Shared vs Shielded Context: Testers and Devs Writing Tests Together - Related to entries, display, devs, css, top-layer

Transitioning Top-Layer Entries And The Display Property In CSS

Transitioning Top-Layer Entries And The Display Property In CSS.

We are getting spoiled with so many new elements involving animations with CSS, from @starting-style and transition-behavior — two properties that are absolutely welcome additions to your everyday work with CSS animations. We are getting spoiled with so many new elements involving animations with CSS, from scroll-driven animations to view transitions , and plenty of things in between. But it’s not always the big elements that make our everyday lives easier; sometimes, it’s those ease-of-life elements that truly enhance our projects. In this article, Brecht De Ruyte puts two elements on display:and— two properties that are absolutely welcome additions to your everyday work with CSS animations.

Animating from and to display: none; was something we could only achieve with JavaScript to change classes or create other hacks. The reason why we couldn’t do this in CSS is explained in the new CSS Transitions Level 2 specification:

“In Level 1 of this specification, transitions can only start during a style change event for elements that have a defined before-change style established by the previous style change event. That means a transition could not be started on an element that was not being rendered for the previous style change event.”.

In simple terms, this means that we couldn’t start a transition on an element that is hidden or that has just been created.

What Does transition-behavior: allow-discrete Do?

allow-discrete is a bit of a strange name for a CSS property value, right? We are going on about transitioning display: none , so why isn’t this named transition-behavior: allow-display instead? The reason is that this does a bit more than handling the CSS display property, as there are other “discrete” properties in CSS. A simple rule of thumb is that discrete properties do not transition but usually flip right away between two states. Other examples of discrete properties are visibility and mix-blend-mode . I’ll include an example of these at the end of this article.

To summarise, setting the transition-behavior property to allow-discrete allows us to tell the browser it can swap the values of a discrete property ([website], display , visibility , and mix-blend-mode ) at the 50% mark instead of the 0% mark of a transition.

The @starting-style rule defines the styles of an element right before it is rendered to the page. This is highly needed in combination with transition-behavior and this is why:

When an item is added to the DOM or is initially set to display: none , it needs some sort of “starting style” from which it needs to transition. To take the example further, popovers and dialog elements are added to a top layer which is a layer that is outside of your document flow, you can kind of look at it as a sibling of the element in your page’s structure. Now, when opening this dialog or popover, they get created inside that top layer, so they don’t have any styles to start transitioning from, which is why we set @starting-style . Don’t worry if all of this sounds a bit confusing. The demos might make it more clearly. The significant thing to know is that we can give the browser something to start the animation with since it otherwise has nothing to animate from.

At the moment of writing, the transition-behavior is available in Chrome, Edge, Safari, and Firefox. It’s the same for @starting-style , but Firefox currently does not support animating from display: none . But remember that everything in this article can be perfectly used as a progressive enhancement.

Now that we have the theory of all this behind us, let’s get practical. I’ll be covering three use cases in this article:

Animating from and to display: none in the DOM.

in the DOM. Animating dialogs and popovers entering and exiting the top layer.

More “discrete properties” we can handle.

Animating From And To display: none In The DOM.

For the first example, let’s take a look at @starting-style alone. I created this demo purely to explain the magic. Imagine you want two buttons on a page to add or remove list items inside of an unordered list.

Next, we add actions that add or remove those list items. This can be any method of your choosing, but for demo purposes, I quickly wrote a bit of JavaScript for it:

With this in place, we can write some CSS for our items to animate the removing part:

ul { li { transition: opacity [website], transform [website]; &.removing { opacity: 0; transform: translate(0, 50%); } } }.

This is great! Our .removing animation is already looking perfect, but what we were looking for here was a way to animate the entry of items coming inside of our DOM. For this, we will need to define those starting styles, as well as the final state of our list items.

First, let’s enhancement the CSS to have the final state inside of that list item:

ul { li { opacity: 1; transform: translate(0, 0); transition: opacity [website], transform [website]; &.removing { opacity: 0; transform: translate(0, 50%); } } }.

