标签：#p

The manager opens your portfolio. Your resume says you have five years of automation experience. The README lists Selenium, Playwright, Appium, Jenkins, Docker, Kubernetes. He scrolls. There is no code. The browser tab closes. This is you. Not because you lack skill—you have it—but because your public proof reads like a shopping list. The tools you name say nothing about how you think when a flaky test fails at 2am, or how you convince a developer that a bug is real. If you’re serious about landing a role that demands more than record-and-playback, you need to stop treating your portfolio like a keyword bingo card. Here are three mistakes that kill your chances instantly, and exactly how to fix them. Mistake 1: Tool jockeying Listing every automation framework you’ve heard of is a reflex. A hiring manager sees "Proficient in Cypress, Playwright, Selenium, WebDriverIO" and assumes you ran npm init once in each and called it done. Most testers frontload tools because they’re scared of the empty space where code belongs. Experienced testers show one test, deliberately written, with a comment that explains a trade-off they chose. The difference is not volume. A single 30-line script that handles a login flow with a purposeful wait strategy teaches more about you than a six-tool résumé. I’ve deleted my own old projects after re-reading them and realizing they said nothing about why any assertion existed. That quiet cringe is the signal you’re ready to improve. What you ship in your portfolio must answer one question: "What did this person decide, and why?" Move your tool list to a footnote. Let a real test carry the message. Mistake 2: The perfect test trap A portfolio full of green builds is a trap. Every team knows that real automation breaks: the CI node runs slow, the third-party API throttles you, the DOM renders a fraction of a second late. Showing only passing tests hides how you handle the ugly parts of the job. Most testers polish every assertion until it’s spot

Most people think the SDET title means you are automatically more valuable than a manual tester. The SDET writes Playwright scripts. The SDET configures CI pipelines. The SDET talks about page objects and retry strategies. The manual tester clicks through screens and writes bug reports. Here is the truth I have watched play out across teams: the manual tester who can write a SQL join will consistently outperform the SDET who cannot. Not because SQL is magic. Because SQL is the shortest path to understanding what the system actually stores, not what the UI shows you. The problem with automation-first thinking I have seen SDETs spend three sprints building a test suite that validates every button, every dropdown, every error toast. The suite passes in CI. The suite passes in staging. The suite passes in production. And the bug still ships. Why? Because the test checked that the UI rendered correctly. It never checked that the database actually saved the right record. The SDET wrote assertions against DOM elements, not against data. The manual tester, meanwhile, ran a simple query. Saw the order status was "pending" when it should have been "confirmed." Filed a bug with the exact SQL that proved the issue. The developer fixed it in ten minutes. That is not a story about manual versus automated. That is a story about data literacy versus UI obsession. What a SQL join gives you that a locator never will A Playwright locator tells you something is on the screen. A SQL join tells you something is true. When you write page.getByText('Order confirmed') , you are testing that the frontend displays those words. You are not testing that the backend actually confirmed the order. You are not testing that the payment gateway returned success. You are not testing that the inventory decremented. A SQL join connects those dots. SELECT o . id , o . status , p . status AS payment_status , i . quantity AS remaining_stock FROM orders o JOIN payments p ON o . id = p . order_id JOIN invent

