I will rank your website on Google using proper link building for $99

I will rank your website on Google using proper link building

WELCOME TO MY GOOGLE 1st Page RANKING GIG

Hi there!!

Having your Website or Web-page on the top positions of Google makes millions of people

aware of your business. Being on the first page of Google is very important because consumers believe that if a site is at the top of the search is because it is good, relevant, and reliable.

why I am qualified for This Job:

100% White Hat

100% Manual Submission

100% Ethical

I will improve the positions of your targeted keywords in Google else work for free of charge until it improves You need to supply me with:

keywords which you’re targeting

Website URL or any sort of URL.

100% worth of cash Finally.

I might wish to say, rank depends on your on-page changes as our suggestions, and Guaranteed Google first page depends upon those changes. And I never tell you, you’ll get rank within a day or a week after complete work. you’ll get rank gradually with 1-2months and Google considerably likes it. Invest in your rankings and obtain the permanent business now!!!

Why you are late? Order now to RANK FIRST!

Note: Custom offers are also available.


Thanks!

Some of My Service Features:

  • Social Bookmarking
  • Answers posting
  • Web 2.0
  • Slide share
  • Doc share
  • Article submission
  • Guest post
  • Blog Comment
  • Forum Posting

My Service price:

1. One Low competition keyword google 1st-page ranking 15 days $75

2. Two Low competition keywords google 1st-page ranking 20 days $99

3. Three Low competition keywords google 1st-page ranking 30 days $110

4. Four Low competition keywords google 1st-page ranking 30 days $115

5. Five Low competition keywords google 1st-page ranking 30 days $125

.

proper way to apply patch inside m2-hotfixes folder?

I did google and found a patch. I created the patch dilw and place it to m2-hotfixes folder.
Anyone can help, I should use what command to apply the patch file inside that folder?

python – How should I use overloads with proper type annotations?

I have a CLI lib to automate batch operations on GitHub with many use cases: create issue, merge PR, delete branch… Since they all operate in a similar fashing regarding execution and output, I created a parent class GhUseCase as follows:

class GhUseCase:
    # ...other methods
    def action(self, github_repo: str, *args: Any, **kwargs: Any) -> None:
        """Execute some action in a repo."""
        raise NotImplementedError  # pragma: no cover

    def execute(
        self, *args: Any, **kwargs: Any
    ) -> Union(res.ResponseFailure, res.ResponseSuccess):
        """Execute GitHubUseCase."""
        if self.github_repo:
            self.action(self.github_repo, *args, **kwargs)
        else:
            for github_repo in self.config_manager.config.github_selected_repos:
                self.action(github_repo, *args, **kwargs)
        return self.generate_response()

Basically, each use cases inherits this class and implements action method. Eg:

import git_portfolio.use_cases.gh as gh

class GhDeleteBranchUseCase(gh.GhUseCase):
    """Github delete branch use case."""

    def action(self, github_repo: str, branch: str) -> None:  # type: ignore(override)
        """Delete branches."""
        github_service_method = "delete_branch_from_repo"
        self.call_github_service(github_service_method, github_repo, branch)

Full use-cases code can be found in this branch (files with names stating in gh).

The problem is that each use case’s action has a different list of parameters and I could not find a proper way to declare the type annotations without having type: ignore(override) errors on Mypy.

Any ideas of how to make this better and properly annotated?

ag.algebraic geometry – Necessary and sufficient condition for the lifting of a proper map to be proper

For $i=1,2$ let $(X_i,v_i)$ be two connected topological manifolds, two subgroups $H_ileq pi_1(X_i,v_i)$, two coverings $q_{H_i}:big(overline{X_i}(H_i),overline{v_i}big)to (X_i,v_i)$ corresponding to $H_i$.

Consider a proper map $f:(X_1,v_1)to (X_2,v_2)$ such that $f_#(H_1)leq H_2$ i.e. we have a lift $overline{f}:big(overline{X_1}(H_1),overline{v_1}big)to big(overline{X_2}(H_2),overline{v_2}big)$ with $q_{H_2}circoverline f=fcirc q_{H_1}$.

