今日已更新 257 条资讯 | 累计 40702 条内容
关于我们

标签：#Github

找到 1626 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

CodeHub Classroom

GitHub Classroom launched in July 2013. In August 2026, it was sunset — and a lot of instructors were left scrambling for an alternative. The official recommendations point to "yet-another-online-service" - and your school might not like you sending student information (names, emails, etc.) through unknown online solutions. That was one of my pain points (among others). So I built CodeHub Classroom . 🎉 I teach computer programming at the post-secondary level. My colleagues and I needed to adjust fast. You might be scrambling for alternatives. So I'm throwing my hat in the ring with CodeHub Classroom . What it is CodeHub Classroom is a free desktop app that follows a two step Provision and Release approach to setting up student assignments as GitHub repositories. I'm baking in a lot of the features I hoped GitHub Classroom would eventually build, but never did. The core workflow is simple and deliberately opinionated, based on over a decade of actually using GitHub Classroom day-to-day: Provision — generate each student's private repository from your assignment template. Nobody has access yet. Release — invite each student as a collaborator on their own repository, exactly when you're ready. Why it's different It's built around your whole school term , not one classroom at a time. GitHub Classroom made you manage a separate "classroom" per course section. If you taught three sections of the same course, that meant duplicate setup (and possible copy/paste errors) for shared assignments. CodeHub Classroom shows every course and section you're teaching this term in one dashboard . It runs on your computer — there's no backend. No GitHub App, no shared service account, nothing for GitHub to rate-limit. It just drives the git and GitHub CLI ( gh ) tools you probably already have installed. If you've got the GitHub CLI, you already had everything CodeHub needs. On privacy This one matters to me, so I'll say it plainly: I built CodeHub Classroom so that ALL your classroom d

2026-08-31 原文 →
AI 资讯

The Day I Became the One Being pip Installed: My Pre-Release Checks Caught 3 Leaks

(Translation of my Japanese article on Zenn.) This is part 4 of a series where I keep delegating implementation to AI without being able to read the code, building a vulnerability triage CLI called triage-lens. This installment is about distribution rather than the tool's internals: the tool had been sitting on GitHub, and I published it to PyPI so a single pip install triage-lens brings it in. A confession first. Shipping took more nerve than any of the feature work did. And three "leaks" actually turned up right before release. From the installing side to the installed side I can't read code, but I have typed pip install before. Years ago I dabbled in Python out of curiosity, and the one thing that stuck was the experience of a useful tool arriving in one line. Now that I'm the one publishing, the other side of that one line finally became concrete. Someone builds a thing, shapes it into a package, and puts it on the public shelf called PyPI. That's why it installs in one line anywhere in the world. My turn to put something on the shelf. I delegated the release work to AI too: package metadata, the release workflow, and one thing I insisted on. Instead of an API token, authentication to PyPI uses Trusted Publishing (OIDC). Nothing like a long-lived password gets stored anywhere; you declare "trust publishes from this workflow in this GitHub repository" and that's it. A secret you never hold is a secret that can't leak. The pre-release check caught three real ones In this project, nothing goes out to a public repository without passing a mechanical check. Procedures and tests, not eyeballs, verify that no personal or development-only information is mixed in. For three releases it came up empty. That's what insurance looks like. On the fourth run it caught something real. Three somethings. First, test code had slipped into the distribution. The packaging tool's default behavior had a path where the whole development test suite gets bundled along. I was about to scat

2026-08-31 原文 →
AI 资讯

Ownership, and Making This Template Your Own (Part 5)

