Weird comment here again, does not relate directly to the code block. I think I'd rather not have it.
This is just so much better. And it shows in the UX. Usually a good UX requires good code and good code produces a good UX.
Either I don't understand it or it's an outdated comment, I think those types of comment explaining WHAT the code is doing are generally bad. Comments should explain WHY. If you need to express a WHAT, use a function.
Those 8 lines should be extracted to a utilty function in the test module such as "init_test_maestro() -> Maestro"
C'est mieux. mais je pense que ca merite encore un peu d'amour si c'est pas trop difficile pour le rendering d'un Map.
Ca serait…
I generally feel wrong about not using an existing tool to deploy helm packages. I feel like using kustomize would be more reasonable here but at the same time it's not that hard to develop the…
Je viens de l'essayer, semble pas pire, mais je pense que ca prend quelques trucs pour que le UX soit correct :
Calling a function here that uses .iter().filter() and returns an option is more idiomatic rust (and more robust) than the mut bool found and mut count Just filter the array and them you can match filtered.len()