How to Build and Debug MCP Servers for Claude Desktop in 5 Seconds 🔨 Model Context Protocol (MCP) by Anthropic is rapidly becoming the open standard for connecting LLMs like Claude Desktop, Cursor, and Windsurf to local dev tools, APIs, and databases. However, setting up an MCP server from scratch, configuring stdio transports, and debugging JSON-RPC requests in the terminal can be tedious. To solve this, I built mcp-forge — an open-source Swiss-Army developer toolkit and inspector for MCP servers. ⚡ What is mcp-forge ? mcp-forge gives you everything you need to build, test, inspect, and run MCP servers with zero setup overhead : 🛠️ npx mcp-forge serve : Launches a built-in suite of developer tools for Claude Desktop (Git summary, System diagnostics, Mermaid syntax validator, HTTP API tester). 🔍 npx mcp-forge inspect <cmd> : An interactive stdio inspector to connect to any MCP server, list tools/resources/prompts, and test executions live. ⚡ npx mcp-forge init <name> : Scaffolds a production-ready TypeScript MCP server in 5 seconds with TypeScript, tsup bundler, and Vitest. 🌐 npx mcp-forge ui : A visual dark-themed web dashboard for real-time WebSocket traffic monitoring. 🚀 Quickstart: Supercharge Claude Desktop in 1 Minute You don't even need to install anything globally! You can run mcp-forge directly via npx . 1. Add mcp-forge to Claude Desktop Add this snippet to your claude_desktop_config.json : { "mcpServers" : { "mcp-forge" : { "command" : "npx" , "args" : [ "-y" , "mcp-forge" , "serve" ] } } } Now Claude can automatically inspect your Git status, fetch system memory/CPU telemetry, validate Mermaid diagram syntax, and test REST endpoints! Scaffold a New MCP Server in 5 Seconds Want to build your own custom MCP server? Run: npx mcp-forge init my-awesome-mcp-server cd my-awesome-mcp-server npm install npm run dev You get a fully-typed MCP server template with @modelcontextprotocol/sdk configured and ready to publish. Inspect & Debug Any MCP Server in Terminal N

If you don't mind using more data, make these changes to step up your listening experience in the YouTube Music app.

We also now know when it will be released: January 22, 2027.

Liquid syntax error: Variable '{{service=\"{service}' was not properly terminated with regexp: /\}\}/

Most agent frameworks help you build a workflow. The harder part starts after that: the workflow has to run as a long-lived process, fail clearly, restart carefully, and be inspectable after the fact. That's the gap I'm building AgentOS for — an open-source, Rust-first runtime layer that sits underneath frameworks like LangGraph, AutoGen or CrewAI instead of replacing them. What one process gives you cargo run -p agentos-cli -- run --agent examples/simple_agent.toml That single command brings up a supervised agent, a health endpoint, a gRPC message bus, a live SSE event stream, and a recorded trace you can replay later. No API key is needed just to bring the runtime up. Time-travel debugging Your agent does something weird on step 7. Reproducing it costs real API calls, and it never behaves the same way twice. AgentOS journals every LLM exchange and tool result at the provider boundary, so any run can be replayed deterministically — and forked into alternate timelines: agentOS run --agent my_agent.toml # every step journaled automatically agentOS replay --session agent_123 # offline re-run, no API cost, drift-checked agentOS fork --from ckpt_4 --prompt "try the other path" The dashboard's Recordings view turns those journals into a scrubbable timeline: step through the prompt, each exchange, tool calls and their results, with per-exchange checkpoints as fork anchors. What's inside crates/kernel — lifecycle, agent handles, supervisor crates/bus — in-memory, gRPC, SSE and WebSocket messaging crates/trace — recording, replay, diff, checkpoint model crates/vault — secret isolation, encryption, scopes, audit crates/memory , crates/registry , crates/llm , crates/cli , crates/sdk dashboard/ — React debugging surface Where it honestly stands Stable enough for local use: the run / ps / logs / trace / replay CLI flows, local state inspection, export and import, and the core crates with workspace checks and tests. Still experimental: the dashboard, the WASM plugin runtime, Doc

