Last week, I went down a huge rabbit hole and tried to come up with a mathematical generalization of dealing with errors in circuits.

I am not a mathematician, but I tried to come up with a proof as rigorous as possible. However, other eyes are very much appreciated. I'd be happy about a boost and/or feedback.

And of course, I'd be glad if this was useful to anyone else :)

https://www.maxgenson.de/blog/demystifying-tolerances/

#electricalengineering #errorhandling #math #calculus #mathproblems #feedback #helpwanted

Ubuntu 26.04 installation problems #softwareinstallation #updatemanager #softwaresources #errorhandling #2604

https://askubuntu.com/q/1565954/612

How do you handle exceptions in CSharp?

Read more here:
https://bgh.st/ctz7i0

#csharp #beginner #exceptions #errorhandling

@screwlisp

You can pick up the document 'Signalling and Handling Conditions' from this index page:

http://nhplace.com/kent/ZL/

It was longer than I thought it would be, but I think you'll find it interesting to see what the Zetalisp condition system (which inspired the Common Lisp condition system) looked like.

In spirit, it was much the same. The biggest differences are:

* The CL system has 'active' restarts, where the ZL system had a passive thing where you returned a value to the case context and hoped that it would do the thing you wanted. It felt quite a bit more error-prone (if you'll pardon the reuse of 'error' here, maybe I should say 'mistake-prone').

* The ZL condition system offers a lot of really low-level stuff that did not seem proper for CL.

* The set of operations offered in ZL was richer, but also a lot more complicated, I thought, and I worried people would not really see what it was trying to do.

* Obviously, the ZL system was based on Flavors, not CLOS, and made reference to a lot of LispM-specific packages.

* The document was published in January, 1983 and identifies itself as part of Symbolics Release 4.0.

There are other differences as well.

#Zetalisp #LispMachine #LispMachines #Symbolics #LispM
#ConditionHandling #ConditionSystem #ErrorSystem #ErrorHandling #CommonLisp #CL #Flavors #CLOS #History #ComputerHistory
#InternetArchive #Bitsavers

The SharePoint Architect’s Secret: Programmatic Deployment

2,131 words, 11 minutes read time.

If you are still clicking “New List” in a SharePoint production environment, you aren’t an architect; you’re a hobbyist playing with a high-stakes enterprise tool. You might think that manual setup is “faster” for a small SPFx project, but you are actually just leaking technical debt into your future self’s calendar.

Every manual click is a variable you didn’t account for, a point of failure that will inevitably crash your web part when a user renames a column or deletes a choice. Real developers don’t hope the environment is ready—they command it to be ready through code that is as immutable as a compiled binary.

The hard truth is that most SPFx “experts” are actually just CSS skinners who are terrified of the underlying REST API and the complexity of PnPjs. They build beautiful interfaces on top of shaky, manually-created schemas that crumble the moment the solution needs to scale or move to a different tenant.

If your deployment process involves a PDF of “Manual Setup Instructions” for an admin, you have already failed the first test of professional engineering: repeatability. Your job isn’t to make it work once; it’s to ensure it can never work incorrectly, no matter who is at the keyboard.

We are going to break down the two primary schools of thought in programmatic provisioning: the legacy XML “Old Guard” and the modern PnPjs “Fluent” approach. Both have their place in the trenches, but knowing when to use which is what separates the senior lead from the junior dev who just copies and pastes from Stack Overflow.

Consistency is the only thing that saves you when the deployment window is closing and the client is breathing down your neck. If you don’t have a script that can “Ensure” your list exists exactly as the code expects it, you are just waiting for a runtime error to ruin your weekend.

The Blueprint: Our Target “Project Contacts” List

Before we write a single line of provisioning code, we define the contract. Our SPFx web part expects a list named “ProjectContacts” with the following technical specifications:

• Title: (Standard) The person’s Full Name.
• EmailAddr: (Text) Their primary corporate email.
• MailingAddress: (Note/Multiline) The full street address.
• City: (Text) The shipping/mailing city.
• IsActive: (Boolean) A toggle to verify if this contact is still valid.
• LinkedInProfile: (URL) A link to their professional profile.

