What I like about the Cucumber setup is the definition of Feature files in Gherkin that define your test scenarios and having the actual step implementations decoupled of that. This allows for very easy reusability of all my steps across multiple scenarios.
As far as I can see, this is not the way to go with the integrated test tooling (or not even possible).
Request pre-processing using JavaScript is amazing! Will I be able to deploy an Astro app on supabase edge functions? I'm building a multi-tenant B2B2C product on supabase that's deployed on a customer's sub-domain, so writing reverse proxy logic in js would be a boon.
We currently block HTML responses on Functions and Storage, but we are considering relaxing that limitation, so that you can host static sites on our Storage. And allowing user-defined functions running on every request to Storage in the edge runtime would get you the reverse proxy logic you are looking for.
just wondering, what are the main places where deploying on supabase is better than deno-deploy? what's the main integration story with the rest of supabase?
It's horrible, but also true. Germany had to be beaten to complete submission, fighting to the last inch until Berlin itself fell. Just recently, ISIS was huge, controlling vast oil reserves. The middle east is problematic to say the least and IRI fanaticism is in the hitler-isis category. The west has built a nice cocoon but this is the world in which we live.
It's also important to note that even though the west basically caused all these issues in the middle east, that doesn't absolve the countries and people of things they have done of their own accord. I can understand some middle eastern countries saying Israel shouldn't be there, since it was placed their by western fiat basically, but that is not a justification for wanting to nuke them.
Iran isn't about to nuke Israel, rather looking for a MAD outcome. Instead Israel prefers to have freedom of action and avoid a MAD like scenario. Of course it is best for Israel to not have a MAD like scenario so we can play up Iran's evilness for sure...
History teaches we shouldn't play with such fire. They absolutely might nuke us. Nobody thought the holocaust was possible before it happened. That is not a sane risk to take.
Iran, while they do have a pretty shitty leadership, have not historically been starting hot wars. They have proxies yes, but they haven't invaded anyone to conquer territories in recent history.
While would Iran do something that results in their destruction?
You are comparing them to Hilter who had taken over almost all of Europe, and had motivated the nation to take over those other countries. Nothing of the sort is happening in Iran like that. Iran has historically been defensive in its military spending and investments -- excluding the proxies it has funded.
> History teaches we shouldn't play with such fire.
I feel you are not viewing things as they are, but are imagining things based on faulty reasoning.
You are analyzing in a hyper rational manner that does not align with how geo politics and indeed history works.
- While would Iran do something that results in their destruction?
Because it might not lead to their destruction (lots of scenarios for this)
because they are fighting for their lives due to some unrelated circumstances,
because the regime is falling and someone thinks it's the last chance to destroy israel,
because the Mahdai revealed itself to someone and ordered Israel bombed,
because it's what the most religious man who trusts in god would do
--You are comparing them to Hilter who had taken over almost all of Europe, and had motivated the nation to take over those other countries. Nothing of the sort is happening in Iran like that. Iran has historically been defensive in its military spending and investments -- excluding the proxies it has funded.
all the facts here regarding Iran are wrong. Hitler took over europe due to appeasment from a world tired of WW1, that's exactly what Iran will do with the Gulf, Iraq and syria given the chance.
He used "them" in regards to the killing of armed Palestinians exchanging fire. Now, you can choose to interpret it as calling to kill all Palestinians, but that is very ungracious. Maliciously so I'd say. So in short, this is ridicules and completely biased. Bummer to be an Israeli (and a jew) in that regard, we're treated unfairly.
I strongly disagree. When somebody says the phrase "keep killing them", they are expressing hatred for that side of the conflict. This is exceedingly clear-cut colloquial semantics. Is "kill all Palestinians" explicitly stated? Of course not, but it's ungracious of you to frame this as a binary, where either he is saying we should kill all Palestinians, or this whole thing is ridiculous. It's nowhere near a binary. He obviously understands what those words conjure. It seems pretty clear he is at least implying, "I hate Palestinians and enjoy violence against them".
