How to add allowed methods list in magento2 shipping using custom extension?

    <each if="!quoteIsVirtual" args="getRegion('customer-email')" render="" />
    <each args="getRegion('address-list')" render="" />
    <each args="getRegion('address-list-additional-addresses')" render="" />

    <!-- Address form pop up -->
    <if args="!isFormInline">
        <div class="new-address-popup">
            <button type="button"
                    class="action action-show-popup"
                    click="showFormPopUp"
                    visible="!isNewAddressAdded()">
                <span translate="'New Address'" />
            </button>
        </div>
        <div id="opc-new-shipping-address"
             visible="isFormPopUpVisible()"
             render="shippingFormTemplate" />
    </if>

    <each args="getRegion('before-form')" render="" />

    <!-- Inline address form -->
    <render if="isFormInline" args="shippingFormTemplate" />
</div>
    <each args="getRegion('before-shipping-method-form')" render="" />

    <div id="checkout-step-shipping_method"
         class="step-content"
         data-role="content"
         role="tabpanel"
         aria-hidden="false">
        <form id="co-shipping-method-form"
              class="form methods-shipping"
              if="rates().length"
              submit="setShippingInformation"
              novalidate="novalidate">

            <render args="shippingMethodListTemplate"/>



            <div id="onepage-checkout-shipping-method-additional-load">
                <each args="getRegion('shippingAdditional')" render="" />
            </div>
            <div role="alert"
                 if="errorValidationMessage().length"
                 class="message notice">
                <span text="errorValidationMessage()" />
            </div>
            <div class="actions-toolbar" id="shipping-method-buttons-container">
                <div class="primary">
                    <button data-role="opc-continue" type="submit" class="button action continue primary">
                        <span translate="'Next'" />
                    </button>
                </div>
            </div>
        </form>
        <div class="no-quotes-block"
             ifnot="rates().length > 0"
             translate="'Sorry, no quotes are available for this order at this time'" />
    </div>
</div>

web app – Best way to explain popup blocking to users and have them allowed?

I’m working on a web application that uses a pop-up to display the window where the users input their credit card details and pay. This, of course, is preventing MANY users from doing do so because of automatic pop-up blocking from most browsers. Cart abandonment is pretty big.

No, the pop-up isn’t necesary and the whole company is well aware of the problems it causes, but right now there’s nothing we can do to go around it. I’d explain why (tech limitations and “strategic” alliances with financial services providers) but it’s beyond the point. We just have to use the pop-up right now…

Our client base is pretty old and/or not very tech savvy, so this makes the problem even worse. I’m strugglind to find an effective way of showing them how to allow pop ups, besides a video tutorial.

Can you think of any good examples or practices to deal with the problem, UX-wise?

Thanks

dnd 5e – If a Shadow sorcerer’s Hound of Ill Omen “can use its action only to attack its target”, what exactly is it allowed to do?

A typical creature, on their turn “can move a distance up to (their) speed and take one action”. By default, they don’t get a bonus action; those are usually granted by class features, spells, etc..

More specifically, regarding Bonus Actions:

Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. … You can take a bonus action only when a … feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action.

The Hound’s description doesn’t specifically preclude their taking bonus actions, so they would be able to were a spell to grant one (note, though, that Expeditious Retreat has a target of “self”, so getting it cast on the Hound might be tricky).

So, what can the Hound do on their turn? They can move, and they can use their action to attack. What does that mean?

If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

— Making an Attack

Clearly, then, they can try to bite their target (as per the dire wolf on which they’re based). But, can they grapple or shove? Yes!

Making an Attack calls out those two options:

Grappling

When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple.

and, Shoving

Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you.

In both cases, the key bit is that they “make a … melee attack”. Since the Hound of Ill Omen can use their action to attack and both grappling and shoving are types of attacks, the Hound can do so.

Expanding on that a bit, there are a few actions one can take on their turn; the ones called out in the SRD are:

  • Attack
  • Cast a Spell
  • Dash
  • Disengage
  • Dodge
  • Help
  • Hide
  • Ready
  • Search
  • Use an Object

The Hound of Ill Omen’s description includes:

On its turn, (the Hound of Ill Omen) … can use its action only to attack its target.

thus, it is prohibited from, say, taking the Ready action or attempting to Hide. They are similarly precluded from Dashing as their action. But, since grappling and shoving are both attacks, they’re welcome to do either if they so desire (and the other requirements are missed, eg., that the target isn’t too large).