Part 4 covered how this platform actually ships — scaffolding, CI/CD, and the two deployment shapes. This closing part is the two things every one of the last four parts has assumed: who actually owns each piece of this, and what it takes to make this whole template yours. Who owns what Every piece of this platform belongs to exactly one team, and that split is what makes independent deploys survive contact with a real organization, not just a single-team demo: Piece Owned by Depends on Host / Shell Platform team Store, Components, the manifest, the identity provider Components MFE Platform / design-systems team Nothing (a leaf) Store MFE Platform team The identity provider Utilities MFE Platform team Nothing (a leaf) Domain MFE (×N) Domain team Components, Store, Utilities only Manifest Registry Platform team Nothing Identity provider(s) Outside the platform — whichever the deployment configures — Backend / BFF Domain team, or a shared gateway (Part 2) Each team's own data The rule underneath the table: domain teams never import from each other, only from the shared platform layer. That keeps the dependency graph a strict two-level tree — Host → platform layer → domain leaves — instead of a mesh, which is what keeps independent deployability tractable once there's more than a handful of domain teams. It's the same rule that made every part of this series possible to write in isolation: Part 3's auth flow doesn't need to know Part 4's deploy pipeline exists, and neither needs to know how many domain teams there eventually are. Making this template your own Everything organization-specific in this platform — branding, which identity provider(s) it trusts, where the manifest lives — has lived in one file across this entire series, on purpose: // platform.config.json { "orgName" : "acme-corp" , "branding" : { "primaryColor" : "#0B5FFF" , "logoUrl" : "..." }, "idp" : { "issuers" : [ { "id" : "primary" , "issuer" : "https://issuer.example.com" , "clientId" : "..." , "def

2026-08-31 原文 →
开发者

I Built a Free Tool That Turns Your GitHub Profile Into a Shareable Stat Card — Here's How

The Problem GitHub profiles are data-rich but visually boring Developers want to "flex" their stats but have no aesthetic way to do it The Solution DevCard: enter username → pick theme → download PNG Show all 3 themes with screenshots How It Works (Architecture) Cloudflare Worker + GitHub GraphQL API (single query) Edge caching strategy Client-side rendering with html-to-image The CORS avatar trick (base64 conversion) The RPG Class System (fun section) How top language maps to character class Full class table (TypeScript → Archmage, Rust → Forgemaster, etc.) This section alone will get shares Try It Yourself Link: https://www.devcard.tech/ CTA: "Drop your card in the comments" What's Next VS Mode (compare two devs) More themes Open to suggestions

2026-08-30 原文 →
AI 资讯

The most common reasons Apple rejects your app

Getting a rejection email from App Review feels personal. It usually isn't. Apple runs the same review process against every submission, and most rejections trace back to a small number of guidelines that come up again and again. Knowing which ones, and what they actually mean, turns a vague rejection into a fixable checklist. How often this actually happens Apple's own 2024 App Store Transparency Report puts real numbers on this. Out of 7.77 million app submissions reviewed that year, 1.93 million were rejected, roughly 25%. Of those, 295,109 were fixed and approved on resubmission. Separately, 82,509 already-live apps were removed after the fact, most commonly for guideline or design violations (42,252), followed by fraud (38,315). Apple hasn't published a breakdown of rejections by specific guideline number, so treat any listicle claiming "62% of rejections are X" as unsourced. What Apple has said, in its own commentary alongside the report, is that the most common drivers, in order, are performance and bugs, legal issues, design problems, business-model (payment) violations, and safety risks. That ordering lines up with the specific guidelines below. The guidelines that actually catch people These are pulled directly from Apple's current App Store Review Guidelines, not paraphrased from a third party. Guideline 2.1, App Completeness. Covers crashes, obvious bugs, placeholder content, broken demo accounts, and non-functional in-app purchases. If a reviewer can't get past your login screen or your app crashes on launch, this is the line it gets cited under. It's the single most avoidable category, because it's the one you can actually test yourself before submitting. Guideline 4.2, Minimum Functionality. Your app has to be more than "a repackaged website." Apple wants "lasting entertainment value or adequate utility." A thin wrapper around a web view, with no native functionality added, gets flagged here. A sub-clause, 4.2.6, specifically targets apps built from c

2026-08-30 原文 →
← 上一页 下一页 →