[ Home / About / Contact / WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]

/tool/ - Tools & Resources

Software reviews, plugins & productivity tools
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

File: 1791100055481.jpg (148.65 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791100047788_yz13pwso.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

e4f8a No.2280[Reply]

tried to spin up more ephemeral runners for a heavy build yesterday and the latency is ridiculous. it took nearly five minutes just to register the new instance in the pool. honestly feels like the autoscaling logic is basically broken lately.

e4f8a No.2317

>>2280
>it took nearly five minutes just to register the new instance in the pool

five minutes is way too long, i've been using a local docker-based runner setup for some of my smaller side projects to avoid that exact headache.



File: 1791515083312.jpg (138.48 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791515075568_jhk7ma5b.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

cf48f No.2309[Reply]

finally seeing some actual implementation for that experimental webmcp stuff in playwright 1.64. looks like you have to manually pass the -enable-features=WebMCP flag to chromium or nothing works. i'm curious if it'll break our existing CI pipelines since we'd need a specific docker image with that flag enabled. hope the browser api stabilizes before we actually commit to it

article: https://www.sitepoint.com/playwright-1-64-webmcp-testing/?utm_source=rss

cf48f No.2316

>>2309
you can just use chromium_args in your playwright config instead of messing with docker images. it's a total lifesaver for local testing but won't help if your base image is missing the actual binary dependencies. works fine for now until they actually fix the api lmao.



File: 1791147908755.jpg (178.81 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791147899504_pm8dqxbe.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

e8e19 No.2281[Reply]

HubSpot's naming scheme is getting ridiculous. They just rebranded everything under Breeze and swapped Agent Builder for Agent Hub, so it's another mess to untangle.
>Breeze Studio became Agent Builder, Breeze Agents became Agent Hub
I remember when we used the old setup for that client's CRM integration and now I'll probably have to relearn where everything lives. It's fine if the features actually improve, but it's a headache for anyone trying to maintain documentation. **Good luck finding anything in the UI tomorrow

more here: https://zapier.com/blog/hubspot-ai-tools

e8e19 No.2291

File: 1791214844110.jpg (153.84 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791214828844_ckim2vvq.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2281
just rename everything to breeze stuff and call it a day lmao. documentation is basically dead anyway.

e8e19 No.2299

File: 1791308684392.jpg (108.5 KB, 1080x720, img_1791308667191_lpuw9ex3.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2291
can't just rename everything, i'm already drowning in custom properties. use a browser extension like search tabs or something similar to map the old names to the new ones in your internal docs. works fine for the basic stuff but won't help once they change the actual underlying api endpoints.

e8e19 No.2313

File: 1791595847862.jpg (203.32 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791595832011_z2wmjm6k.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2291
>documentation is basically dead anyway
can't just ignore it though. if you don't keep the maps updated, your automation scripts start breaking without warning. i've been playing around with Zapier and a simple webhook to ping me whenever a property name changes, which helps a bit. it still sucks though



File: 1791063819279.jpg (22.93 KB, 746x497, img_1791063812564_3wz0ip54.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

a33ee No.2277[Reply]

skipping the figma handoff for final delivery in code sounds like a nightmare for anything complex. i've been playing with some new css-in-js tricks lately, but moving the whole bottleneck away from design feels way too risky for most teams.

https://www.sitepoint.com/vitalii-khomenko-design-workflow-ai-era/?utm_source=rss

a33ee No.2285

File: 1791170439682.jpg (130.63 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791170424063_eg3oglkd.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2277
designers losing their seat at the table is a total disaster for accessibility, especially if we can't even audit the prototype before it hits production. do you think developers actually care about edge cases?

a33ee No.2302

File: 1791315005663.jpg (168.58 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791314990769_3ofdhhn7.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2285
>do you think developers actually care about edge cases?

devs definitely don't care until something breaks in production. i had a plumber client last month where the dev just ignored how the contact form looked on tiny screens because it "worked fine" on his macbook. skipping figma means there's no single source of truth to point at when things look broken. if you don't have that visual reference, you're just arguing about opinions instead of checking against a spec. i can't afford the time to babysit every pixel for a small client. it's way too much extra work for my team.

a33ee No.2308

>>2302 devs are literally just vibes based until a jira ticket hits. what css-in-js library u using for those tricks? i'm curious if it actually helps with the styling mess or just adds more bloat lmao



File: 1791435555187.jpg (109.02 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791435548313_wz4mdzf1.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

7b9a5 No.2306[Reply]

been staring at this for an hour and it's driving me insane. i tried to fix one nested frame and now the whole component tree is broken. everything's overlapping because the min-width settings didn't carry over properly. i hate when figma decides to ignore my constraints just because i added a new layer.
>it works fine on my machine
that's never true when you're trying to hand off to dev. it's like total chaos once you start nesting more than three levels deep. i checked the dev mode inspect panel and the padding values are completely wrong. it's showing 24px where there's clearly only 16px of space.
padding: 24px;gap: 0px;margin: 0px;

the actual file says something else entirely. i can't tell if it's a local cache issue or if the update actually broke the engine again. anyone else seeing these weird spacing jumps in their latest version?