I will note that grappling specifically “(uses) at least one free hand…”; this GM would generally allow a creature with a free appendage (including a wolf’s mouth) to grapple but, RAW, there’s room to say that a Hound can’t grapple because they don’t have a hand.

7 – Drush on server: Error: Allowed memory size issue

I have Drush installed on my Inmotion hosting server.
For one Drupal 7 site, it works just fine but for the other one, which is nearly identical, it doesn’t work so well.
Some commands it allows (like my favourite drush sql-dump or drush cc followed by 5) and but when I do a command drush cc all it throws an out-of-memory issue as shown below:

Drush command terminated abnormally due to an unrecoverable error.                                                                         (error)
Error: Allowed memory size of 134217728 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 20480 bytes) in
/home/myAccount/public_html/mysite.net/sites/all/modules/views/includes/base.inc, line 129

The issues stemming from the base.inc file are:

after command: drush cc all: on line 129:
$storage($option) = isset($definition('default')) ? $definition('default') : NULL;

The issues stemming from the view.inc file are:

after command: drush cc all: on line 2244:
$this->$field = unserialize($info('serialized default'));

after command: drush cc all: on line 2312:
$this->$field = empty($info('serialize')) ? $data->$field : unserialize($data->$field);

The php.ini files are identical on both sites.
The settings.php files are not identical and I thought it would be resolved by adding the same lines to the ending of the file

ini_set('memory_limit', '512M');
error_reporting(E_ALL);
$conf('error_level') = 2;
ini_set('display_errors', TRUE);
ini_set('display_startup_errors', TRUE);

but this didn’t solve the problem (even after clearing the cache).

What could cause this problem?

adnd 2e – Are Ogres allowed to become Priests of Vaprak?

The Complete Book of Humanoids allows for PC Ogres with a level limit of 3 in Shaman and no other divine spellcasting class allowed.

Monster Mythology provides details for Vaprak’s (the god of Ogres) priesthood, with a level limit of 3 for Shamans and a level limit of 7 for Speciality Priests.

My understanding of Specialty Priests is they are something that can be taken instead of Cleric. Is my understanding of Specialty Priests flawed or is there something else RAW that addresses this?

Monster Mythology additionally states in the intro that other races can become a Specialty Priest for any given god, but if they are not the god’s race they have the same level limit as the Shaman. It seems clear the intention was to allow Ogres to get to level 7 Priests under Vaprak, which is how I’m ruling it in my game, but I’m hoping to find something RAW to further justify that decision.

visas – From India to Dubai, non Indian and non UAE citizen and allowed for VOA. But there’s a trick

I’m in India. I’m not Indian, not UAE resident, not from the Gulf countries either. I’m allowed to obtain visa on arrival in Dubai nowadays during the pandemic, and it’s with certanty.

The thing, however, is: even though I’m allowed to obtain VOA in Dubai, it’s still unclear whether or not I’m permitted to travel there concretely from India and now. And I have no one to ask about this who’d give a definitive answer.

Note I already know that yes, I’m allowed to get VOA in Dubai, as I’m in contact with my fellows of my country, with the same residency and citizenship, on other travel forums, who are flying to Dubai nowadays, from other countries, daily, and do get VOA for 3 months.

But even that may not be enough to take a flight from India during this time.

Look:

(1) FlyDubai and Emirates state on their websites that on “India – Dubai” they allow only indian residents and UAE ones. Already there’s a restriction.

(2) At https://www.civilaviation.gov.in/en/about-air-transport-bubbles in regards to UAE – the same thing:

India has created an air bubble arrangement with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This bubble is valid till 31.10.2020. Indian and UAE carriers are now permitted to operate flights between India and UAE and carry the following categories of persons on such flights:

A. From India to UAE:

i. UAE nationals.

ii. ICA approved UAE residents destined for UAE only.

iii. Any Indian national holding any type of valid UAE visa and destined for UAE only. It would be for the airlines concerned to ensure that there is no travel restriction for Indian nationals to enter UAE with the particular visa category before issue of ticket/ boarding pass to the Indian passenger.

