标签：#ring

A single-author repo of instruction files, not code, Ponytail passed 44,000 GitHub stars in nine days by making coding agents stop over-building. Its headline claim of 80-94% less code came from a flawed baseline; after a contributor said so, the maintainer rebuilt the benchmark as a real agentic run and published a lower figure of 54%. By Steef-Jan Wiggers

Uploading a PDF and calling a translation model looks like a two-step feature. In production, it is a job pipeline with untrusted input, two different extraction paths, several expensive stages, and an output that can be fluent while still being wrong. That distinction matters for a small SaaS team. The translation request may come from support, sales, or an internal operations task. Nobody wants to operate a document platform, but the workflow still needs to answer basic questions: Was the upload actually a PDF? Does the file contain selectable text or scanned page images? Can a retry create a second charge or a conflicting result? What happens when page 37 fails after the first 36 pages succeed? How do we know the translated PDF is not blank or visually broken? When are the source and result deleted? The translation model is one component. Reliability comes from the system around it. Define the Job Contract First I would not let a file reach an extractor until the API has established a narrow contract. For example, a translation request might include: type TranslationStyle = " general " | " technical " | " academic " ; interface CreateTranslationJob { uploadId : string ; sourceLanguage : string | " auto " ; targetLanguage : string ; style : TranslationStyle ; idempotencyKey : string ; containsRestrictedData : boolean ; } The request should be rejected when the source and target languages are identical, the upload is missing, the target language is unsupported, or policy says the document cannot leave an approved environment. File validation should also be explicit. Do not trust the filename or browser-supplied MIME type. Check at least: the actual byte size; the file signature; whether the parser can open the document; whether the PDF is encrypted; the page count; whether the job fits the account or product limit. A 20 MB limit is simple to explain in a user interface, but size alone is not a good predictor of work. A compressed 200-page text PDF can be smaller th

AWS introduced Kiro Crew on Tuesday as a new open-source orchestration platform. This tool aims to help businesses shift from interactive AI coding assistants toward autonomous engineering workflows. The system manages tasks across various repositories and developer tools over multiple work sessions to increase overall efficiency. Orchestrating autonomous development cycles Kiro Crew goes beyond simple code generation by coordinating multiple AI agents simultaneously. It schedules recurring work and maintains project context even when a session ends. This allows the system to integrate with standard developer tools for investigating incidents or monitoring pull requests. It triages tickets and automates software engineering tasks while developers are away from their workstations. The platform functions as an application layer that turns AI coding agents into self-learning teammates. It features persistent memory and multi-agent orchestration tools to ensure continuity. Security remains a priority with features like sandboxing and signed audit logs. Users can monitor activity through a dedicated web and desktop dashboard designed for transparency. Before its public release, the project existed inside Amazon as an internal tool named MeshClaw. More than 39,000 Amazon builders adopted it in less than six months. This internal success paved the way for the current open-source offering. Companies can deploy the platform entirely within their own environments, such as on local laptops or virtual machines. Reference applications and practical use cases AWS launched several reference applications to show how the platform functions in real-world scenarios. DevFleets manages worktrees, while Issue Radar handles the triage of pull requests and tickets. Task Runner focuses on executing engineering tasks that require a long duration to complete. These apps use specific interfaces combined with the core orchestration engine. These tools are not standalone products but rather exam

Most Snowflake-to-Databricks migrations get sold on cost and delivered on something else. The credit line item is what gets the project funded, but the teams that finish happy are usually the ones that moved for a different reason: they wanted ML, streaming and GenAI workloads living next to the analytics data instead of shuttling between two platforms. If your only justification is the bill, read the breakeven section below before you commit — the honest number is longer than the deck says. We're a Databricks shop , and we've written elsewhere about how to choose between the two platforms if you haven't committed yet. This post assumes you have. What actually changes underneath The two platforms look similar from a SQL console and are structurally different behind it. The mapping worth internalising before planning anything: Layer Snowflake Databricks Storage Proprietary micro-partitions inside Snowflake Delta Lake files in your own S3/ADLS/GCS bucket Compute Virtual warehouses, T-shirt sized Job clusters, all-purpose clusters, SQL Warehouses, Photon Governance Role hierarchy, row access policies, masking policies Unity Catalog across tables, models, notebooks, dashboards Sharing Secure Data Sharing Delta Sharing (open protocol) Billing unit Credits DBUs, priced differently per compute type The storage row is the one with the most downstream consequences. On Snowflake, storage and compute are separate line items on the same bill; on Databricks, storage is your cloud provider's problem and your cloud provider's invoice. That's a genuine benefit — the data stays readable by other engines — but it also means your "Databricks cost" and your "data platform cost" stop being the same number, and finance needs to know that before the first invoice arrives. Pick a strategy before you pick a tool Three patterns, and the choice determines everything after it: Lift-and-shift. Replicate schemas one-to-one, translate the SQL, cut over. Fastest, and it faithfully preserves every