$require{AMScd}$
begin{CD}
left(overline{X_1}(H_1),overline{v_1}right) @>displaystyleoverline f>> left(overline{X_2}(H_2),overline{v_2}right)\
@Vq_{H_1} V V @VV q_{H_2}V\
left(X_1,v_1right) @>>displaystyle f> left(X_2,v_2right)\
end{CD}

Is there any necessary and sufficient condintions on $f, H_1,H_2$ such
that $overline f$ is a proper map?

go – Proper way to range over a variable?

I have code that is inside an ever-expanding switch statement. I would like to just make this a loop though. Any idea how I can change this to a loop since this is generally the same code?

switch key {
    case types.CREATE_NEW_BUCKETS_INTERVAL_KEY:
        b.OngoingCreateNewBucketsInterval.CorrelationID = correlationID //Notice how this is repeating
        b.OngoingCreateNewBucketsInterval.Task = m[types.TASK]
        b.OngoingCreateNewBucketsInterval.ExecuteTime = executeTime

    case types.BUCKET_SWEEP_KEY:
        b.OngoingBucketSweep.CorrelationID = correlationID
        b.OngoingBucketSweep.Task = m[types.TASK]
        b.OngoingBucketSweep.ExecuteTime = executeTime

    case types.SEND_STATUS_ON_FINISHED_KEY:
        b.OngoingSendStatusOnFished.CorrelationID = correlationID
        b.OngoingSendStatusOnFished.Task = m[types.TASK]
        b.OngoingSendStatusOnFished.ExecuteTime = executeTime

}

Is there a way to just loop over the variables?

Playlists Not Playing in Proper Order

I can’t get my playlists to play the files in the proper order. I tried labeling them numerically 1 – 17, then 01 – 17 and neither worked. Then I added a letter prefix (ex. A01 – Q17) and that didn’t work. What am I doing wrong???

c# – What is the proper way to throwing an exception?

I’m currently make a Helper class that can be used by multiple team members. Helper class uses third party API. And I have a question about that handles exceptions in the Helper class.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/exceptions/creating-and-throwing-exceptions

Looking at the link above, there is a subject like this:

Don’t throw System.Exception, System.SystemException, System.NullReferenceException, or System.IndexOutOfRangeException intentionally from your own source code.

Don’t create exceptions that can be thrown in debug mode but not release mode. To identify run-time errors during the development phase, use Debug Assert instead.

My question is:

  1. If System.NullReferenceException or System.IndexOutOfRangeException is thrown in the method of Helper class, how should I handle it? Do nothing, and let the exception be propagated automatically? Or do I get the exception, add some information and rethrow it?

  2. How do I handle the exception thrown by third party api? In this case too, should I get the exception, add the information, and then rethrow it?

  3. It is told to use Debug Assert to identify runtime errors in release mode. Does this not apply to the Helper class?

What’s the PROPER way to validate a signature timestamp?

the purpose of adding trusted timestamps to signatures is so that they can be considered valid long beyond the validity of the signing certificate.
However, this is not so easy, since TSA’s signing certificate has an exipration date too or may be revoked and already issued timestamps may become invalid.

My question thus is, what’s the text-book way of validating trusted timestamps?

My understanding of the process is this:

1. Verify that the token has been issued for the data in question and that the issuing certificate of the token was valid and trusted at that time the token was issued.
2. Verify that by the current time, none of the certificates in the trust chain have been revoked, OR that they have been revoked with a reasonCode extension present and the reasonCode is one of unspecified (0), affiliationChanged (3), superseded (4) or cessationOfOperation (5) (according to https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3161.txt)

But both of these steps seem to have some considerable problems in regards to CRLs:

For the first step, one would need to have a historical CRL record (valid at the time of timestamping) for each certificate in the trust (this in turn means that for every timestamp one should also store current CRLs, otherwise how would one validate the timestamp in the future?).

For the second step, one would need for each certificate in the chain a CRL which is valid NOW. However, that in turn would require that the CRL revocation points keep publishing updated CRLs for each certificate for all eternity. But by the time the timestamp is being validated the CRL distribution points may not be updated anymore for a long time already (especially if the certificate just expired and never got revoked).

So, let’s say in 20 years someone wants to validate a timestamp token and the CRL distribution point url of the signing certificate (or any certificate in the trust chain) would not be maintained anymore – how could the person validate the timestamp?

index – MySQL table proper indexes for performance optimization

I have a database table (created by someone else). This table consists over billions of records and records are being inserted every second or so.