Not much has changed, but now it’s up to us to let the browser know what the starting styles should be. We could set this the same way we did the .removing styles like so:

ul { li { opacity: 1; transform: translate(0, 0); transition: opacity [website], transform [website]; @starting-style { opacity: 0; transform: translate(0, 50%); } &.removing { opacity: 0; transform: translate(0, 50%); } } }.

Now we’ve let the browser know that the @starting-style should include zero opacity and be slightly nudged to the bottom using a transform . The final result is something like this:

But we don’t need to stop there! We could use different animations for entering and exiting. We could, for example, enhancement our starting style to the following:

@starting-style { opacity: 0; transform: translate(0, -50%); }.

Doing this, the items will enter from the top and exit to the bottom. See the full example in this CodePen:

When To Use transition-behavior: allow-discrete.

In the previous example, we added and removed items from our DOM. In the next demo, we will show and hide items using the CSS display property. The basic setup is pretty much the same, except we will add eight list items to our DOM with the .hidden class attached to it:

Let’s put together everything we learned so far, add a @starting-style to our items, and do the basic setup in CSS:

ul { li { display: block; opacity: 1; transform: translate(0, 0); transition: opacity [website], transform [website]; @starting-style { opacity: 0; transform: translate(0, -50%); } &.hidden { display: none; opacity: 0; transform: translate(0, 50%); } } }.

This time, we have added the .hidden class, set it to display: none , and added the same opacity and transform declarations as we previously did with the .removing class in the last example. As you might expect, we get a nice fade-in for our items, but removing them is still very abrupt as we set our items directly to display: none .

This is where the transition-behavior property comes into play. To break it down a bit more, let’s remove the transition property shorthand of our previous CSS and open it up a bit:

ul { li { display: block; opacity: 1; transform: translate(0, 0); transition-property: opacity, transform; transition-duration: [website]; } }.

All that is left to do is transition the display property and set the transition-behavior property to allow-discrete :

ul { li { display: block; opacity: 1; transform: translate(0, 0); transition-property: opacity, transform, display; transition-duration: [website]; transition-behavior: allow-discrete; /* etc. */ } }.

We are now animating the element from display: none , and the result is exactly as we wanted it:

We can use the transition shorthand property to make our code a little less verbose:

transition: opacity [website], transform [website], display [website] allow-discrete;

You can add allow-discrete in there. But if you do, take note that if you declare a shorthand transition after transition-behavior , it will be overruled. So, instead of this:

transition-behavior: allow-discrete; transition: opacity [website], transform [website], display [website];

…we want to declare transition-behavior after the transition shorthand:

transition: opacity [website], transform [website], display [website]; transition-behavior: allow-discrete;

Otherwise, the transition shorthand property overrides transition-behavior .

Animating Dialogs And Popovers Entering And Exiting The Top Layer.

Let’s add a few use cases with dialogs and popovers. Dialogs and popovers are good examples because they get added to the top layer when opening them.

We’ve already likened the “top layer” to a sibling of the element, but you might also think of it as a special layer that sits above everything else on a web page. It’s like a transparent sheet that you can place over a drawing. Anything you draw on that sheet will be visible on top of the original drawing.

The original drawing, in this example, is the DOM. This means that the top layer is out of the document flow, which provides us with a few benefits. For example, as I stated before, dialogs and popovers are added to this top layer, and that makes perfect sense because they should always be on top of everything else. No more z-index: 9999 !

z-index is irrelevant : Elements on the top layer are always on top, regardless of their z-index value.

: Elements on the top layer are always on top, regardless of their value. DOM hierarchy doesn’t matter : An element’s position in the DOM doesn’t affect its stacking order on the top layer.

: An element’s position in the DOM doesn’t affect its stacking order on the top layer. Backdrops: We get access to a new ::backdrop pseudo-element that lets us style the area between the top layer and the DOM beneath it.

Hopefully, you are starting to understand the importance of the top layer and how we can transition elements in and out of it as we would with popovers and dialogues.

Transitioning The Dialog Element In The Top Layer.

The following HTML contains a button that opens a element, and that element contains another button that closes the . So, we have one button that opens the and one that closes it.

