标签：#API

Bạn có thể chạy bài kiểm tra API của Apidog CLI trong Drone CI bằng một bước Docker dùng ảnh Node, cài apidog-cli , rồi gọi apidog run với test scenario và environment tương ứng. Token Apidog nên được lưu trong Drone Secret và inject vào pipeline bằng from_secret . Bài viết này cung cấp cấu hình .drone.yml có thể copy-paste, cách quản lý secret, giới hạn chạy theo branch/event và cách xuất báo cáo khi Drone không có artifact storage tích hợp sẵn. Dùng thử Apidog ngay hôm nay Drone CI là gì và hoạt động như thế nào Drone là nền tảng CI/CD mã nguồn mở, chạy theo mô hình container-native và hiện là một phần của Harness. CI/CD là thực hành tự động build, test và phân phối phần mềm trên mỗi thay đổi mã nguồn. Nếu cần ôn lại nền tảng, xem thêm CI/CD là gì . Điểm quan trọng của Drone: mỗi step trong pipeline chạy trong một Docker container riêng. Bạn chọn image cho từng step, sau đó Drone chạy các command trong container đó. Cách này giúp pipeline dễ tái tạo, dễ debug và không phụ thuộc vào một build agent đã cài sẵn nhiều công cụ. Pipeline được khai báo trong file .drone.yml ở thư mục gốc repository. Một Docker pipeline thường có: kind type name steps Ví dụ tối thiểu: kind : pipeline type : docker name : api-tests steps : - name : greeting image : alpine commands : - echo hello - echo world Drone chạy commands như shell script với cơ chế fail-fast. Nếu một command trả về exit code khác 0 , build sẽ fail. Working directory mặc định là thư mục gốc của repository. Vì sao nên chạy API test trong container step API test giúp phát hiện sớm các thay đổi phá vỡ contract, ví dụ: response schema thay đổi ngoài ý muốn status code khác kỳ vọng field bắt buộc bị thiếu logic xác thực hoặc phân quyền bị lỗi Với Apidog, bạn thiết kế và duy trì test scenario trong UI, sau đó chạy lại chính các scenario đó từ CLI. CI không cần giữ thêm collection file riêng hoặc viết lại test script. Để xem thêm về cách đưa API testing vào pipeline, đọc các phương pháp hay nhất về CI/CD cho kiểm tra API .

If you've ever built a search endpoint, you've hit this wall. Your query has filters, sort orders, a nested set of facets, maybe a geo bounding box. It doesn't fit in a URL, and cramming it into query string params is ugly and fragile. So you reach for POST /search , send the whole thing as a JSON body, and quietly accept that you've just lied about what the request does. It's not creating anything. It's a read. But POST is the only tool that lets you attach a body without fighting the platform. That gap finally got filled. In June 2026 the IETF published RFC 10008 , which defines the HTTP QUERY method: a new verb built for exactly this case. The two bad options Every read that needs structured input has been stuck choosing between GET and POST, and both are wrong in their own way. GET is the semantically correct choice. It's safe (the client isn't asking to change anything), it's idempotent (retrying it is fine), and it's cacheable. The problem is the body. RFC 9110 is explicit that content in a GET request has no defined semantics , and sending one may cause some implementations to reject the request. So your query has to live in the URI, where you run into unknown length limits across proxies and servers, encoding overhead, and the query landing in access logs and browser history. POST solves the body problem and creates a new one. It carries any payload you want, but it's neither safe nor idempotent by definition. Intermediaries won't cache it, clients won't retry it automatically after a dropped connection, and anything inspecting traffic has to assume the request might have side effects. You get the body, you lose everything that made the request honest. QUERY is the missing third option: a method that carries a body and keeps the semantics of a read. What QUERY actually is The spec, authored by Julian Reschke, James Snell , and Mike Bishop, describes it in one sentence: A QUERY requests that the request target process the enclosed content in a safe and idempo