I need to optimize this table and hence the queries to fetch stuffs faster. Following is the table ProductCatalog structure.

id                  int(10)
SerialNumber        varchar(20)     
BasePrice           decimal(4,1)    
BatchCode           tinyint(3)
Type                varchar(5)      
ItemCode            varchar(5)      
ArrivalDate         datetime        
InsertTimestamp     int(10)
BrandID             tinyint(3)
CompanyID           tinyint(4)      
Model               varchar(10)     
Description         text   

There could be many many entries for same SerialNumber and ItemCodein Different ArrivalDate

Initially there were three indexes

1. id => Primary
2. SerialNumber
3. ArrivalDate

Following are the queries i run against this table.

SELECT * FROM ProductCatalog  WHERE SerialNumber='1234567890' AND ItemCode!="ABCD" ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 1; //This Query Seems slower

SELECT BasePrice FROM ProductCatalog WHERE SerialNumber='123456789' AND ItemCode!="ABCD" and ItemCode!="PQRS" AND ItemCode!="MNOP" ORDER BY ID Desc LIMIT 1 //This Query Seems Slower

SELECT * FROM ProductCatalog WHERE SerialNumber='123456789' AND (ArrivalDate>='2019-01-01 00:00:00' AND ArrivalDate<='2020-12-31 23:59:59') AND ItemCode='ABCD' ORDER BY ArrivalDate ASC //This query looks ok

Then I changed the indexes such that we have only two indexes now. The primary and the composite one.

1. id => Primary
2. SerialNumber, ArrivalDate, ItemCode

Mysql Information

MySQL Version 5.7
Engine: InnoDB

Problem
The results are still not that satisfactory.

  1. Are the indexes I changed correct to get performance gain?
  2. Are the order of columns in index Correct?
  3. Column SerialNumber contains 16 digit numeric value, shall i changed it to int instead of varchar to gain performance?

domain driven design – Looking for proper way to solve following issue in DDD

I have following requirements:

  • In my system there are conferences and editions.
  • Each edition belongs to one conference
  • Each conference can have at most one current edition
  • Each edition has status of draft or published
  • Only published edition can be current edition of conference (it has to be published before it becomes current edition of conference it belongs to)

I am trying to model root aggregates on this system. My initial design looks like this:

class Conference extends RootAggregate {
  static createConference(/* ... */) { /* ... */ }

  guid: Guid;
  editions: Edition();
  currentEdition: Edition();

  createEditionDraft() {
    this.editions.push(new Edition({..., status: 'draft' }));
  }

  publishEdition(editionGuid) {
    const edition = this.editions.find(edition => edition.guid === editionGuid);
    edition.status = 'published';
  }

  unpublishEdition(editionGuid) {
    const edition = this.editions.find(edition => edition.guid === editionGuid);
    if (edition.guid == this.currentEditionGuid) {
      throw Error('you can not unpublish current edition');
    }
    edition.status = 'draft';
  }

  setCurrentEdition(editionGuid) {
    const edition = this.editions.find(edition => edition.guid === editionGuid);
    if (edition.status != 'published') {
      throw Error('only published editions can be set as current');
    }
    this.currentEdition = edition;
  }
}

class Edition extends Aggregate {
  guid: Guid;
  status: 'draft' | 'published';
}

Everything here will work as expected because editions can only be altered by root aggregate (conference) and it’s not possible that draft edition will be set as current edition of conference. However it requires loading all conference editions into conference aggregate. If there will be many editions it may suffer from performance issues. AFAIK I have two options here:

  1. Don’t load all editions to conference aggregate and instead have a method to lazy load edition by its id to only load the edition that is supposed to be set as current edition of conference. In this case code could look like this:
class Conference {
  // ...

  async setCurrentEdition(editionGuid) {
    const edition = await this._loadEdition(editionGuid);
    if (edition.status != 'published') {
      throw Error('only published editions can be set as current');
    }
    this.currentEdition = edition;
  }

  // ...
}

AFAIK people have many different opinions about lazy loading in such situations – here are few comments I found about lazy loading:

  • “It should be generally avoided”
  • “Of course you can if it works for you! You almost always must break some rules. There is no ideal solution”
  • “Probably you should reconsider your aggregate models and divide them to something smaller and make use of eventual consistency”