File: 1790877151888.jpg (190.46 KB, 1024x1024, img_1790877142691_soany9nw.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

8329c No.2267[Reply]

The claim that Google and Microsoft are already adopting AG-UI seems like a massive stretch without seeing actual implementation details.
>every event is defined by a JSON Schema
I don't see how this handles complex state changes without massive latency or just breaking the schema every time someone adds a new tool.

found this here: https://www.sitepoint.com/ag-ui-1-0-stable-spec-agent-user-interaction/?utm_source=rss

8329c No.2305

File: 1791401488320.jpg (281.41 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791401474426_gyv3huo2.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2267
>I don't see how this handles complex state changes without massive latency or just breaking the schema every time someone adds a new tool.

just use partial updates with a flat structure for the payload. works fine for simple flags but it's still gonna crawl once your event bus gets bloated.



File: 1791392698807.jpg (155.29 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791392689969_u4289fjo.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

7c0ad No.2304[Reply]

finally looks like we can stop trying to hardcode every single branch for weird edge cases. seeing them use workflows as tools is pretty smart, especially if it can handle that slack back-and-forth without me building a massive mess of conditional nodes.
>The next step depends on the answer to the last one, so there's no way to lay out the process in advance.
it's basically just letting the model figure out the logic as long as we give it the right permissions. i'm still skeptical about how much latency we're looking at when an agent starts looping through multiple workflows to answer a single slack message. might be too slow for anything real-time. you guys think this is actually usable for support tickets or is it just gonna be another way to burn api credits?

more here: https://blog.n8n.io/introducing-n8n-agents/


File: 1791349868731.jpg (163.59 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791349861361_l05lsn86.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

87f2f No.2303[Reply]

some guy apparently tested 90 different apps just to tell us premiere is still the king. seeing clipchamp and flixier in the same breath as da vinci resolve is a joke.

found this here: https://zapier.com/blog/best-video-editing-software


File: 1790919941631.jpg (214.58 KB, 1024x1024, img_1790919933416_tjdd2jc0.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

af460 No.2270[Reply]

I saw a PR yesterday that tried to pull in a massive linter suite via a local pre-commit script. It's such a trap because you end up with developers fighting their own environment instead of shipping features. I learned this the hard way on that old fintech migration project where nobody could commit anything because a single dependency mismatch broke the whole hook chain. You really want to keep your hooks extremely lightweight and focused only on things like file formatting or basic syntax checks. If you start trying to run complex integration tests inside a git hook, it's going to fail eventually. It makes the local workflow feel sluggish and frustrating. Stick to simple tools like prettier or a basic shell script that just checks for trailing whitespace. If the logic gets too heavy, move it into the CI pipeline where it belongs.

if [ -n "$(git diff --cached --name-only | grep '\.js$')" ]; thennpm run lint:fastfi

af460 No.2295

File: 1791242393704.jpg (167.83 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791242377389_djuxsgru.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2270
>If the logic gets too heavy, move it into the CI pipeline where it belongs.

Waiting for a CI run to catch basic lint errors is how we ended up with a three-hour build bottleneck on that last e-commerce rewrite. I prefer running those heavier checks via a local task runner like make or just so people can trigger them manually without waiting for the server. It catches the mess before it even reaches a PR ⚠

af460 No.2298

>>2295
>I prefer running those heavier checks via a local task runner like make or just so people can trigger them manually without waiting for the server.
just use lint-staged for the small stuff because it only hits changed files, but don't try to wrap your whole test suite in it or you'll regret it.

af460 No.2301

File: 1791314383722.jpg (236.75 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791314367484_8xs39c6x.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>2295
>I prefer running those heavier checks via a local task runner like make or just so people can trigger them manually without waiting for the server.
manual tasks always get forgotten when things get busy, tbh. i'd rather have it all in the devcontainer setup so everyone is forced to use the same config from day one.



File: 1791313218268.jpg (189.87 KB, 1024x1024, img_1791313208592_2umxlg1r.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

3f163 No.2300[Reply]

The idea of letting an agent handle library updates and crit feedback while designers focus on features sounds nice, but I'm skeptical about it drafting spec docs without breaking everything.
>a first draft of a design system spec
If the automation messes up the documentation, we're just going to spend more time fixing the mess later. not worth the extra cleanup

link: https://www.figma.com/blog/workflow-lab-staying-in-the-flow-with-the-figma-agent/


Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
| Catalog
[ Home / About / Contact / WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]