Most backtests lie to you. Not intentionally. But they lie. You design a strategy, run it on historical data, and watch the returns look incredible. Then you run it live — and it underperforms a simple buy-and-hold from day one. The math wasn't wrong. The data was. If you're: testing momentum or mean-reversion strategies in Python, building quant tools for personal or professional use, or tired of backtests that collapse the moment real execution begins, This changes how you work. TL;DR What this covers: Backtesting trading strategies in Python using EODHD's historical OHLCV data API Stack: requests , pandas , numpy — no heavy frameworks (no backtrader, no vectorbt) Scripts included: Script 1 — Fetch adjusted historical price data from EODHD Script 2 — SMA crossover strategy (20/50-day) Script 3 — RSI mean-reversion strategy Script 4 — Performance metrics: Sharpe ratio, max drawdown, win rate EODHD pricing: Free tier available; full access from $19.99/month Best for: Developers and analysts who need reliable, split/dividend-adjusted data without scraping The Problem with Free Data Most developers start with Yahoo Finance or a scraped CSV. That works fine for a quick prototype. It stops working the moment your strategy includes anything that happened around a stock split, dividend payment, or ticker change. Non-adjusted price data creates ghost signals. A stock "drops 50%" when it actually split 2:1. Your moving average calculates a crossover that never happened in real life. Your strategy looks profitable because it's trading on a data artifact. The free path costs you accuracy. And in backtesting, accuracy is the whole point. The Fix Is Simpler Than You Think The real bottleneck isn't the strategy logic. It's the data source. Use split- and dividend-adjusted closing prices from a reliable provider, and half your backtest reliability problems disappear before you write a single signal. EODHD APIs provides exactly this. Their historical data endpoint returns adjusted

The company just raised $7 million in seed funding, and is launching its app for iPhone and Android on Tuesday.

A common WooCommerce brief looks like this: the store does not own its inventory. A distributor does. The shop is a storefront on top of a wholesaler whose catalog, stock levels, and prices change daily, exposed through some REST or XML web service. The job is to make the store reflect the supplier's reality automatically, and to never sell something the supplier cannot ship. We shipped exactly this for an automotive-parts store recently (client and supplier stay anonymous). Tens of thousands of indexes, a wholesaler REST API, and a hard requirement: no manual catalog work, and no orders for parts that are not actually in stock. Here is what the architecture looks like and the traps worth knowing before you start. The store is a view, the wholesaler is the source of truth The first mental shift is that WooCommerce is not the system of record for products. The distributor is. WooCommerce is a cache with a checkout attached. Once you accept that, the design falls out: a sync layer pulls from the supplier and writes into WooCommerce on a schedule, and you treat the WooCommerce product data as derived, not authored. The integration answers three questions, and you should answer them explicitly before writing code: What syncs - catalog, attributes, media, stock, price. Which direction - here it is one-way (supplier to store); orders stay in WooCommerce. How often - split it. Stock and price are cheap and change constantly, so poll them frequently. Full catalog and media are expensive, so refresh them rarely. Map fields declaratively, or you will rewrite it every month The supplier describes a product its way (its own index, EAN, attribute names, HTML description blobs, image URLs). WooCommerce wants its way (product, attributes, variations, media library). The bridge between them is a field map, and the single best decision we made was keeping that map declarative - a data structure, not a pile of if statements. When the wholesaler adds a new attribute, you extend the ma

