I mean, I already knew (if only based on the hard flattening of my own reputation graph) that StackOverlow was dead, but sheesh. Today I learned...

Prompt: how to mark xunit test as do not run but still allow test to be debugged

xUnit v3 introduces an [Explicit] property on the [Fact] and [Theory] attributes specifically for this purpose. Explicit tests are not run by default unless specifically requested via a runner command line switch or by an IDE gesture (like right-clicking and running an individual test).

... or, later...

Apply a Trait: Ensure your tests are decorated with the [Trait] attribute, for example:

[Trait("Category", "Integration")]

Enter Filter Syntax: In the search box at the top of the Test Explorer, type the exclusion filter using the following format:

-Trait:"Category [Integration]"

That second, in my case, does, in fact, work well.

Why bother with clicking into SO to search for a good answer when I can have a conversation with AI and prompt my way to perfection?

I posted to Mastodon a while back that anyone who thinks we ­aren't going to have humanoid robots sooner than later is missing the boat. Like different sized railroad gauges determining the size of the trains that use them, or that cars are roughly horse-buggy-sized, or that mobile homes are constrained by the width of our interstate lanes, or... or any other practical standard -- our world is largely human-sized! Not just that chair, but doors, tools, the things that tools work on (eg, nuts and bolts), the cabin of trucks/tractors/fire buckets, If you want to plug a multi-use device into something that can also be used by a human, you should have (among your stable) a humanish-sized model of your robot.

Same for LLMs! If you want "compute" to mesh well with humans, you need to create an interface that we already use if you're aiming for quick adoption. Keyboards & mice are good examples -- human hands are insanely dexterous if the keys and devices fit them. And poof, I have an 123 key (give or take) device to create code.

And so, no surprise, we quickly went from 0s and 1s to hex to assembler to coding languages that are decent compromises between written language and charted logic.

But that's for minutiae in code. If we want to describe at a higher level, we talk about it!

You get the point. Anyone who bet against LLMs better not use language themselves either, or they only have themselves to blame.

/soapbox

Labels: ai, language, llm, noteToSelf, stackoverflow, testing