This was said in Hebrew to an Israeli audience, and we quite simply know exactly what he meant. If he called to the killing of Palestinians in general there would be lots of outrage in Israel, such an opinion is not part of the Israeli public discourse. This is part of a known argument in Israel regarding the IDFs existing policy to minimize casualties among Palestinian combatants, which many argue puts the lives of our soldiers at risk. Anyway, Israelis know what he meant. I'm sorry to use my cultural and linguistical familiarity as an argument, but it is what it is.
Maybe if israel didn't have a robust and consistent decades long history of killing palestinians and calling them terrorists to justify it. Given they do have that though, you're asking for a lot of grace here.
You can only blame the voters if the politicians leave them with a dearth of choice. If a society can't produce a single reasonable leader it's usually no coincidence. Cultural values matter and some societies are inherently more corrupt (e.g. Arab and African societies, as can be seen by the constant stream of corrupt leaders they produce)
Hey Kiwi, any chance of getting temporal.io style features for supabase edge functions? would love to have a one-stop-shop solution for all my real and not-real time needs.
Temporal has done an incredible job of ensuring there will be no side-effects (even with external systems), so I doubt we'll be able to do something as extensive as they have. That said, we will probably build a simple Postgres queue/workflow engine (similar to pgboss[0]). It will live in the Postgres database (as an extension), but will be nicely integrated with Edge Functions. We haven't started this yet, so I don't have any timelines.
The reason we paused it was the realisation that it's far more powerful to co-locate this sort of product with the data. In this case, Workflows would be more powerful as a Postgres extension - you can store the workflows into your database, create them using SQL, and the workflows would have direct access to your operational data. We'll probably re-write this using pgx[0] at some stage (if anyone is reading this and wants to attempt this, please reach out).
As a Lebanese, I find what you're saying both slightly offensive and slightly true. Lebanon, as a culture distinct from other middle easterners has existed for a very long time. Lebanon as an independent state has been invented in 1920, however there were multiple previous attempts historically to get independance.
Some historical figures have reached levels of influence that would qualify as "independent lebanon" (if people were so good at administrative bookkeeping back in the 1600s): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fakhr_al-Din_II
The modern state of Lebanon fails in part because it's a "contrieved post colonial state", you're right. But claiming it has no historical foundations is misguided. It's wrong. Colonials hijacked a very legit idea, and turned it into a failed state. It's different.
The resource curse is probably part of it. But another part is that the Ottoman Empire conquered all of these middle eastern societies at varying levels of development, and the european powers that inherited those colonies were faced with complex sectarian conflict that didn't exist in asia. With the separation of British India into Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India, you've solved 90% of the sectarian conflict that exists in the region. In Lebanon, by contrast, history has left you with Christians, Shia, and Sunni all living in the same place, such that you have a constitutional structure where christians and muslims are each guaranteed half the seats in the legislature, and other roles such as president and prime minister are divided by religion.
They had centralized fully functional states that maintained economy that could supply cities as large or larger than Europe.
Japan was not made by Meiji, it was transformed but foundation of the "miracle" was there. During sengoku it created and armed with locally built firearms armies that dwarfed that of any European state of the time in one generation.. from bows to hundred thousands of muskets
Culture >> everything. In 1945 Beirut was a paradise compared to burned to the ground Tokyo and every other major city. In few decades it had built dams like Kurobe, challenged and beat American car manufacturers.. resources, colonialism.. right. Whoever was running the place knew how to do it, they do not know now and very unlikely to learn in the next 100 years.
This point is often made for the middle east but a lot of the borders and ideals put in place that caused these disasters were put in place before oil really even mattered.
Sovereignty is different if you have U.S. bases on your soil. Any country with a U.S. base is a vassal state, independent and therefore sovereign in name only.
Those prosperous states in South Asia, outside mainland China, do seem to have lots of American troops stationed in them.
One could make the same argument for a country like India. There is no "India" in the sense of an ethno-linguisic grouping. India is more akin to the European Union but even more diverse. The Indian state has survived for seventy five years now.
Just as the French and British dismembered the Ottoman empire to create modern Lebanon, so too did the British dismember the Indian empire to create India and Pakistan.
I don't think that is especially accurate. India has a lot of ethno-linguistic diversity, but has hundreds of years of centralized administrative rule even before the British: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire. That's longer than Germany or Italy have had centralized governance.