Tra performance, piattaforma e toolchain: i temi che contano davvero per chi costruisce frontend oggi. Il frontend nel 2026 è diventato una disciplina sempre più “di prodotto”: non basta far funzionare l’interfaccia, serve che sia veloce, stabile, accessibile e misurabile in produzione. E quando l’ecosistema Chrome parla di “connessione” tra developer e piattaforma, il messaggio utile per chi lavora sul web è semplice: capire dove investire tempo per ottenere impatto reale sugli utenti . Di seguito, una lettura pratica dei temi che continuano a emergere come prioritari per chi costruisce applicazioni e siti moderni. 1) Performance: meno benchmark, più realtà La performance non è più un esercizio di ottimizzazione a fine progetto. È un requisito continuo che va gestito con strumenti, metriche e processi. Cosa significa “misurabile” oggi Metriche di campo (real user monitoring) : le prestazioni che contano sono quelle che arrivano dai dispositivi reali, su reti reali. Metriche di laboratorio : restano utili per regressioni e CI, ma vanno interpretate come “segnali” e non come verità assolute. Implicazione pratica Imposta una pipeline dove: le metriche sintetiche bloccano regressioni evidenti (build/PR), le metriche reali guidano le priorità (release e backlog). 2) DevTools: dal debug al controllo qualità Gli strumenti di sviluppo non servono più solo a “trovare il bug”, ma a ridurre il rischio : regressioni di layout, memory leak, risorse inutili, dipendenze pesanti. Abitudini che fanno differenza Profilare prima di ottimizzare: CPU, rete e rendering hanno colli di bottiglia diversi. Isolare i cambiamenti: una variazione di bundling o di immagini può ribaltare il profilo prestazionale più di una micro-ottimizzazione in JS. 3) La piattaforma web continua a crescere (e chiede scelte più consapevoli) La Web Platform oggi offre API potenti, ma la parte difficile non è “usarle”: è scegliere quando usarle. Un criterio utile Se una feature riduce complessità (meno librerie,

"Cheapest residential proxy" is a search query with a hidden trap: the lowest price per GB and the lowest cost per successful request are not the same number. This post breaks down ten budget-to-mid-tier residential proxy providers from a cost-and-reliability angle, plus a script for measuring the metric that actually matters before you commit real traffic. The trap: price per GB vs. cost per success A proxy at $0.50/GB that fails half your requests is more expensive than one at $1.40/GB with a 98% success rate, because you're paying for retries, wasted bandwidth, and engineering time spent debugging "random" failures. Before comparing sticker prices, calculate: real_cost = traffic_price + failed_request_overhead + retries + setup_time + support_delays Concretely, here's a quick way to model it: def cost_per_success ( price_per_gb , success_rate , avg_response_kb = 50 , retry_overhead = 1.3 ): """ price_per_gb: advertised price success_rate: 0.0-1.0, measured against YOUR target site, not the vendor ' s claim retry_overhead: multiplier for bandwidth wasted on failed/retried requests """ effective_price = price_per_gb * retry_overhead gb_per_request = avg_response_kb / ( 1024 * 1024 ) cost_per_request = gb_per_request * effective_price return cost_per_request / success_rate # Example: cheap provider, mediocre success rate print ( cost_per_success ( 0.50 , 0.75 )) # looks cheap, isn't once failures are priced in # Example: pricier provider, high success rate print ( cost_per_success ( 1.40 , 0.98 )) # often cheaper in practice Run this with your own measured success rate (see the test harness further down), not the vendor's advertised uptime number. What to actually compare Before looking at price, check whether the provider covers: IP pool size and quality (pool size alone tells you nothing about freshness or block rate) Country vs. city-level targeting Sticky session support (for anything stateful) Rotation controls (for scraping/data collection) HTTP(S) and SOCKS5

