I notice on UFlex that when you compile, you lose all the header version information stuff.
This was always an issue on the 93K and was looking forward to getting is back on Teradyne - but it seems to remove all comments before the pins statement. Any work-around? Option to put it after the header or something?
Related
I have found a workaround for this, which I will be posting as an answer, but it still raises the question of why it happened in the first place.
When I try to add a new id through the Design GUI, I type the name into the box:
id_sample
As soon as I tab out of the box, it prepends #+id/:
#+id/id_sample
which sounds reasonable enough, because - hey, it's got to put in the instruction to add a new id per the documentation, right?
But when I go into the java code, autocomplete is giving me gibberish on the code side - because of the extra #+id/, autocomplete gives me #+id/id_sample for a grand total of
menu.findItem(R.id.#+id/id_sample);
which has invalid characters; while deleting them:
menu.findItem(R.id.id_sample);
gives the error Cannot resolve symbol 'id_sample' because the xml is insisting that the correct name includes the invalid characters. Catch 22.
So how do I properly reference an id?
Looking in the xml, the #+id/ actually gets added to the #+id/id_sample:
android:id=#+id/#+id/id_sample
which obviously gives the compiler a heart attack. Having figured out what was going on, it is easy (though tedious) enough to jump into the xml and delete the extra #+id/ but I can't see any way to get the designer to put it in right in the first place.
Once this is corrected in the xml, it gets automatically corrected in the GUI, autocomplete will give you the correct name when you go into the java code, and the compiler will recognize it.
All that's left is to wonder if there is something I'm doing wrong that is causing this. Is this a known (or unknown) bug? Knowing what is wrong, it can be fixed in the xml, but it seems the GUI should have gotten it right in the first place. Right?
I'm setting x-frame-options on the pages of my website but due to some nested logic, on some pages I see duplicate values like:
X-FRAME-OPTIONS:SAMEORIGIN,SAMEORIGIN
instead of:
X-FRAME-OPTIONS:SAMEORIGIN
Is it okay to have duplicate values assigned to X-FRAME-OPTIONS and will it pick the first value that is assigned and ignore the rest?
Thank you.
This should be fine on most modern browsers. Apparently, there was an issue where a duplicated value in the X-FRAME-OPTIONS header would cause the header to be ignored entirely, but this has been fixed in Firefox > 14. I imagine that this issue, if it ever existed in the first place, has been similarly fixed in Chrome and Edge as well.
I am researching the same thing, as we have added X-FRAME-OPTIONS but it is ALSO added by Html.AntiForgeryToken().
I have not found a conclusive answer to the duplicates, though it does seem that if they ARE the same it is not a problem. The issue does remain, however, if there are conflicting multiple entries since they can be mutually exclusive. I did find a solution that worked for me, specifically the SuppressXFrameOptionsHeadersAttribute.
I need a sample file for the latest Scenarios of AATS Testing. We generated the code for this and want to check the against to accepted one.
"Latest scenario" is always changing. More importantly, why don't you just submit your XML and see what response you get from the IRS? If they accept it, there's no need to do anything else. If they reject it, they will indicate where it failed. Either way, there's no need to see anybody else's XML.
You can find the current scenarios and answer keys for the scenarios for AATS testing at the following link:
https://www.irs.gov/for-tax-pros/software-developers/information-returns/affordable-care-act-assurance-testing-system-information
Edit:
Be sure to review the "AATS Scenario Known Issues and Solutions" link. As of this post, that document was last updated on 4/26/2016 and mentions some issues that have been reported and solutions for them.
I'm trying to retrieve some stuff from a server (can't really go into much detail), but I've run into an issue which is solved by commenting out some stuff in a string being used as the place to hit.
The situation is as follows:
The URL I want to hit is
http://example.com/api/statistics/installations?version=1.0&type=prod
I get errors with this (based on the stuff being returned not being as expected), however using this works:
http://example.com/api/statistics/installations
Just without the refining flags of version and type.
Now, I'm new to working alongside servers, so I was wondering if perhaps the first URL is malformed towards the end or something?
Thanks to anyone who answers, even if it's just clarification the URL is correct at least I know where the problem lies afterward.
The URL is fine in that format, the issue was on the other end.
I have a document where I want to place an unnumbered section in my header. I use the fancyhdr package, and for a numbered section, I would had done something like this:
\lhead{\leftmark}
But this don't work with unnumbered sections.
I'm solving math-problems in my document, so I don't want part-sections and numbered sections
Anyone, who knows, how this is done?
Use
\chapter*{Preface\markboth{Preface}{}}
for your unnumbered section. (You should replace chapter with whatever you are actually using.)
You can even try
\newcommand{\mysection}[1]{\section*{{#1}\protect\markboth{#1}{}}}
but be careful -- it may create some problems with TOC or references.
Is there anything wrong with
\section*{}
\subsection*{}
\subsubsection*{}