Funnily enough, the Mughals were initially foreign conquerors, just like the British with their Raj. But then ancient Germania was also somewhat unified by the foreign Romans, so perhaps it's same as it ever was.
I always wonder why the Maurya Empire doesn't get brought up as a pan-Indian empire, it was local to the area and conquered almost the entirety of the subcontinent.
Human history is a story of repeated conquest, population admixture and/or replacement. Almost all “indigenous people” in present or past are just descendants of the most recent conquerors. Hardly any peoples have legitimate claim to land on the virtue of being there first, it’s almost universally on the basis of conquest instead. It always has been thus.
Yes, but it's interesting to note the difference between when a large region is united through conquest by locals, or an outside power further away. Italy, in comparison to the above two examples, was united by the local Romans. (Though of course, "local" is incredibly relative. The difference between northern and southern Italy has been vast even unto modernity, never mind during antiquity.)
Now, I'm not sure what the difference of living under Maurya vs. Mughal vs. British rule was for its inhabitants, these are widely different polities from completely different time periods, but it's still a distinction. Though I suppose more of a retroactive one imposed by our modern bias, when we can point at India, Italy, and Germany and say, "ah, that patch of land is naturally meant to be united by someone."
But there is a difference between conquerors that intermarried (European colonists to Latin america) and ones that didn’t (Mughals and British). Modern Indians have very little Mughal ancestry.
It’s the other way around - Mughals gained Indian ancestry. Canonical example is Babur to Akbar losing epicanthic folds. I guess “Ganga-jamni tahzeeb” and culture of Awadh don’t count here according to you.
- Signed, one of your mythical people with “very little Mughal ancestry” whose family founded Shahjahanpur.
India and Pakistan didn't split up because of the British, they split up because Jinnah and the Muslim League wanted it. Pakistan was born out of a sustained bottom-up movement.
The reason the British get blamed for a lot of the Indo-Pak issues is that, absent an indigenous Indian/Pakistani civil service bureaucracy, the British were tasked with executing the plan originally conceived by the Two-Nation Theorists, and they totally botched that execution.
This argument can be made for any country on earth.
Pick up a globe, close your eyes and randomly put your finger anywhere and you will see the point under question was under different (political)boundaries every 300 years or so.
Boundaries of any country are just limits to which a certain political administration extends its powers to. They keep changing for various reasons, every few decades.
Sadly it is pretty much the story of the world with a few rare exceptions.
Far right movements ethnic/religion/political have engulfed almost every place , amplified by social media and re-amplified by media.
Note that Hindus get shot in their homes in Indian state of Kashmir too , the latest being 1 day ago.This eye for an eye will take anyone anywhere.
'Dismembered the carcass of the Ottoman Empire' surely? Maybe my sense of history in this regard is flawed, but the Ottoman Empire was much to blame for its own demise.
We're talking about whether or not the sofa seller should be allowed to live down the block, not in your house. Right now, if the sofa seller wants to work for peanuts in a third-world country and outsell local manufacturers in, say, the US; they have the right to do that thanks to literal decades of trade negotiations. But if they want to play fair and compete on a level playing field in the US, they have to get visas in restrictive categories and wait in long queues. That's because there's far less international law on liberalizing the market for labor.
Furthermore, the EU doesn't have Free immigration. EU freedom of movement is only extended to member state citizens; and the Schengen area only dissolves "internal" border infrastructure. Both of those schemes are predicated on the existence of "external" borders which are not opened. If you don't already live in the EU, you're subject to the same types of visa categories and quotas you'd get if you were trying to immigrate to the US.
The reason why it seems like the EU has Free immigration is because there was a refugee crisis a few years back. This is, again, not Free immigration - it's just a particular visa category everyone agreed to for various historical fuck-Hitler reasons. You still have to actually prove to an immigration judge that you have a case of being a political refugee, which is far harder than most people think. Meanwhile, economic migrants still have to go through the process of getting work visas for particular approved professions, sitting on quotas, and so on and so forth. So you get none of the benefit of a Free immigration system but all of the downsides of political, economic, and racial ressentiment, etc.