Imagine you are planning a surprise birthday party. You need invitations, food, decorations, and a cake. You call different places to get these things. You tell each one exactly what you need. "I need 20 red balloons." "I need a chocolate cake for 10 people." This is how many computer programs talk to each other. They use something called an API (Application Programming Interface). An API is like a menu. You pick what you want. You get exactly that. It works well for simple tasks. But what if your party plans change? What if you decide on a theme mid-conversation? Traditional APIs can feel a bit rigid then. They don't always remember your past requests. They don't understand the bigger picture. Now, imagine talking to a super-smart party planner. You start by saying, "I'm planning a party." The planner asks, "For how many people?" You say, "About 20." Then you mention, "It's for a birthday." The planner instantly suggests a cake size. It recommends decorations based on your earlier answers. This smart planner remembers everything you said. It understands your overall goal. It uses something like MCP (Model Context Protocol). MCP is a new way for computers to talk. It's like having a real conversation. It's much smarter than a simple menu order. You will soon understand why this difference is a game-changer. Traditional APIs: The Fixed Menu Approach Let's start with what you might already know. Many apps you use every day rely on APIs. An API is like a waiter in a restaurant. You look at the menu. You tell the waiter your exact order. "I want a cheeseburger with fries." The waiter takes your order to the kitchen. The kitchen prepares only that specific meal. Then the waiter brings it back to you. This is how most apps work together. One app sends a very specific request. It asks for a certain piece of information or to perform a specific action. The other app performs that task. It sends back a very specific response. Think of ordering from an online store. You click

Most AI incidents don't happen because the model gave a bad answer. They happen because nobody was...

If you've ever built a scraper that worked perfectly in dev and then got blocked or CAPTCHA'd the moment it hit production traffic volume, you already know why proxy choice matters. This post breaks down residential proxies from a practical, implementation-focused angle: what they are, when to use them vs. alternatives, how to wire them into common tools, and how the major providers stack up. TL;DR Residential proxies route requests through real ISP-assigned IPs, so they're harder for anti-bot systems to fingerprint than datacenter IPs. Rotating residential proxies are for scraping/data collection. Sticky sessions (or static ISP proxies) are for anything stateful — logins, checkout flows, long-lived account sessions. Nstproxy is a good default pick if you want residential, static ISP, and mobile proxies under one API/dashboard instead of juggling multiple vendors for different parts of your stack. For large-scale enterprise scraping, Oxylabs and Bright Data have the most mature tooling. For budget/prototype work, IPRoyal, DataImpulse, and Webshare are worth testing. Proxy types, quickly Type Use for Pros Watch out for Residential Scraping, SERP checks, ad verification Looks like real user traffic Usually billed per GB Static ISP Long-lived sessions, account workflows Fast + stable IP Less useful for high-volume rotation Datacenter Speed-sensitive, low-stakes tasks Cheap, fast Easiest to fingerprint/block Mobile Mobile-first platforms/apps Strongest trust signal Most expensive per GB A production-grade scraping/automation stack often uses more than one of these at once — e.g., rotating residential IPs for crawling, and static IPs pinned to specific browser profiles for anything that requires a login. Wiring a residential proxy into your code Most providers give you a host:port endpoint plus username:password auth, and let you control rotation/session stickiness through the username string. A typical setup looks like this: Python ( requests ): import requests proxy_ho

Originally published at ffmpeg-micro.com If you've tried running FFmpeg inside a Pipedream workflow, you've probably hit one of two walls: the step timed out before processing finished, or the FFmpeg binary wasn't available. These are the most common complaints in Pipedream community threads, and neither has a clean workaround. Why FFmpeg Breaks in Pipedream Pipedream workflows run Node.js steps with a 30-second default execution timeout . Paid plans extend that to 300 seconds. But even five minutes isn't enough to transcode most videos. A 10-minute 1080p file can take 3-8 minutes to process depending on the codec and output settings. Longer videos or higher-quality encodes blow past that limit every time. The timeout kills your step mid-execution. No partial output. No graceful failure. Just a dead workflow. Then there's the binary problem. FFmpeg isn't available in Pipedream's runtime environment. Developers on the Pipedream community forums have tried downloading the static binary at runtime, setting PATH variables, and running chmod inside a Node.js step. Some of these hacks work intermittently. Most break the next time Pipedream updates its execution environment. And even if you solve both problems, Pipedream steps have memory constraints that make video processing unreliable. A single high-resolution transcode can exhaust available RAM and crash silently. The Fix: Call an FFmpeg API Instead The timeout issue goes away when you stop running FFmpeg inside the workflow. Make an HTTP request to an external API instead. The API processes the video on its own infrastructure with no time limit. Your Pipedream step sends the request, gets back a job ID, and moves on. FFmpeg Micro processes video through a standard REST API, so any Pipedream HTTP step can call it. No marketplace plugin to install. No binary to configure. Just a POST request and a polling loop. This is different from tools like Rendi or Renderio.dev that require a native Pipedream marketplace integratio

