, Xray, Zephyr, or any other QA workflow. The CSV fields For a bug fix regression test, I like these columns: Test ID Bug ID Feature Area Regression Scenario Original Failure Preconditions Test Data Steps Expected Result Negative Check Priority Regression Risk Test Type Automation Candidate Notes This is enough structure to make the test reusable without turning every bug fix into a heavyweight test plan. Example bug Bug ID: BUG-1842 Bug title: Non-admin users could resend workspace invitations. Original failure: A workspace member could open Pending Invitations and click Resend, even though only owners and admins should be allowed to resend invitation emails. Fix summary: The resend invitation action now checks the user's workspace role before sending the email. Example regression test case Test ID: REG-BUG-1842-001 Feature Area: Workspace invitations Regression Scenario: Workspace member cannot resend a pending invitation. Preconditions: Workspace has at least one pending invitation. Test user is a workspace member, not an owner or admin. User is logged in. Steps: Log in as the workspace member. Open Workspace Settings. Go to Pending Invitations. Locate the pending invitation. Check whether the Resend action is visible or available. If the action can be triggered through the API, attempt the resend request. Expected Result: The member cannot resend the pending invitation. The UI hides or disables the action, and the API rejects unauthorized resend attempts. Negative Check: Confirm that an owner or admin can still resend the invitation if product rules allow it. Priority: High Regr

With a Real CI Automation Example Loop Engineering is suddenly everywhere, and honestly, I wanted to understand it properly instead of just repeating the buzzword. The simplest way I can explain Loop Engineering is this: it replaces me as the person constantly prompting the agent. Instead of me manually noticing a problem, deciding what it means, writing the next prompt, and pushing the process forward, I design a system that keeps moving on its own until it reaches the outcome I want. That is the whole point of Loop Engineering. I stop acting like the operator and start acting like the system designer. To make that idea concrete, I built a practical software engineering workflow around CI failures. Whenever a GitHub Actions CI run fails, the system automatically classifies the failure, creates a Jira bug for real issues, sends a Slack notification, and records the outcome so it does not process the same failure twice. What Loop Engineering actually means Early AI workflows were mostly linear. I would give a prompt, the model would return an answer, and if the answer was incomplete or wrong, I would jump back in and prompt again. That worked, but it kept me trapped inside the process. Loop Engineering changes that dynamic. I am no longer the person babysitting each step. I build an autonomous loop that can observe, decide, act, and persist state. The system keeps iterating until the task is done, without needing me to micromanage it. That distinction matters. In a normal prompt based workflow, the human is still the glue. In Loop Engineering, the human creates the machine, and the machine runs the loop. The five building blocks of Loop Engineering When I break down Loop Engineering, I think of it as five core building blocks working together. 1. Automations These are the event driven triggers that start the whole system. They are the heartbeat of the loop. Something happens, and the automation fires. Without this, nothing starts. 2. Skills Skills give the agent stru

In my previous articles, I’ve consistently emphasized a core architectural principle: once the render layer no longer dictates the entire data flow, the boundaries between State, Derived State, and Effects become critical. When we fall into the habit of stuffing every UI-affecting variable into generic "state," the system quickly loses its semantic structure. In modern frontend applications, this architectural gap becomes most glaring when dealing with asynchronous work. Async data is never merely "a value that will appear in the future." It carries complex semantics regarding its source, temporal validity, cancellation, error recovery, and invalidation. If these semantics aren't modeled explicitly, they inevitably get pushed down into the UI framework’s lifecycle—indirectly patched together through component mounts, effect dependencies, and callback guards. This brings us to the core question of this article: What does a system lose when the correctness of async work is forced to depend on the UI lifecycle? We are all incredibly familiar with this pattern: const data = await fetchSomething () setState ( data ) Or, using a standard UI framework hook: useEffect (() => { let cancelled = false fetchSomething (). then ( result => { if ( ! cancelled ) { setData ( result ) } }) return () => { cancelled = true } }, []) There is nothing inherently wrong with this code for simple use cases. It’s intuitive and perfectly aligns with how Promises are designed to work: trigger the operation, wait for the resolution, and write the result back into state. However, this mental model has a subtle downside. It encourages us to think of async work as simply calling setState after a Promise resolves. That may hold up for simple screens, but as an application grows, the model starts to expose structural problems. Promise Only Describes Completion, Not Ownership A Promise solves a very specific problem: A piece of work will complete in the future, and it will either succeed or fail. It c