(3) Vistara, GoAir, IndiGo kind of has implied that accept everyone as long as he’s permitted to enter Dubai with either visa or visa on arrival. But never do they imply it directly.

(4) The airlines don’t bother to read them via Facebook and email always answer with a generic response: “go ask the embassy of UAE”. Then “we don’t know, we just fly and follow the rules, check out our website”. “Ahhh, yeah yeah, you’ll be allowed. Ohhh, nooo, may be you won’t be allowed. What’s the rule you’re talking about?” Never has they given me a clear answer. Not by phone either.

So, am I allowed to fly to Dubai? And if I am, how about the (2)?

P.S. I’ve already been denied boarding at a flight “India – Amsterdam – Turkey” (single ticket, with a transfer) because of a similar rule at (2) for Netherlands, even though I’m permitted to a) transit through Netherlands and b) get VOA in Turkey, nowadays too.

P.S.S I’m aware about a PCR test, a ticket to a third-country and so on.

altcoin – Has or will there ever been any new “Bitcoin Gold rush” similar to the hard forks that allowed you to “trick” your way to new coins?

I asked this question yesterday, but some apparently mentally ill person “closed” it as “off-topic” even though it could not possibly be more on-topic, using perfect tags. It was also downvoted twice for no reason. Although it’s probably a waste of time to retry in such a toxic place as this site has become, I’m going to make another attempt, since I want to know the answer and have nowhere else to ask.

A couple of years ago, there was this really unexpected and bizarre thing for a few months (or weeks?) where a bunch of Bitcoin hard forks were created, such as “Bitcoin Gold”, whose only purpose seemed to be to allow for Bitcoin havers to gain extra Bitcoin. I was one of those who took advantage of this, and this is how it worked (grossly simplified, with tons of more problems/steps in practice):

  1. I downloaded Bitcoin Gold’s version of Bitcoin Core into a VM and let it sync its entire blockchain. This took many days.
  2. On my real machine, with the real Bitcoin Core, I created a new wallet.dat and transferred all my Bitcoin from my old wallet.dat to this new one.
  3. I took my now empty old wallet.dat and put it inside the VM and started Bitcoin Gold.
  4. It now saw as many Bitcoins (Bitcoin Gold) as I had when Bitcoin Gold forked.
  5. I transferred these Bitcoin Gold to an exchange (before they all forced photo id).
  6. I traded them for actual Bitcoin, because crazy people existed who actually wanted these “worthless” hardfork-coins.
  7. I transferred the Bitcoin from the exchange to my real Bitcoin Core.
  8. I now had slightly more Bitcoin than before I started!

Doing this over and over, with each one of these weird “hard forks”, I was able to gain several entire Bitcoins. While a ton of work, and super scary (it felt like I could lose all my real Bitcoin at any moment…), I found this really fascinating and cool. I had very few Bitcoin in my wallet when the forks happened, sadly, but imagine if you already had 100 BTC or something from the start… You’d have gotten tons of extra coins if you had done this! I bet many did.

Sadly, these “hard forks” died out pretty quickly, and this small window of opportunity was then over, seemingly forever. It never seems to have happened again, or, if it did, I certainly have missed it completely.

Since I find it utterly impossible to make money (whether it be fiat or Bitcoin), this was a golden (no pun intended) opportunity for me to gain some extra BTC.

How would I know if something similar happens again? Was I just incredibly lucky to have somehow heard of this while it happened? I frankly can’t stand a single Bitcoin news source (that I know of) as they are 99-100% all about cryptic (no pun intended) BS and fluff and almost never say a word about Bitcoin itself in any meaningful manner.

I guess it’s stupid to sit around and wait/hope for this to happen again, but I’m not even sure if this was widely understood/known, and I no longer have any means to get Bitcoin news other than Slashdot “articles”, which are very unlikely to report on anything other than how badly Bitcoin is doing at the moment.

altcoin – Has/will there ever been any new “Bitcoin Gold rush” similar to the hard forks that allowed you to “trick” your way to new coins?