Originally published at ffmpeg-micro.com You need server-side video processing in your Swift app. Maybe you're building a Vapor backend that transcodes user uploads, a macOS utility that batch-converts media files, or a command-line tool that generates thumbnails. FFmpeg is the standard tool for the job, but getting it into a Swift project isn't as simple as adding a package dependency. Running FFmpeg from Swift with Process Swift's Foundation framework provides the Process class for running external commands. If FFmpeg is installed on the machine, you can shell out to it directly: import Foundation let process = Process () process . executableURL = URL ( fileURLWithPath : "/opt/homebrew/bin/ffmpeg" ) process . arguments = [ "-i" , "input.mp4" , "-c:v" , "libx264" , "-crf" , "23" , "-preset" , "medium" , "-c:a" , "aac" , "-b:a" , "128k" , "output.mp4" ] let pipe = Pipe () process . standardOutput = pipe process . standardError = pipe try process . run () process . waitUntilExit () let data = pipe . fileHandleForReading . readDataToEndOfFile () let output = String ( data : data , encoding : . utf8 ) ?? "" print ( output ) guard process . terminationStatus == 0 else { fatalError ( "FFmpeg failed with exit code \( process . terminationStatus ) " ) } This works on macOS and Linux. Install FFmpeg with brew install ffmpeg on macOS or apt-get install ffmpeg on Ubuntu, point executableURL at the binary, and you're running. But you own that FFmpeg install on every machine. On Linux servers, you're managing the binary across deploys. On macOS CI runners, you're adding Homebrew steps to your build pipeline. And on iOS, Process doesn't exist at all. Processing Video via Cloud API (No FFmpeg Install) Skip the local binary entirely. FFmpeg Micro exposes full FFmpeg capabilities through a REST API. Send a video URL, pick your settings, get processed video back. If you're familiar with how this works in Node.js or Kotlin , the pattern is identical. Here's the basic flow using URLSe

So, a few months ago I got curious about dropshipping — not as a "get rich quick" scheme, but as a real engineering problem. Inventory syncing, pricing algorithms, order routing, supplier APIs... turns out there's a surprising amount of code you can write in this space. Here's my honest breakdown. The Setup I built a small pipeline using Node.js + PostgreSQL that: Pulls product data from multiple suppliers via their APIs Applies dynamic pricing rules (cost-based, competitor-based, and margin-based) Syncs inventory levels every 15 minutes Auto-generates product descriptions using a simple template engine Routes incoming orders to the correct supplier Nothing fancy. Nothing magical. Just plumbing. What Went Right Automation saves real hours. Manually updating 200+ SKUs is soul-crushing. A cron job and a few API calls replaced about 3 hours of daily work. Template-based descriptions at scale. I used a mix of structured product attributes and Handlebars templates to generate descriptions. Not ChatGPT-level prose, but consistent and fast. Price monitoring was the real MVP. A simple scraper that checked competitor prices every 6 hours let me stay competitive without guessing. What Went Wrong Supplier APIs are... inconsistent. Some return JSON. Some return XML. One returned a CSV inside a JSON field. Parsing supplier data became 60% of the project. Race conditions in inventory sync. I sold an item that was out of stock. Twice. Lesson learned: add a buffer threshold and use proper locking. I underestimated customer support automation. Tracking numbers, returns, delays — this is where the "boring" engineering work actually matters the most. The Creative Part Here's where it got fun. I experimented with: A/B testing product images — randomly serving different hero images and tracking conversion rates Seasonal keyword injection — appending trending search terms to product titles based on Google Trends data A "dead stock" detector — flagging products with zero views in 30 days

