Don’t simply test for the presence of the magic Paperclip attribute, it will return a paperclip Attachment object and thus always be true:
- if user.photo.present? # always true
= image_tag(user.photo.url)
user1: | |
email: [email protected] | |
encrypted_password: <%= User.new.send(:password_digest, "user123") %> | |
confirmed_at: <%= Time.now %> |
{ | |
"AL": "Alabama", | |
"AK": "Alaska", | |
"AS": "American Samoa", | |
"AZ": "Arizona", | |
"AR": "Arkansas", | |
"CA": "California", | |
"CO": "Colorado", | |
"CT": "Connecticut", | |
"DE": "Delaware", |
git branch -m old_branch new_branch # Rename branch locally | |
git push origin :old_branch # Delete the old branch | |
git push --set-upstream origin new_branch # Push the new branch, set local branch to track the new remote |
Hi Nicholas,
I saw you tweet about JSX yesterday. It seemed like the discussion devolved pretty quickly but I wanted to share our experience over the last year. I understand your concerns. I've made similar remarks about JSX. When we started using it Planning Center, I led the charge to write React without it. I don't imagine I'd have much to say that you haven't considered but, if it's helpful, here's a pattern that changed my opinion:
The idea that "React is the V in MVC" is disingenuous. It's a good pitch but, for many of us, it feels like in invitation to repeat our history of coupled views. In practice, React is the V and the C. Dan Abramov describes the division as Smart and Dumb Components. At our office, we call them stateless and container components (view-controllers if we're Flux). The idea is pretty simple: components can't
Doing require extensions correctly is essential, because:
nyc
need it to reliably supply coverage information that takes into account sourcemaps from upstream transforms.