今日已更新 293 条资讯 | 累计 23876 条内容
关于我们

标签:#ci

找到 1542 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

Why Most Azure DevOps Pipelines Become Slow Over Time

* When a project first starts, CI/CD pipelines are usually simple. * Build the application. Run a few tests. Deploy somewhere. Done. Then six months pass. Another test gets added. Then another deployment step. A security scan. Performance tests. Notifications. More environments. Before long, a pipeline that once took five minutes now takes forty-five. I've seen this happen more than once, and it's rarely because Azure DevOps is the problem. It's usually because nobody ever stops to ask one simple question: Does this step still belong here? Everything Ends Up in the Same Pipeline One of the most common mistakes I see is trying to make a single pipeline do everything. Every Pull Request ends up running: Every unit test Every API test Hundreds of UI tests Security scans Deployment steps Report generation The result? Developers wait longer for feedback, releases become slower, and people eventually start ignoring failed pipelines because they happen too often. Fast Feedback Wins Not every test needs to run on every commit. A better approach is to think about the purpose of each pipeline. For a Pull Request, I want answers quickly. That usually means: Build the application Run unit tests Run a small smoke test suite Stop if something important fails Everything else can happen later. Long-running regression tests, cross-browser testing and other expensive checks are often better suited to scheduled or nightly pipelines. Pipelines Should Evolve A pipeline isn't something you build once and forget about. Every few months it's worth reviewing it. Ask yourself: Which step takes the longest? Which tests fail most often? Are there any tasks nobody remembers adding? Are we getting useful feedback, or just more output? Removing unnecessary work is just as valuable as adding new automation. Final Thoughts Azure DevOps is an incredibly powerful platform, but even the best tools become frustrating if they're overloaded with unnecessary work. The goal isn't to build the biggest pipel

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

Presentation: The Rust High Performance Talk You Did Not Expect

Ruth Linehan explains how migrating high-performance caching services from Kotlin to Rust shattered internal preconceptions around delivery velocity and engineering overhead. She discusses the ergonomics of the Rust borrow checker, shares how compile-time safety shortens the developer feedback loop, and profiles how tools like Criterion and flamegraphs optimize concurrent code paths. By Ruth Linehan

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

RoomCraft AI: optimizar la distribución de una habitación con Simulated Annealing

Colocar los muebles de una habitación es un problema de optimización con muchas restricciones: la cama no va delante de la puerta, el escritorio quiere luz natural, hay que poder circular. Hay un número enorme de disposiciones posibles. RoomCraft AI las explora automáticamente a partir de una descripción en lenguaje natural. El pipeline de tres etapas Parser con LLM: el usuario describe su habitación en texto libre ("un dormitorio de 4x3 con la puerta al norte y una ventana al este"). Un LLM ( Llama 3.1 vía Groq ) lo convierte en una estructura de datos validada con Pydantic : dimensiones, aberturas, muebles deseados. Latencia: <1s. Optimizador con Simulated Annealing: aquí está el corazón del proyecto. Visualización y export: los layouts se renderizan en 3D en el navegador con Three.js y se exportan como plano técnico en PDF con ReportLab . Por qué Simulated Annealing El espacio de disposiciones posibles es combinatorio y lleno de óptimos locales. Una búsqueda voraz se queda atascada en la primera solución "decente". El Simulated Annealing imita el enfriamiento de un metal: al principio acepta movimientos malos con cierta probabilidad (alta "temperatura"), lo que le permite escapar de óptimos locales; según baja la temperatura, se vuelve cada vez más exigente y converge. Es una metaheurística ideal cuando el espacio de soluciones es irregular y no tienes gradiente. La función objetivo puntúa cada disposición de 0 a 100 según ergonomía: espacio de circulación, relaciones entre muebles, acceso a luz y aberturas. El sistema devuelve el top 5 de layouts, no solo el mejor, para dar opciones. Rendimiento Parse: <1s . Optimización: 2–5s . Export PDF: <1s . Footprint en reposo: ~100 MB de RAM. Qué aprendí Que combinar un LLM (para entender lenguaje) con una metaheurística clásica (para optimizar de verdad) es un patrón potentísimo: el LLM traduce el problema humano a uno formal, y un algoritmo determinista y barato lo resuelve mejor —y de forma más explicable— que pedirle

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

We Checked Whether On-Site SEO Predicts AI Citations. The Data Says Mostly No.

Every GEO ("generative engine optimization") tool, including ours until recently, sells some version of the same pitch: fix your robots.txt, add Schema.org markup, write FAQ schema, and AI engines will cite you more. We build one of these tools — Causabi scans sites for AI-crawler readiness and generates fix files (robots.txt, llms.txt, JSON-LD, FAQ blocks). As part of validating our own scoring weights, we ran the numbers on whether the score actually predicts getting cited. Short version: it mostly doesn't, once brand prominence is in the picture. What we measured We scored 44 domains on a 6-category on-site readiness algorithm: robots.txt (AI bots allowed or blocked) Schema.org (Organization/LocalBusiness JSON-LD completeness) FAQ schema (FAQPage markup, 3+ entries) content depth/structure brand/NAP signals freshness (dateModified, recency) Then we checked how often each domain actually got cited by an AI engine (Claude, via its web-search tool, one measurement window, a fixed prompt set per domain). What we found On-site score vs. citation rate: Pearson r ≈ -0.08, Spearman ρ ≈ -0.03. Functionally no correlation — if anything, a very slight negative one, which is more likely noise than a real inverse relationship at this sample size. 86% of the 44 domains got zero citations in the window, independent of their score. The domains that did get cited clustered almost entirely by brand prominence — well-known domains got cited at a noticeably higher rate (~0.16 of prompts) than everyone else (~0 for the rest of the sample), regardless of how well-optimized their markup was. Why I'm not overselling this n=44 is small. This is an internal validation exercise for our own product, not a peer-reviewed study, and I don't want it read as one. Specific caveats: Single engine (Claude) this round. Citation behavior differs meaningfully across ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, and Perplexity — we haven't run the same check across all four yet. One time window, no longitudinal before/after.

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

Our ‘explosive diarrhea parasite’ future

Bryan, a food broker from Michigan, wasn't sure if he'd be able to make it to urgent care in time. He started feeling off on Thursday, and by Saturday, he was having to use the bathroom every 15 to 30 minutes. "It's no joke about the explosive diarrhea," Bryan, who asked that his last name […]

2026-07-16 原文 →