A lot is happening in HTML with invoker commands that will make the following step a bit easier, but for now, let’s add a bit of JavaScript to make this modal actually work:

I’m using the following styles as a starting point. Notice how I’m styling the ::backdrop as an added bonus!

dialog { padding: 30px; width: 100%; max-width: 600px; background: #fff; border-radius: 8px; border: 0; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, [website] 0px 19px 38px, rgba(0, 0, 0, [website] 0px 15px 12px; &::backdrop { background-image: linear-gradient( 45deg in oklab, oklch(80% [website] 222) 0%, oklch(35% [website] 313) 100% ); } }.

This results in a pretty hard transition for the entry, meaning it’s not very smooth:

Let’s add transitions to this dialog element and the backdrop. I’m going a bit faster this time because by now, you likely see the pattern and know what’s happening:

dialog { opacity: 0; translate: 0 30%; transition-property: opacity, translate, display; transition-duration: [website]; transition-behavior: allow-discrete; &[open] { opacity: 1; translate: 0 0; @starting-style { opacity: 0; translate: 0 -30%; } } }.

When a dialog is open, the browser slaps an open attribute on it:

And that’s something else we can target with CSS, like dialog[open] . So, in this case, we need to set a @starting-style for when the dialog is in an open state.

Let’s add a transition for our backdrop while we’re at it:

dialog { /* etc. */ &::backdrop { opacity: 0; transition-property: opacity; transition-duration: 1s; } &[open] { /* etc. */ &::backdrop { opacity: [website]; @starting-style { opacity: 0; } } } }.

Now you’re probably thinking: A-ha! But you should have added the display property and the transition-behavior: allow-discrete on the backdrop!

But no, that is not the case. Even if I would change my backdrop pseudo-element to the following CSS, the result would stay the same:

&::backdrop { opacity: 0; transition-property: opacity, display; transition-duration: 1s; transition-behavior: allow-discrete; }.

It turns out that we are working with a ::backdrop and when working with a ::backdrop , we’re implicitly also working with the CSS overlay property, which specifies whether an element appearing in the top layer is currently rendered in the top layer.

And overlay just so happens to be another discrete property that we need to include in the transition-property declaration:

dialog { /* etc. */ &::backdrop { transition-property: opacity, display, overlay; /* etc. */ }.

Unfortunately, this is currently only supported in Chromium browsers, but it can be perfectly used as a progressive enhancement.

And, yes, we need to add it to the dialog styles as well:

dialog { transition-property: opacity, translate, display, overlay; /* etc. */ &::backdrop { transition-property: opacity, display, overlay; /* etc. */ }.

It’s pretty much the same thing for a popover instead of a dialog. I’m using the same technique, only working with popovers this time:

There are a few other discrete properties besides the ones we covered here. If you remember the second demo, where we transitioned some items from and to display: none , the same can be achieved with the visibility property instead. This can be handy for those cases where you want items to preserve space for the element’s box, even though it is invisible.

So, here’s the same example, only using visibility instead of display .

See the Pen [Transitioning the visibility property [forked]]([website]) by utilitybend. See the Pen Transitioning the visibility property [forked] by utilitybend.

The CSS mix-blend-mode property is another one that is considered discrete. To be completely honest, I can’t find a good use case for a demo. But I went ahead and created a somewhat trite example where two mix-blend-mode s switch right in the middle of the transition instead of right away.

See the Pen [Transitioning mix-blend-mode [forked]]([website]) by utilitybend. See the Pen Transitioning mix-blend-mode [forked] by utilitybend.

That’s an overview of how we can transition elements in and out of the top layer! In an ideal world, we could get away without needing a completely new property like transition-behavior just to transition otherwise “un-transitionable” properties, but here we are, and I’m glad we have it.

But we also got to learn about @starting-style and how it provides browsers with a set of styles that we can apply to the start of a transition for an element that’s in the top layer. Otherwise, the element has nothing to transition from at first render, and we’d have no way to transition them smoothly in and out of the top layer.

Notion had for a long-time a neat block-based editor. It allows you to type away with a parag......

[website] has consistently pushed the boundaries of React development, and version 15 is no exception. It's packed with capabilities that promise to enhance......

It’s been a long time since the idea of blogging has been lingering in my mind. This thought, however, was unable to materialize until now because I w......