How you doin'? Let's talk about the Iconic thing we heard a lot: "server down, try later." Your daddy said it while trying to book a Tatkal ticket. Your cousin said it the day JEE results dropped and the portal turned into a spinning wheel of despair. It's become our national way of shrugging at technology — like the internet is weather, and servers just... go down sometimes, nobody's fault, act of god, try later na. Except it's not weather. Every single time a site goes down, there is a specific , findable reason, sitting in a log or a trace somewhere, and almost nobody ever looks at it because looking at it is annoying and "try later" is right there, free, zero effort. So for a hackathon, I decided to stop saying "server down hai" and start actually finding out what "down" means. I built a fake exam-results website, gave myself the power to break it on command, and then made myself watch — using an observability tool called SigNoz — exactly what "down" looks like from the inside, every single time. Turns out "server down" is not one thing. It's at least four different things wearing the same trench coat. Suspect #1: The database that forgot how to hurry This is the boring one and also the most common one. Somewhere behind your "check result" button, there's a database being asked a question, and sometimes that question takes way longer to answer than it should — too many people asking at once, a badly written query, whatever. The site isn't "down." It's just... waiting. Politely. Forever. I simulated this by literally telling my backend to nap for 3 seconds before touching the database: with tracer . start_as_current_span ( " db.query " ) as db_span : if state . db_slowdown : db_span . set_attribute ( " chaos.triggered " , " db_slowdown " ) time . sleep ( state . db_slowdown_seconds ) Then I opened SigNoz's trace explorer, sorted by duration, and there it was — a fat, unmissable span sitting right at the top labeled db.query , 3 seconds wide, with an attribute lit

Modern applications don't just need features—they need observability . When an API becomes slow, a database query takes too long, or an unexpected error occurs, developers need answers quickly. That's where SigNoz and OpenTelemetry come in. For the Agents of SigNoz Hackathon 2026 , I integrated SigNoz into my existing MERN Stack e-commerce application called Ram Store and transformed it into a fully observable application. In this blog, I'll walk through what I built, how I instrumented it, the challenges I faced, and what I learned. About the Project Ram Store is a full-stack e-commerce platform built using the MERN Stack. Features User Authentication Product Management Categories & Subcategories Shopping Cart Address Management Order Management MongoDB Database Tech Stack React (Vite) Node.js Express.js MongoDB Docker OpenTelemetry SigNoz Winston Logger Why Observability? Before integrating SigNoz, I could only rely on: console.log() Manual debugging Browser Network tab When something failed, I had questions like: Which API is slow? Why is the response delayed? Which MongoDB query is taking time? How many requests is my backend serving? Where exactly did the error happen? Without observability, finding answers takes time. I wanted a single place where I could monitor everything. That's why I chose SigNoz . Setting Up SigNoz I self-hosted SigNoz locally using Docker. Once all the containers were running successfully, the dashboard became available. After the initial setup, the next step was instrumenting my backend. Integrating OpenTelemetry I added OpenTelemetry to my Node.js backend. Using the Node SDK together with automatic instrumentation, I configured: Express instrumentation HTTP instrumentation MongoDB instrumentation OTLP gRPC exporter Now every request automatically generates telemetry without modifying every route. Distributed Traces One of my favorite features is Distributed Tracing . Whenever I perform an action in Ram Store—like opening products or ad

I spent a week trying to answer one question about my own AI agents: when one of them does something stupid in production, how do I prove the fix worked? For normal software the answer is boring. You have monitoring, an incident, a regression test, a staged rollout. For an agent you usually have a trace viewer and a shrug. So I built ArcNet on self-hosted SigNoz for the Agents of SigNoz hackathon, and most of what I learned was about SigNoz internals I could not have guessed from the docs. Here are the parts that cost me real time. The setup The stack is small. Agents run on Agno. An in-process SDK wraps them and does two jobs: OpenTelemetry instrumentation, and guardrails from unplug-ai at four checkpoints (input, retrieved content, tool call, output). Traces go to self-hosted SigNoz over OTLP. A FastAPI server reads back out of SigNoz, and a React UI sits on top. Installing SigNoz was the easiest part, which surprised me. Foundry takes one file: apiVersion : v1alpha1 kind : Installation metadata : name : signoz spec : deployment : flavor : compose mode : docker signoz : spec : image : signoz/signoz:v0.133.0 foundryctl cast -f casting.yaml That brings up SigNoz and its MCP server together and writes a casting.yaml.lock with checksums. I committed the lock file, and re-running foundryctl forge against it later produced a byte-identical file. That is a genuinely nice property for a hackathon judge or a teammate. Lesson 1: check what your instrumentor actually emits This is the one I would tell everyone. I assumed Agno instrumentation would produce OpenTelemetry's gen_ai.* semantic conventions, because that is what the GenAI spec describes. I started sketching dashboard queries against gen_ai.usage.input_tokens before anything was running. Then I turned it on. openinference-instrumentation-agno emits OpenInference conventions, which are a different attribute set. The spans I actually got were shaped like this: agent_j.run └── gpt-5.6-luna.invoke └── search_tickets Eve

Let me start with a question. If a stranger handed you a USB drive and said "plug this in, it just...