So I am not asking IF I can use lazy loading here, but what are cons of using this approach (except breaking some principles). I mean can you imagine situation in which it may cause some problems in the future? I am asking because second option (described below) with eventual consistency feels much more complicated. I know that eventual consistency is not a bad thing if the does not break requirements but still I would choose simpler solution over more complicated one…

  1. Split conferences and editions to separate root aggregates and make use of eventual consistency:
class Conference extends RootAggregate {
  static createConference(/* ... */) { /* ... * / };
  
  guid: Guid;
  currentEditionGuid: Guid;
  currentEditionCandidateGuid;

  trySetCurrentEdition(editionGuid) {
    if (this.currentEditionCandidateGuid !== null) {
      throw new Error('Another edition is being promoted at the moment');
    }
    this.currentEditionCandidateGuid = editionGuid;
    // CurrentEditionCandidateSetDomainEvent => PrepareEditionToBeSetAsCurrentIntegrationEvent
  }

  // this should run in response to event EditionReadyForPromotionIntegrationEvent
  setCurrentEdition(editionGuid) {
    if (editionGuid !== this.currentEditionCandidateGuid) {
      // this should cause EditionRejectedToBeSetAsCurrentIntegrationEvent
    } else {    
      this.currentEditionGuid = editionGuid;
      this.currentEditionCandidateGuid = null;
      // CurrentEditionSetDomainEvent => CurrentEditionSetIntegrationEvent
    }
  }

  // this should run in response to EditionNotReadyToBePromoted
  clearCurrentEditionCandidate() {
    this.currentEditionCandidateGuid = null;
  }

  // this should run in response to CheckIfEditionIsAllowedToBeUnpublishedIntegrationEvent
  decideIfEditionIsReadyToBeUnpublished(editionGuid) {
    if (this.currentEditionGuid === editionGuid) {
      EditionRejectedToBeUnpublishedIntegrationEvent
    } else {
      EditionAcceptedToBeUnpublishedIntegrationEvent
    }
  }
}

class Edition extends RootAggregate {
  static createEdition(/* ... */) { /* ... * / };

  guid: Guid;
  conferenceGuid: Guid;
  status: 'draft' | 'published';
  promotionInProgress: bool;
  unpublishingInProgress: bool;

  publishEdition() {
    this.status = 'published';
  }

  tryUnpublishEdition() {
    if (this.promotionInProgress || this.unpublishingInProgress) {
      throw new Error('Can not unpublish because it is being promoted or published');
    }
    this.unpublishingInProgress = true;
    // this should cause CheckIfEditionIsAllowedToBeUnpublishedIntegrationEvent
  }

  // this should run in response to event PrepareEditionToBeSetAsCurrentIntegrationEvent
  prepareEditionForPromotion() {
    if (this.status !== 'published' || this.unpublishingInProgress) {
      // this should cause EditionNotReadyToBePromoted
    } else {
      this.promotionInProgress = true;
      // EditionReadyForPromotionDomainEvent => EditionReadyForPromotionIntegrationEvent
    }
  }
  
  // this should run in response to:
  // EditionRejectedToBeSetAsCurrentIntegrationEvent
  // and
  // CurrentEditionSetIntegrationEvent
  stopPromotingEdition() {
    this.promotionInProgress = false;
  }

  // this should run in response to:
  // EditionRejectedToBeUnpublishedIntegrationEvent
  stopUnpublishingEdition() {
    this.unpublishingInProgress = false;
  }
  
  // this should run in response to:
  // EditionAcceptedToBeUnpublishedIntegrationEvent
  unpublishEdition() {
    this.unpublishingInProgress = false;
    this.status = 'draft';
  }
}

As you can see it’s muuuuuch more complicated, even if it’s easy to test single aggregate root then it’s kind of hard to test the whole process I think. Also I am not sure if this design is correct – some aggregate “methods” don’t even change any state – they just check the state and cause some integration events. I guess some of these steps should be placed in different (higher) “level” and be based on read models even? Also what comes to my mind is to use Saga pattern here and move whole promoting and unpublishing process to different place? Anyway this simple case becomes complicated when using eventual consistency. Moreover know when I think of it, it seems that maybe it’s not event eventual consistency what I wrote – looks more like two-phase commit or something like that?