How I Cut My LLM API Bill by 40x: A Freelancer's Migration Story Last month I almost choked on my coffee when my OpenAI dashboard showed $487.32 for a single client project. That's not profit. That's a panic attack. As a freelancer running a one-person shop, every line item on my monthly expenses gets scrutinized harder than my code reviews. I spent the next weekend stress-testing alternatives, and honestly? I was annoyed at myself for not doing it sooner. The savings are obscene. Let me walk you through exactly what I found, what I migrated to, and how the switch took maybe 20 minutes total. Let me Start With the Damage Here's what I was paying before. OpenAI's GPT-4o runs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens. For one of my retainer clients — a SaaS company whose support chatbot I maintain — I'm pushing roughly 50 million tokens through a month on input and another 15 million on output. Do the math with me: 50M × $2.50 = $125 on input alone. 15M × $10.00 = $150 on output. That's $275/month just for that one client's chatbot. Add my other three active clients and suddenly I'm staring at a $400-500 OpenAI bill every month like clockwork. For a freelancer, that's a third of a client's monthly retainer gone before I even touch my actual engineering hours. Unacceptable. The Alternative Landscape (And Why I Picked What I Picked) I went down the rabbit hole. I tested seven different model providers over a long weekend, ran the same prompts through each, compared output quality, latency, and price. Here's the full breakdown I compiled in a spreadsheet (because yes, freelancers absolutely live in spreadsheets): GPT-4o (OpenAI): $2.50 input / $10.00 output per million tokens. The default. The expensive default. GPT-4o-mini (OpenAI): $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens. Already 16.7× cheaper than its big sibling. DeepSeek V4 Flash (Global API): $0.18 input / $0.25 output per million tokens. Forty times cheaper than GPT-4o. Qwen3-32B (G

I built a web front end for an Nmap-based port scanner: a FastAPI backend, a React dashboard, background scan jobs, a plugin system. It worked. Then I sat down and audited it like an attacker would — and found a stack of real weaknesses, plus a lesson in why you verify an exploit before you call it one. This is the honest version: the holes I found, the unauthenticated-RCE chain I thought I had, why it didn't actually fire, and the hardening I shipped anyway. Repo: https://github.com/DipesThapa/PortScanner This is my own project, audited and fixed by me. No third-party systems were touched. Scanners are dual-use — only ever point one at hosts you own or are authorised to test. Hole 1: no authentication, anywhere The foundation: every API route and the /ws/status WebSocket were open. No API key, no session. The Dockerfile bound 0.0.0.0:8000 and ran as root. Anyone who could reach the port could drive scans, hit the upload endpoint, and read every job's logs. api_router = APIRouter () # no dependencies — fully open This is the real, unambiguous problem. Everything below is only interesting because it sat behind no auth. Hole 2: an upload endpoint that allowlisted its own files Deep-dive follow-up commands ran against an allowlist — good instinct. But an upload endpoint wrote a file, chmod +x 'd it, and then added it to that same allowlist: for item in scripts_dir . glob ( " * " ): if item . is_file (): allowed . add ( str ( item . absolute ())) # upload authorises itself An allowlist any input can extend isn't an allowlist. This is a genuine design footgun. Hole 3: the RCE I thought I had — and why it didn't fire Here's the chain I got excited about: the scan target flows toward Nmap's argv, and it's subprocess.run(..., shell=False) . No shell injection — but you don't need a shell to abuse Nmap. If a target became --script=/uploaded.nse , Nmap would load and run that NSE (Lua) script, and NSE can call os.execute . Upload a malicious .nse (Hole 2), get Nmap to load it

I had a /image endpoint capped at 3 requests per minute. Simple express-rate-limit, keyed by IP,...