Shared vs Shielded Context: Testers and Devs Writing Tests Together

How do you get testers and developers to cooperate on tests?

If developers help out with tests at all — that's already a good start. But even then, there are differences in approach.

It is well-known that developers have a creative mindset, while testers have a destructive one. A tester is trained to think as a picky and inquisitive user; their view of the system is broader. A developer's expertise is in architecture; their view is deeper.

When writing tests, this translates into another difference: developers want to get the code running and get a green light. On the other hand, testers are consumers of tests, so they want quite a few things beyond that: tests that are easy to use and understand.

However, this is not does not mean we fight like cats and dogs. Writing tests help developers write code that is modular, maintainable, and easier to understand. This is why developers and QA fundamentally want the same thing — but with different flavors.

In this article, we would like to explore this difference and share our experience of overcoming it. First, we will elaborate on the difference between a tester's and a developer's approach. Then, we will show that these differences are not insurmountable.

Test code is different from production code in several ways:

Using tests means reading them (if they fail, and you need to dig into the cause of failure). That puts additional emphasis on readability.

Test code is not checked by tests, so it needs to be simple.

People who read tests might not have as much coding experience as developers, which makes readability and simplicity even more critical.

Developers might not be used to this environment. Let us illustrate this with an example.

Suppose we have a JavaScript function that checks if an element is visible or not:

JavaScript public void checkElement(boolean visible = true) { // if the element should be visible, pass nothing // if the element should be invisible, pass false }.

Calling this function in a test looks like this: checkElement() . A developer might not see an issue with this, but a tester would ask — how do you know what we are checking for? It's not apparent unless you peek inside the function.

A much superior name would be "isVisible." Also, it's best to remove the default value. If we did it, the function call would look like this: isVisible(true) . When you read it in a test, you know immediately that this check passes if the element is visible.

How do you make sure that everyone follows requirements such as this one?

You can nag people in a respectful manner until everyone follows the rules. Unfortunately, this is sometimes the only way.

Other times, you can shield developers from unnecessary context, just as they shield you when they hide the complexity of an application behind a simple and testable interface.

This often comes in the form of automating the rules you want everyone to follow.

Let us unpack the last two points with examples.

End-to-end test design is not an easy task. Developers are the ones best positioned to design (and write) unit tests; however, with frontend tests, test design becomes more difficult. Rather than emulating the system's interaction with itself, frontend tests emulate its interaction with a user.

In our experience, it is very stressful for developers to write UI tests from scratch — it's always hard to figure out what you should test for. Because of this, the process is usually split into two parts: testers write the test documentation, which is then used as a basis for automated tests. This way, developers bring their code expertise to the table but are shielded from user-related context.

We've noticed that developers among us tend to have trouble assigning tests to aspects and stories. This isn't a big surprise — unless you're working on a very small project, different aspects have different developers, and it's hard for everyone to keep track of the entire thing.

To solve this problem, we've just written a fixture that assigns aspects to tests based on which folder the test resides in; the subfolder then determines the story, etc. So when you're doing code review, you don't have to nag people about filling in the metadata; you just say: could you please move the test to folder "xyz"? So far, everyone seems happy with this arrangement.

Another metadata field we've had trouble with is data testid, a unique identifier that allows you to quickly and reliably find a component when testing — as long as these IDs are standardized.

We have devised a specific format for data-testid , and we've been trying to get people to use that format for a year and a half now — without success. The poorly-written IDs are usually discovered in code review when everything else already works. At that stage, correcting IDs feels like a formality, especially when plenty of other tasks need a developer's attention.

And it's not like developers object to the practice on principle — quite the contrary. They keep asking how to write these IDs properly. Both sides are working on the same thing and want it done right — it's just that there are hiccups in the process.

Well, it turns out someone made a linter for data-testid — which means we're not the only ones suffering from this. It ensures that data-testid values all match a provided regex.

We've added this linter for all commits and pull requests, and it fixed the problem. This is not surprising: our devs have also set up linters for testers to check the order of imports, indentation, and such, and we know this is a great practice.

Still, the result is very telling. When you've already written all the code and have delivered your tests, fixing something like IDs seems like a formality. But when you have an automatic rule that tells you how to write the IDs from the start, it becomes a natural part of the process. Shift-left in action!