A status page has a blind spot. It can tell you that your API is returning 502s. It can tell you that a TCP port stopped accepting connections. It can tell you when the incident started. It usually cannot tell you why . Was the application host out of memory? Was disk I/O saturated? Did load climb for 40 minutes before users noticed? Was the server completely healthy and the real problem somewhere else? Those answers often live in a separate monitoring product, disconnected from the incident timeline and disconnected from the status page. That is why I built Servers for StatusPage.me. It is a small, customer-installed host metrics agent and dashboard. You install it on a machine you operate, and it reports CPU, memory, swap, load, disk, and network metrics back to your account. The important part is not “now there are more graphs.” The important part is seeing an outage and the host evidence around it on the same timeline. External checks answer one question. Host metrics answer another. Regular uptime monitoring is still the right tool for the outside-in view: Can users reach the website? Is the API returning the expected response? Does DNS resolve correctly? Is the database port open? Did a scheduled job run? But those checks do not run inside your infrastructure. A healthy HTTP response does not prove that a background worker is about to run out of memory. A timeout does not prove that the app server is overloaded. And an incident can start with a slow disk or growing swap usage long before an endpoint is fully unavailable. The distinction is simple: External monitoring tells you what users can see. Host metrics help explain what the machine was doing when they saw it. You need both. What Servers includes Each registered host gets a dedicated dashboard page with: CPU user, system, and I/O wait utilization Memory use Swap use Load averages Disk use and read/write throughput Network inbound and outbound throughput A human-readable OS description for account owners

Instead of one huge, un-reviewable pull request, teach coding agents to decompose work into a clean, ordered stack with GitHub stacked pull requests. The post Turn one giant AI-generated pull request to a reviewable stack appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Quotient CEO Lizzie Matusov explains why soaring AI spend often fails to improve software delivery. She presents a research-backed AI maturity framework designed to help engineering leaders move beyond vanity metrics like token usage, align organizational AI adoption, and address critical bottlenecks across the software development life cycle to deliver measurable business outcomes. By Lizzie Matusov

When you start as a junior developer, you think software engineering is about writing code. A few years in, you think it's about choosing the right architecture and frameworks. After ten-plus years in the trenches - shipping features, surviving on-call disasters, and watching "perfect" codebases turn into unmaintainable monsters - you realize the truth: Software engineering is mostly about managing complexity, human communication, and trade-offs. Here are 25 mistakes I made, witnessed, or had to clean up over the past decade. Hopefully, reading them saves you a few years of painful trial and error. 1. Code & Architecture 1. Abstracting Too Early The DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle is heavily drilled into beginners, but premature abstraction is far worse than duplicate code. Abstracting before you have 3–4 concrete use cases leads to rigid, over-engineered abstractions that are nightmare-inducing to change. Duplication is far cheaper than the wrong abstraction. 2. Falling in Love with "Clever" Code If your code requires a three-minute internal monologue or a complex diagram just to parse a single line, it's not smart - it's a liability. Write obvious, clear, and boring code. Your future self on a 2 AM incident response call will thank you. 3. Misunderstanding the Cost of Dependencies Adding a third-party library to solve a small problem feels like a quick win. In reality, every dependency is a contract you sign with an external team. You inherit their bugs, security vulnerabilities, breaking updates, and maintenance cycles. Ask yourself: Can we build the 5% of this library we actually need in 20 lines of code? 4. Over-Architecting for Scale You Don't Have Designing a system for 10 million daily active users when you currently have 500 is a classic trap. You end up with distributed microservices, message queues, and complex caching strategies that slow down development speed by 10x. Build for today's scale, but keep the boundary clean enough to refactor tomorrow