The Apple team behind the upcoming smart glasses is reportedly exploring several tweaks related to user privacy.

Don't use WD-40 or Q-tips, for starters.

Two weeks ago I had never run an AI model on my own machine. Every project I had ever built phoned a...

Apple will refresh its Series 12 and Ultra 4 watches with better specs, but not a design overhaul.

"The first autonomous agent cyberattack is an unprecedented event. It deserves an unprecedented response!"

Your battery is continually losing charge.

Welcome back to TechCrunch Mobility, your hub for the future of transportation and now, more than ever, the role AI is playing in it.

Originally published at https://blog.pathvector.dev/protocol-in-code-bgp-05/ — part of the free Protocol Lab series. This post is part of Protocol in Code , a free series that reads network protocols not as configuration examples but as logic with inputs, state, and branches — actual code you can read and run. The whole series lives here: github.com/pathvector-studio/protocol-in-code . If you're newer to this material and want a more hands-on, guided on-ramp first, start with the companion Protocol Lab series and come back. Today's module is from the BGP track, Session 05. The source file is src/protocol_in_code/bgp/policy.py , and it builds directly on the origin-validation logic from Session 04. The question to keep in your head Here's the one thing to turn over as you read: What happens after origin validation returns valid , invalid , or not_found — and why does the result still need routing policy before anything happens to the route? There's a piece of folk knowledge that says "RPKI invalid means the router rejects the route." It's the kind of statement that sounds like a rule of the protocol. It isn't. It's one possible policy decision built on top of a validation result . The whole point of this session is to separate those two things in your head, and the code makes the seam impossible to miss. Two layers, not one Validation answers a factual question: does this route's origin AS match what the ROAs say it should be? That's Session 04's job, and its output is a ValidationState . Policy answers a completely different question: given that fact, what do we do ? Drop the route? Keep it but make it less preferred? Accept it normally? That's a local decision — different operators configure it differently, and the same validation result can lead to different actions on different routers. The file models the second layer with three small pieces. First, the set of actions the router can take: class PolicyAction ( str , Enum ): ACCEPT = " accept " DEPRIORITIZE = " de

Originally published at https://blog.pathvector.dev/protocol-in-code-bgp-04/ — part of the free Protocol Lab series. This post is part of Protocol in Code , a free series that reads network protocols as logic — inputs, state, and branches — rather than as configuration examples. The full source, walkthroughs, and site lessons live in the repo: pathvector-studio/protocol-in-code . If you're newer to this and want to build the protocols hands-on before dissecting them, start with the companion Protocol Lab series instead. Today we're on the BGP track, session 04, reading a single small file: src/protocol_in_code/bgp/validation.py . It's about 40 lines. The idea inside it is one that trips up a lot of engineers who've been running BGP for years. The question to keep in your head BGP's best path selection already ran. It compared local preference, AS_PATH length, MED, and the rest of the tiebreak ladder, and it picked a winner. So here's the question this module wants you turning over: Core question: How do we decide whether the origin AS is authorized — even after BGP has already selected this route as the best path? The trap is the sentence "it was the best path, so it must be fine." Best and authorized are two different words, and in the code they are two different decisions made by two different pieces of data. Best path selection asks which of these routes do I prefer? Origin validation asks is the AS at the end of this path actually allowed to originate this prefix? A route can win selection and still be a hijack. RPKI origin validation is the mechanism that answers the second question, and the file we're reading is a toy model of exactly that. Two kinds of information The first thing to read isn't a function — it's the two dataclasses, because the whole session is really about keeping them apart. @dataclass ( frozen = True ) class BGPRoute : prefix : str origin_as : int @dataclass ( frozen = True ) class VRP : prefix : str max_length : int origin_as : int BGPRout