📦 Code: github.com/USER/hls-multi-audio - replace before publishing TL;DR We'll add a working language picker to an HLS player. The hard part isn't the dropdown, it's the manifest. We'll author alternate audio with EXT-X-MEDIA audio groups, package it correctly, debug the classic "zero audio tracks" bug, and wire a switcher on hls.js v1.7 . Adaptive video, captions, the whole pipeline already works. Now someone wants an English/Spanish audio toggle. In HLS, "which audio can the viewer pick" is decided at packaging time and written into the master playlist. The player just displays it. Let's build it in that order. 1. Understand the structure (audio groups) HLS decouples video variants from audio renditions: Each audio rendition is an #EXT-X-MEDIA:TYPE=AUDIO entry pointing at its own media playlist. Renditions are bundled into a named audio group via GROUP-ID . Each video variant ( #EXT-X-STREAM-INF ) references a group with AUDIO="..." . A correct master playlist: #EXTM3U #EXT-X-VERSION:6 #EXT-X-MEDIA:TYPE=AUDIO,GROUP-ID="aud",NAME="English",LANGUAGE="en",DEFAULT=YES,AUTOSELECT=YES,CHANNELS="2",URI="audio/en.m3u8" #EXT-X-MEDIA:TYPE=AUDIO,GROUP-ID="aud",NAME="Espanol",LANGUAGE="es",DEFAULT=NO,AUTOSELECT=YES,CHANNELS="2",URI="audio/es.m3u8" #EXT-X-STREAM-INF:BANDWIDTH=2128000,CODECS="avc1.640028,mp4a.40.2",AUDIO="aud" video/720p.m3u8 #EXT-X-STREAM-INF:BANDWIDTH=1128000,CODECS="avc1.640020,mp4a.40.2",AUDIO="aud" video/480p.m3u8 Every attribute earns its place: LANGUAGE - BCP-47 code, used for the label. DEFAULT - plays when the viewer has no preference. AUTOSELECT - may be auto-picked from the OS language. CHANNELS - needed so the player can reason about stereo vs surround. BANDWIDTH on each video variant must include the audio group's bitrate , or your ABR logic works from a wrong total. 2. Author the renditions with FFmpeg Extract/encode each language's audio, then package. First, encode video-only and audio-only renditions: # video only (no audio), two ladder rungs

"It works on my test input" is the most dangerous sentence in on-device AI development. I typed that sentence - or some version of it - a dozen times while building Redacto, our on-device PII redaction app running Gemma 4 E2B on a Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra. The model would redact a patient name from a clinical note, I would nod, and I would move on. Then I would hand the phone to a teammate, they would type a police report, and the model would redact the suspect description instead of the victim name. The problem is not the model. The problem is that manual spot-checking is not validation. You are testing a single input against your own expectations, with all the confirmation bias that entails. When you have five domain modes (HIPAA, Financial, Tactical, Journalism, Field Service), three difficulty levels, and two candidate models, you need something systematic. You need a benchmark suite. This post covers how I built one - from dataset curation to scoring methodology to on-device infrastructure - for a hackathon app running entirely on a phone. No cloud. No API calls. No data leaving the device. Why Not Use an Existing Framework? The LLM evaluation space has mature tools. EleutherAI's lm-eval-harness is the community standard for evaluating language models against academic benchmarks like MMLU, HellaSwag, and ARC. Stanford's HELM (Holistic Evaluation of Language Models) provides a multi-metric evaluation framework with standardized scenarios. Google's BIG-bench offers hundreds of tasks for probing specific capabilities. These frameworks are excellent for what they do. They are also completely wrong for this problem, for three reasons. First, they assume server-side inference. lm-eval-harness expects to call a model through an API or load it in PyTorch on a GPU server. Redacto's model runs on a Qualcomm Hexagon NPU inside a phone. There is no Python runtime, no HuggingFace tokenizer at evaluation time, no way to hook into the framework's inference loop. Second, their

Plenty of SEO audits end with a single tool report. You run Lighthouse, screenshot Search Console coverage, save a "12 issues found" panel, and call it done. The trouble is that most audits finished that way silently revert within three months. Someone publishes a new post, refactors a component, swaps a font, and the issue quietly comes back. Nobody notices. Over the last five days I actually audited my four-language blog (ko/ja/en/zh, 298 posts per language). Five items, all fixed. But what I really want to talk about isn't what I fixed. It's that the five fixes mattered less than the build gates that keep them from ever returning. An audit should be a loop, not an event. Why a one-report audit always comes back Most technical SEO issues aren't "the code is wrong." They're "an invariant was never enforced anywhere." Take a clear rule: a published post must not link internally to a draft. Obvious enough. But if a human has to remember that every time, then the moment a recommendation generator pulls in one draft slug, a 404 is born. The report catches that 404 and shows it to you, but it does nothing to prevent the next one. So I ran the audit as a three-step loop. Measure. Fix the biggest item first. Then turn that item into a checker and nail it to the build . Skip the third step and the first two become a chore you repeat every six months. Once a gate is in place, the same class of problem makes npm run build fail. A pipeline enforces the rule, not human memory. This isn't a new invention. It's the same logic by which tests prevent bug regressions, applied to the content and markup layer. It's just oddly rare in SEO, where most teams leave "SEO checks" as a quarterly manual task. The five items I actually ran over five days Measurement first. Each item got a before/after in numbers, not a vibe that "things feel better" but reproducible figures. (The raw log of all five lives on the improvement history page too.) Date Item Before After Gate 07-02 relatedPosts int

While other humanoid startups chase sky-high valuations, Agility Robotics is betting its future on execution — and a SPAC.