"A Stack isn't designed to store data. It's designed to make the most recent piece of work the easiest to access." In the previous article, we discovered a new kind of design problem. Some systems don't need to find the fastest item. Some don't need to process tasks in arrival order. Instead, they need to work with whatever happened most recently . That's exactly the problem a Stack solves. In this article, we'll understand how a Stack works and why its behavior appears naturally in many software systems. Imagine a Stack of Plates Think about a stack of dinner plates. Plate 4 ────────── Plate 3 ────────── Plate 2 ────────── Plate 1 ────────── When you need a plate, which one do you take? The one on the top. You don't pull out the bottom plate. Likewise, when placing a new plate, you put it on top. This simple rule defines the behavior of a Stack. What Is a Stack? A Stack is a data structure where both insertion and removal happen from the same end. The last item added is always the first one removed. This behavior is called LIFO (Last In, First Out). Push A ↓ Push B ↓ Push C ↓ Pop ↓ C Notice something important. A Stack isn't trying to preserve arrival order like a Queue. Instead, it preserves recency . The newest item is always the easiest to access. Every Data Structure Solves a Different Design Problem By now, we've seen several data structures, each answering a different question. A HashMap asks: Where is this object? A Heap asks: Which item has the highest priority? A Queue asks: Which task has been waiting the longest? A Stack asks: What happened most recently? Choosing the right data structure begins with identifying which of these questions your system needs to answer. Push and Pop Stacks are built around two simple operations. Push Adding a new item. Before Top ↓ B ↓ A Push C After Top ↓ C ↓ B ↓ A Pop Removing the most recent item. Before Top ↓ C ↓ B ↓ A Pop After Top ↓ B ↓ A Only the top item is removed. Everything below remains untouched. Real-World Examp

Introduction Artificial Intelligence has evolved far beyond answering questions and generating code. Modern AI systems can search databases, interact with APIs, read files, execute commands, access cloud services, and even coordinate multiple tools to complete complex tasks. This shift has given rise to AI agents - systems that don't just generate responses but can actively perform work on behalf of users. However, enabling an AI model to interact with external tools introduces a challenge. Every application, service, and API exposes its capabilities differently. Without a common standard, every AI platform would need custom integrations for every tool it wanted to support. This is where the Model Context Protocol (MCP) comes in. MCP provides a standard way for AI models to discover, understand, and use external tools, data sources, and services. Instead of building separate integrations for each AI model and every application, developers can expose capabilities through a common protocol that different AI clients can understand. In this article, we'll explore what MCP is, why it matters, how it works, and how it's changing the way developers build AI-powered applications. The Problem Before MCP Imagine you're building an AI assistant that needs to interact with: GitHub Slack Google Drive PostgreSQL Jira Notion Local files Internal company APIs Without a shared protocol, every integration becomes a custom implementation. For each tool, you need to define: Authentication API endpoints Request formats Response parsing Error handling Documentation Now imagine supporting multiple AI models. Every model may require different integration logic, increasing development effort and maintenance costs. This creates unnecessary complexity. What Is MCP? At its core, the Model Context Protocol (MCP) is a communication standard between AI models and external systems. Instead of hardcoding every integration, MCP defines a consistent way for an AI client to: Discover available tools U

Platform engineering maturity is emerging as an important factor in determining whether organizations can turn AI adoption into sustainable operational value, according to Perforce Software's 2026 Platform Engineering Report. By Craig Risi

Author: Skydu Summary: A form engine may look like the most basic capability in a low-code platform, but it is really the entry point for business modeling, data structure, permissions, workflows, and future AI understanding. Opening In the previous post, I wrote about why INFORMAT is not meant to be only a low-code tool. Starting from this post, I want to go into specific modules. The first module I want to write about is the form engine. The reason is simple: in a low-code platform, forms look basic, but a form is not just a page. Many enterprise business systems begin with a form. Customer registration, contract approval, project initiation, purchase requests, inventory receiving, equipment inspections, and production reporting are all, at their core, ways to collect, organize, and move business data. So a form engine is not about dragging a few input boxes onto a canvas. It is the entry point for the platform's business modeling capability. The initial requirement looked simple Before building the form engine, my most straightforward idea was this: users should be able to create business forms, configure fields, and let the system automatically generate data-entry pages and data lists. That idea does not sound complicated. A form name, a group of fields, a save button, and a data list seem like enough. But once implementation begins, a series of questions appear quickly. What field types should exist? Can fields be grouped? Can fields depend on each other? Should data be validated? Should a workflow be triggered after submission? Can different people see different fields? How will form data be used by reports, automation, and AI? When these questions stack together, the form engine stops being only a frontend component. It becomes a core module that connects the data model, permission system, workflow system, and automation system. A form is not a page, but a business model I gradually became more certain of one judgment: forms in a low-code platform should not