📦 Code: github.com/USER/video-api-bench - replace before publishing TL;DR The per-minute delivery rate is the easiest number to compare and the least useful. The real cost lives in encoding, analytics, and the player. This post compares Mux, Cloudflare Stream, api.video, FastPix, and AWS on what each includes by default, then gives you a tiny script to benchmark upload and time-to-ready on your own files so you stop trusting marketing pages. I have shipped video on four managed APIs across three jobs, and every single time the invoice surprised someone. Not because the delivery rate was wrong, but because encoding, analytics, and the player turned out to be separate line items on some platforms and free on others. Let's compare the parts that don't show up in the headline number. ⚠️ Note: pricing pages move. Everything here was checked in June 2026; verify the links before quoting numbers. 1. Encoding: free or metered? This is the widest spread in the whole comparison. Platform Encoding Delivery Storage Cloudflare Stream Free $1 / 1,000 min delivered $5 / 1,000 min stored api.video Free (unlimited) $0.0017 / min $0.00285 / min FastPix Free on standard plan ~$0.00096 / min @1080p Per-minute, tiered Mux Metered per minute Per minute Per minute AWS (DIY) Per minute (MediaConvert) Per GB (CloudFront) Per GB (S3) If your catalog is upload-heavy (lots of assets encoded once, watched rarely), metered encoding is not a rounding error. It can flip which platform is cheapest, even when the delivery rates look identical. 2. Analytics: included or a $499 floor? QoE analytics is the feature teams forget to price until playback breaks in production. Platform QoE analytics Entry cost FastPix (Video Data) Session-level, 50+ signals/session Free up to 100K views/month Mux (Mux Data) Mature, broad device SDKs $499/month (Media plan, 1M views, +$0.50/1K) Cloudflare Stream Basic Included, limited depth api.video Available Usage-based AWS Build it yourself (CloudWatch + logs) Engineerin

TL;DR If your product lets strangers upload video, you need moderation before launch, not after the first bad upload. We will build a small-team pipeline: extract frames with FFmpeg, score them with NudeNet (ONNX Runtime, CPU-friendly), route uploads into approve / human-review / block by confidence, and log every decision. No trust-and-safety department required. 📦 Code: github.com/USER/ugc-moderation, replace before publishing ⚠️ Note: this is a sensitive area. The goal here is the engineering shape (sampling, scoring, routing, auditing), not detection of any specific content. Keep test fixtures clean and lawful. A model does not decide what is allowed. It produces a score. You decide where the lines go. The whole design is about routing scores sensibly and sending the uncertain middle to a human. The architecture 🧠 upload ──> extract sample frames (ffmpeg) ──> score frames (NudeNet / ONNX) ──> aggregate to one confidence ──> route: high-confidence clean -> auto-approve uncertain middle band -> human review queue high-confidence violation -> auto-block ──> write an audit record for every decision The economics only work if the middle band is small. A decent model makes most uploads obviously fine or obviously not, so a human only ever sees the genuinely ambiguous slice. 1. Sample frames, do not score every frame You cannot afford every frame and you do not need it. Pull one frame per second (or scene-change keyframes) with FFmpeg. # extract 1 frame per second into ./frames mkdir -p frames ffmpeg -i upload.mp4 -vf "fps=1" -q :v 3 frames/frame_%05d.jpg Prefer scene changes to catch more variety with fewer frames: # keyframes where the scene actually changes ffmpeg -i upload.mp4 -vf "select='gt(scene,0.3)',showinfo" -vsync vfr frames/scene_%05d.jpg 💡 Tip: a 30-minute upload at 1 fps is ~1,800 frames. Scene-change sampling often cuts that by an order of magnitude with little loss for moderation purposes. 2. Score frames with NudeNet NudeNet runs on ONNX Runtime on pla