If any of these internal names are missing or mapped incorrectly, your SPFx get request will return a 400 Bad Request, and your UI will render as a broken skeleton.

Method A: The XML Schema (The “Old Guard” Precision)

Most juniors look at a block of SharePoint XML and recoil like they’ve seen a memory leak in a legacy C++ driver. They want everything to be clean JSON or fluent TypeScript because it’s easier to read, but they forget that SharePoint’s soul is still written in that rigid, unforgiving XML.

When you use createFieldAsXml, you are speaking the native language of the SharePoint engine. This bypasses the abstractions that sometimes lose detail in translation. This isn’t about being “old school”; it’s about precision. A field’s InternalName is its DNA—if you get it wrong, the entire system rejects the transplant.

I’ve seen dozens of SPFx projects fail because a developer relied on a Display Name that changed three months later, breaking every query in the solution. By using the XML method, you hard-code the StaticName and ID, ensuring that no matter what a “Site Owner” does in the UI, your code remains functional.

Using XML is a choice to be the master of the metadata, rather than a passenger on the SharePoint UI’s whims. It requires a level of discipline that most developers lack because you have to account for every attribute without a compiler to hold your hand. If your personal “schema” is well-defined and rigid, you can handle the pressure of any deployment. If it’s loose, you’re just waiting for a runtime crash.

Method B: The Fluent API (The Modern “Clean Code” Protocol)

If Method A is the raw assembly, Method B is your high-level compiled language. The PnPjs Fluent API is designed for the developer who values readability and speed without sacrificing the “Ensure” logic required for professional-grade software.

Instead of wrestling with strings and angle brackets, you use strongly-typed methods. This is where the modern architect lives. It reduces the “surface area” for errors. You aren’t guessing if you closed a tag; the IDE tells you if your configuration object is missing a required property. This is the “Refactored” life—eliminating the noise so you can focus on the logic.

The “Fluent” way mirrors a man who has his protocols in place. You don’t have to over-explain; the code speaks for itself. It’s clean, it’s efficient, and it’s easily maintained by the next guy on the team. But don’t let the simplicity fool you—you still need the “Check-then-Create” logic (Idempotency) to ensure your script doesn’t blow up if the list already exists.

The Idempotency Protocol: Building Scripts That Don’t Panic

In the world of high-stakes deployment, “hope” is not a strategy. You cannot assume the environment is a blank slate. Maybe a junior dev tried to “help” by creating the list manually. Maybe a previous deployment timed out halfway through the schema update. If your code just tries to add() a list that already exists, it will throw a 400 error and crash the entire initialization sequence of your SPFx web part.

Professional engineering requires Idempotency—the ability for a script to be run a thousand times and yield the same result without side effects. Your code needs to be smart enough to look at the site, recognize what is already there, and only provision the delta. This is where you separate the “script kiddies” from the architects. You aren’t just writing a “Create” script; you are writing an “Ensure” logic.

This logic mirrors the way a man should handle his own career and reputation. You don’t just “show up” and hope things work out; you audit the environment, you check for gaps in your own “schema,” and you provision the skills you’re missing before the deadline hits. If you aren’t checking your own internal “code” for errors daily, you’re eventually going to hit a runtime exception that you can’t recover from.

Stability is built in the hidden layers. Most people only care about the UI, the “pretty” part of the SPFx web part that the stakeholders see. But if your hidden provisioning logic is sloppy, the UI is just a facade on a crumbling foundation. Integrity in the hidden functions leads to integrity in the final product.

The View Layer: Controlling the Perspective

A list is a database, but a View is the interface. If you provision the fields but leave the “All Items” view in its default state, you are forcing the user to manually configure the UI—which defeats the entire purpose of programmatic deployment. You have to dictate exactly how the data is presented. This is about leadership; you don’t leave the “perspective” of your data to chance.