Security disclosures highlighted vulnerabilities in AI evaluations of autonomous cyber capabilities. Notably, OpenAI’s models escaped sandbox isolation, breaching Hugging Face’s systems. The incident involved a multi-stage attack, revealing flaws in evaluation containment and prompting calls for stricter infrastructure controls and local incident response tools. By Olimpiu Pop

Someone was accused of cheating because they were able to solve a difficult problem very quickly. Not...

Modern backend applications handle thousands or even millions of requests every second. Users perform actions simultaneously: buying products, transferring money, updating profiles, sending messages, and more. But what happens when two requests try to modify the same data at the same time? This is where race conditions appear — one of the most subtle and dangerous problems in backend development. A race condition can cause incorrect data, security issues, financial losses, and unpredictable application behavior. Understanding how race conditions happen and how to prevent them is an essential skill for backend developers. What Is a Race Condition? A race condition occurs when multiple processes or requests access and modify shared data at the same time, and the final result depends on the order in which those operations execute. The problem is that the developer expects operations to happen in a specific sequence, but the computer executes them based on timing, network delays, database speed, and system load. Simple Example: Bank Account Withdrawal Imagine a user has: Account Balance: $100 Two withdrawal requests arrive at the same time: Request A: Withdraw $80 Request B: Withdraw $50 The backend checks the balance: Request A: Balance >= 80? Yes Request B: Balance >= 50? Yes Both requests continue because they saw the original balance of $100. The system processes: $100 - $80 = $20 $100 - $50 = $50 The final balance might become: $50 instead of: -$30 (which should have been rejected) The application has allowed money to be withdrawn that does not exist. This is a race condition. How Race Conditions Happen in Express.js Express.js applications are often built around asynchronous operations: Database queries API calls File operations Background jobs Message queues Consider this simple inventory system: app . post ( " /purchase " , async ( req , res ) => { const product = await Product . findById ( req . body . productId ); if ( product . stock > 0 ) { product . stock -

Most of us use Spring Boot every day. We create a @RestController, run the application, hit an endpoint from Postman, and get a response. But have you ever wondered what actually happens between clicking "Send" in Postman and your controller method executing? When I started digging into Spring internals, I realized there are several layers working together before my controller is even called. Here's the high-level request flow: Postman │ ▼ Operating System │ ▼ Embedded Tomcat │ ▼ Servlet Filter Chain │ ▼ Spring Security (JWT) │ ▼ DispatcherServlet │ ▼ Controller │ ▼ Service │ ▼ Repository │ ▼ Database What surprised me? One thing I misunderstood for a long time was thinking that the request directly reaches my controller. In reality: The Operating System first routes the request to the application listening on the target port (for example, 8080). Embedded Tomcat accepts the connection. The request passes through the Servlet Filter Chain. Spring Security validates the JWT (if security is enabled). Only after successful authentication does the request reach Spring MVC's DispatcherServlet, which finds the correct controller. This means your controller only executes after several infrastructure components have already processed the request. Key Takeaway Understanding this request flow makes Spring Boot feel much less "magical." Instead of memorizing annotations, you begin to understand why they work. In the next post, I'll explain how Spring Boot starts Embedded Tomcat automatically before the first request even arrives.