これは、Apidog が API テストおよび API ライフサイクル管理のためのコマンドラインツールである Apidog CLI をどのように開発したかを共有する全10回のシリーズです。順番に読むか、必要なテーマから直接参照してください。 今すぐApidogを試す タイトル 焦点 1 当社は126のMCPツールを構築しました。しかし、それはAgentにとって最良の解決策ではありません 問題の発見 2 なぜ当社は全く新しいApidog CLIを開発したのか アーキテクチャ開発 3 黄金律：CLIは事実を生成し、モデルは事実に従って行動する 核となる哲学 4 agentHints : CLIにAgentとの会話を教える 構造化出力 5 SKILL：運用経験をコードとして出荷する 運用経験 6 数字は嘘をつかない：ツール呼び出しは30%減、トークンは25%減 定量的結果 7 PRDからテストループまで：Apidog CLIによる完全なAgentワークフロー 実践的なチュートリアル 8 なぜCI/CD互換性がAgentツールにとって不可欠なのか DevOpsの視点 9 AIブランチ：AI Agentによるより安全なプロジェクト変更 セキュリティレイヤー 10 Spec-Firstは昨日。Skill-Firstへようこそ。 ビジョンと未来 当社は、MCPが最適化しない複雑なワークフロー、つまり検証ゲートと構造化された実行を伴うワークフローを処理するために、CLI + SKILLを構築しました。 MCPはその目的を果たし続けています CLI + SKILLに入る前に、前提を明確にします。 Apidog MCPは現在も利用可能で、メンテナンスされています。 MCPは、プロトコルに従って標準化されたツール接続を提供します。特に以下の用途に適しています。 シンプルで明確に定義された操作 MCPベースのワークフローを好むユーザー MCP準拠クライアントとのエコシステム統合 当社はMCPを置き換えたわけではありません。CLI + SKILLはMCPを補完するために構築されました。 MCPは ツール接続 に優れています。一方で、検証、読み戻し、実行確認を伴う多段階のR&Dワークフローでは、Agentに対して 実行可能なエンジニアリングプロセス を提供するほうが安定します。そこにCLI + SKILLが適合します。 タスクごとに使い分けると、次のようになります。 タスクタイプ 推奨されるアプローチ シンプルなツール呼び出し（例：エンドポイントの取得） MCPまたはCLI。どちらも機能します 多段階ワークフロー（例：テストの作成、検証、実行） CLI + SKILL。より良い体験になります CI/CD統合 CLI。ネイティブに適合します MCPエコシステム統合 MCP。プロトコル標準に適合します 古いCLI：最後にテストを実行する Apidog CLIは長年、APIテストを実行するためのコマンドラインのエントリポイントでした。 apidog run --project <projectId> --test-scenario <scenarioId> --environment <environmentId> この基盤は今も重要です。チームには以下を行うための信頼できる方法が必要です。 ターミナルからAPIテストを実行する CIパイプラインでレポートを生成する 自動化ワークフロー内で品質ゲートを維持する ただし、古いCLIの主な役割は テスト実行 でした。つまり、ワークフローの終盤で使われます。 設計 → ドキュメント化 → モック → デバッグ → テスト → [CLIがテストを実行] CLIは最後のステップでした。他の作業が完了したあとに、既存のテストを実行するためのものだったのです。 新しい要件：Agentにはより多くの操作が必要 API開発は変化しています。 AI Agentは現在、APIライフサイクルの複数段階に参加します。 段階 Agentの活動 API設計 PRDからエンドポイント定義を生成する テスト生成 API仕様からテストケースを作成する デバッグ 障害を分析し、修正案を提示する 移行 プロジェクト間でAPIを移動する メンテナンス API変更時にテストを更新する このようなワークフローでは、CLIは既存テストを最後に実行するだけでは不十分です。 Agentが安定して作業するには、CLI側で次の操作を提供する必要があります。 APIアセット（エンドポイント、スキーマ、環境）を読み取る テストアセット（テストケース、テストシナリオ）を作成または更新する 書き込み前に構造化された変更を検証する 変更をプロジェクトに書き戻す 実行結果を検証

If someone compromised one of your project's dependencies today, would they be able to steal your...