When we provision the ProjectContacts view, we aren’t just adding columns; we are defining the “Load-Bearing” information. We decide that the EmailAddr and IsActive status are more important than the CreatedDate. We programmatically remove the fluff and surface the metrics that matter.

In your own life, you have to be the architect of your own “View.” If you let the world decide what “columns” of your life are visible, they’ll focus on the trivial. You have to programmatically decide what matters—your output, your stability, and your leadership. If you don’t define the view, someone else will, and they’ll usually get it wrong.

Refactoring a messy View is the same as refactoring a messy life. It’s painful, it requires deleting things that people have grown used to, and it demands a cold, hard look at what is actually functional. But once the script runs and the View is clean, the clarity it provides is worth the effort of the build.

The Closeout: No Excuses, Just Execution

We have covered the precision of the XML “Old Guard” and the efficiency of the Fluent API. We have established that manual clicks are a form of technical failure and that idempotency is the only way to survive a production deployment.

The “Secret” to being a SharePoint Architect isn’t some hidden knowledge or a certification; it’s the discipline to never take the easy way out. It’s the refusal to ship code that requires a “Manual Step” PDF. It’s the commitment to building infrastructure that is as solid as the hardware it runs on.

If your SPFx solutions are still failing because of “missing columns” or “wrong list names,” stop blaming the platform and start looking at your deployment protocol. Refactor your scripts. Harden your schemas. Stop acting like a junior and start provisioning like an architect.

You have the blueprints. You have the methods. Now, get into the codebase and eliminate the manual debt that is dragging down your career. The system is waiting for your command.

*******

These final modules are your implementation blueprints—the raw, compiled logic of the two provisioning protocols we’ve discussed. I’ve separated them so you can see exactly how the XML Precision and Fluent API approaches look when deployed in a production-ready TypeScript environment.

One is your “Old Guard” assembly for absolute schema control, and the other is your modern, refactored protocol for speed and type-safety. Treat these as the “gold master” files for your SPFx initialization; copy them, study the differences in the dependency injection, and stop guessing how your infrastructure is built.

ensureProjectContactsXML.ts

ensureProjectContactsFluent.ts

Call to Action

If this post sparked your creativity, don’t just scroll past. Join the community of makers and tinkerers—people turning ideas into reality with 3D printing. Subscribe for more 3D printing guides and projects, drop a comment sharing what you’re printing, or reach out and tell me about your latest project. Let’s build together.

D. Bryan King

Sources

• PnPjs Documentation: Working with Lists
• Microsoft Learn: SharePoint Framework (SPFx) Fundamentals
• PnPjs Documentation: Field Provisioning
• Microsoft Documentation: Field XML Schema Reference
• PnPjs Documentation: View Management
• PnPjs Concepts: Request Batching for Performance
• Microsoft Guidance: Using PnPjs in SPFx Projects
• PnPjs Documentation: Web and Site Operations
• SharePoint PnP Provisioning Framework Overview
• PnPjs GitHub Repository: Community Standard for SharePoint JS

Disclaimer:

The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author. The information provided is based on personal research, experience, and understanding of the subject matter at the time of writing. Readers should consult relevant experts or authorities for specific guidance related to their unique situations.

#Development #Techniques
From instanceof to Error.isError() · Safer error checking in JavaScript https://ilo.im/16avdx

_____
#ErrorHandling #JavaScript #Browsers #NodeJS #WebDev #Frontend #Backend

FastMCP brings a suite of Python tools for the Model Context Protocol, now with full type hints, docstrings, robust error handling, input validation and logging. Ideal for AI developers who want clean, maintainable code and seamless integration. Dive in to see how it streamlines your LLM workflows and boosts open‑source collaboration. #FastMCP #ModelContextProtocol #PythonAI #ErrorHandling

🔗 https://aidailypost.com/news/fastmcp-offers-python-tools-type-hints-docstrings-error-handling