100 城时区页给跨区调度当速查，DST 自动算 作者是 数据管道 / 跨时区调度 方向的开发者。这篇不是广告，是踩坑记录 + 顺手做的工具。 背景 做 数据管道 / 跨时区调度 时，时间戳转换是最常被低估的雷区。16 个时间戳工具(Unix 转换/时区/ISO8601/Cron/Duration…) 已覆盖日常；但每个语言/框架的坑都不一样，所以又补了 30 个语言/框架时间戳页(python/javascript/java/sql/…)，每页含 6 个真实坑。 我踩过的坑（举几个） 秒 vs 毫秒：前端 Date.now() 是毫秒，后端常存秒，混用差 1000 倍。 时区不是字符串：存 UTC、展示本地，别把本地时间当 UTC 落库。 2038 问题：32 位系统 time_t 在 2038-01-19 溢出，老系统要提前查。 夏令时：一年有两次重复/缺失的本地时间，跨区调度尤其坑。 我顺手做的东西 转换速查页： https://gotimestamp.com/timezone/new-york 相关语言页： https://gotimestamp.com/timezone/london 开源 MCP： https://github.com/caresotin/tsforge-mcp —— 把时间戳转换/校验直接接进 LLM 工作流，不用手算。 小结 时间戳没那么简单，但工具到位就省心。上面都是免费、开源、可直接用的，希望对同样踩坑的人有帮助。

In a recent Azure Architecture blog article, Azure lead engineer Kishorekumar Pattabiraman outlines practical criteria for choosing between skills, sub-agents, and other approaches when building AI systems, emphasizing reusability, simplicity, and long-term maintainability. By Sergio De Simone

After working on enterprise applications and distributed microservices, I have realized that the biggest challenges rarely come from writing business logic. They come from handling production traffic, failures, concurrency, and unexpected edge cases. Here are seven lessons that every Spring Boot developer should know before calling themselves a senior engineer. 1. Never Assume an API Will Be Called Only Once One of the most common mistakes is assuming a client sends exactly one request. In reality: Users refresh the page. Mobile apps retry automatically. API gateways retry requests. Kafka consumers may reprocess events. Network failures cause duplicate submissions. If your endpoint creates an order, payment, or booking every time it receives a request, duplicates are almost guaranteed. Better Approach Design APIs to be idempotent . For example: Use an Idempotency-Key. Store processed request IDs. Ignore duplicate requests safely. Production systems should always expect duplicate requests. 2. Database Transactions Are Not Enough Many developers believe this solves everything: @Transactional public void createOrder () { ... } It doesn't. A transaction protects changes inside a single database . It does not protect: Kafka publishing Email sending External REST APIs Redis updates File uploads If your database commits successfully but Kafka publishing fails, your system is already inconsistent. Better Approach Use patterns such as: Transactional Outbox Saga Pattern Event-driven architecture Retry with dead-letter queues 3. Don't Trust External APIs Every external service will eventually fail. Your payment provider. Your authentication service. Your notification service. Even your own internal microservices. Never assume another service is always available. Add Protection Timeouts Retries Circuit Breakers Fallback logic Monitoring Failing fast is usually better than waiting forever. 4. Logging Is More Valuable Than You Think When production goes down, nobody asks: "Was th

Half the market is arguing about whether RAG or a semantic layer is the right foundation for enterprise AI. They are not competing. They answer different questions, and most teams need both. Two shapes of question Every question an agent receives breaks into one of two forms: "What did we say about X?" — lives in contracts, policies, tickets, docs. Unstructured. RAG was built for this. "What is true about X?" — lives in your warehouse and governed metrics. Structured. A semantic layer was built for this. Treating them as rivals is how teams end up with a system that can quote the pricing policy but cannot tell you this quarter's realised price. Where each one breaks RAG Semantic layer Good at Retrieving relevant prose Resolving definitions and joins Fails on Aggregation, math, current state Anything not modelled as data Permissions Flattened at ingest, rebuilt at query time Compiled per person, per query Answer stability Varies with retrieval ranking Identical by construction Audit story Cites a chunk Reproduces the exact SQL The permissions row is the one that ends pilots. A retrieval index that ingested everything has, by construction, assembled your most sensitive object — and reconstructing entitlement at query time is guesswork. The layer that actually decides Neither a document chunk nor a metric definition is worth much until something compiles it into a governed query and runs it. That is the piece most architectures are missing: intent → context resolution → constrained planning → governed execution . RAG can feed the first step. It cannot perform the last three. Point an agent at raw tables and the best models score in the low teens on real enterprise data. Give the same model compiled, governed context and it clears the high nineties. The retrieval quality was never the bottleneck. The full breakdown — the precise division of labour, why hybrid architectures win, and how compile-time governance closes the gap RAG cannot — is here: 👉 RAG vs. Semantic Layer