A couple of years ago, there was this really unexpected and bizarre thing for a few months (or weeks?) where a bunch of Bitcoin hard forks were created, such as “Bitcoin Gold”, whose only purpose seemed to be to allow for Bitcoin havers to gain extra Bitcoin. I was one of those who took advantage of this, and this is how it worked (grossly simplified, with tons of more problems/steps in practice):

  1. I downloaded Bitcoin Gold’s version of Bitcoin Core into a VM and let it sync its entire blockchain. This took many days.
  2. On my real machine, with the real Bitcoin Core, I created a new wallet.dat and transferred all my Bitcoin from my old wallet.dat to this new one.
  3. I took my now empty old wallet.dat and put it inside the VM and started Bitcoin Gold.
  4. It now saw as many Bitcoins (Bitcoin Gold) as I had when Bitcoin Gold forked.
  5. I transferred these Bitcoin Gold to an exchange (before they all forced photo id).
  6. I traded them for actual Bitcoin, because crazy people existed who actually wanted these “worthless” hardfork-coins.
  7. I transferred the Bitcoin from the exchange to my real Bitcoin Core.
  8. I now had slightly more Bitcoin than before I started!

Doing this over and over, with each one of these weird “hard forks”, I was able to gain several entire Bitcoins. While a ton of work, and super scary (it felt like I could lose all my real Bitcoin at any moment…), I found this really fascinating and cool. I had very few Bitcoin in my wallet when the forks happened, sadly, but imagine if you already had 100 BTC or something from the start… You’d have gotten tons of extra coins if you had done this! I bet many did.

Sadly, these “hard forks” died out pretty quickly, and this small window of opportunity was then over, seemingly forever. It never seems to have happened again, or, if it did, I certainly have missed it completely.

Since I find it utterly impossible to make money (whether it be fiat or Bitcoin), this was a golden (no pun intended) opportunity for me to gain some extra BTC.

How would I know if something similar happens again? Was I just incredibly lucky to have somehow heard of this while it happened? I frankly can’t stand a single Bitcoin news source (that I know of) as they are 99-100% all about cryptic (no pun intended) BS and fluff and almost never say a word about Bitcoin itself in any meaningful manner.

I guess it’s stupid to sit around and wait/hope for this to happen again, but I’m not even sure if this was widely understood/known, and I no longer have any means to get Bitcoin news other than Slashdot “articles”, which are very unlikely to report on anything other than how badly Bitcoin is doing at the moment.

Oracle SQL- Insert Statement- SQL Error: ORA-00984: column not allowed here

i am trying to to update table but its not accepting NULL. what can I do in order for it to accept NULL? The error im getting is as follow :

SQL Error: ORA-00984: column not allowed here
00984. 00000 – “column not allowed here”

the code I implemented is :

INSERT into Employees
Values (242,'Anouar','seljouki','seljouki84@gmail.com',0662777081,
19-May-2012,AD_CMMS,16000,NULL,NULL,Null);

Thank you

linux – Is there a way to specify in a table which executables (via locations & hashes) are allowed to run on Debian?

I’d like to have a table of executables that are allowed to be run on the machine with everything else not getting executed even when the executable flag is set. For instance via a config file like this:

| command        | location                  | allowed | hash  | access options 
|----------------|---------------------------|---------|-------|--------------------
| youtube-dl     | /usr/local/bin/youtube-dl | x       | ...   | firejail youtube-dl

(This table could also define the way that the software is allowed to be called – “access options” – with the default option allowing for direct calls and otherwise only allowing e.g. certain commands or a list of authorized software to launch it.)

I think from a security standpoint this would make sense for a mechanism for authorizing software to run on the machine and to ensure their integrity via hashes. And more specific: this could also hash all dependencies a software has (the hash in the table could e.g. be a hash of all the relevant hashes of the software) and thereby ensure the software’s integrity.

Does something like this exist for Debian (probably as part of the Linux kernel; it would need to have default entries for all the software that is required by Linux/GNU/the DE so that it can start up properly)?