To make all these solutions work, testers have to be able to work with code and infrastructure.

Writing automated tests together requires both developers and testers to step outside their more "traditional" responsibilities. A developer is forced to assume the point of view of a user and look at their code "from the outside." A tester is forced to write code.

And this is a good thing. We've talked about the advantages for developers elsewhere; for testers, having more technical knowledge of the system they're working on allows them to use their superpowers more fully.

This is something we've seen first-hand when working on Allure TestOps. You might have an excellent technical implementation of certain functionality; a tester will take a look at it and tell you that:

This is very costly to write This will only confuse the user There is a much easier way to achieve what the user wants.

Having a full-stack tester check the plans of analysts and developers can save you a lot of time and effort.

Working together on tests requires testers and developers to put in effort and adapt. The differences in expertise can be used to shield each other from unnecessary details.

Testers will be able to apply their skills most efficiently if they have full-stack expertise.

The legal profession, steeped in centuries of tradition, is at a transformative crossroads. With 72% of legal professionals now viewing AI as a positi......

I still remember the day when our strategy felt incomplete. It felt like we were tediously gathering data from various information, and our content seemed......

When you log in to your favorite streaming service, first impressions matter. The featured content should instantly lure you into binge-watching mode.......

SOC 2 Made Simple: Your Guide to Certification

No matter where your organization is located and in which field it operates, one thing is always true: today, SOC 2 is one of the standards tech companies should meet to be recognized for their security practices.

If you’re tackling an audit for the first time, it can feel like you don’t even know where to start. And let’s be honest, hiring expensive security consultants isn’t always an option, especially if cash is tight. That’s exactly why I’m writing this — a practical guide with just enough theory to get you through it.

I’m going to assume you’ll be using some tooling. Based on my experience, modern tools are incredibly helpful and worth every penny. Trying to obtain certification without them is often a headache you don’t need, and it’ll cost you more time and money in the long run.

Type 1. This is a one-time certification that says your systems were compliant at a specific point in time. Type 2. This is more intense — it requires continuous compliance over a set timeframe (called the observation period) and proves that your systems stayed compliant throughout.

Type 2 is tougher to get, but it’s also more trustworthy. If you want people to take your security seriously, this is the one that you usually aim for.

In this guide, I’m focusing on Type 2 as the process for Type 1 is almost the same, just without the observation period.

Another thing to know is that SOC 2 is all about security controls backed by evidence and gathering it will be your big task.

This timeline will help you understand the overall process:

At this step, you'll handle the majority of the heavy lifting, so it's critical to approach it right, here you will have to understand the current state of your system and make it secure, reliable, and private:

1. Choose a Service to Gather Your Evidence.

Remember when I stated gathering evidence is one of the biggest challenges? Well, good news: there are plenty of platforms out there designed to collect and store evidence for you.

They save a ton of time. Many of these platforms partner with auditors, making it easier (and cheaper) to get certified. They include templates and automation that make the whole process feel way less overwhelming.

Cost: For companies of approximately 50 people, the annual cost of SOC 2 certification is typically around $4,000–$5,000, depending on the provider and scope.

Examples: Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, Sprinto, and many more.

Look for automation. You’ll want something that integrates with your tools — project management systems, messaging platforms, cloud services, version control, and so on. The more automation it offers, the less manual work you’ll need to do.

Yes, it’s possible, but in my experience, it’s not the best approach, and here’s why:

These platforms save you so much time, it’s not even funny — especially if your team is small.

Auditors love these tools because they make their jobs easier. This can mean much cheaper and faster audits and fewer headaches for you.

2. Understand the Weaknesses in Your Systems.

Once you have a security platform, it’s time to connect all your systems to it, run checks, and understand where you are right now.

Here’s what you typically see after everything is configured:

Less-prepared companies might start with around 60% readiness. It usually takes 2–3 months to close the gaps.

Average companies are around 80% ready, with gaps that can be fixed in a month.

Well-prepared organizations can hit 85–90% readiness, needing only a couple of weeks of work.

Addressing vulnerabilities is a key step in preparing for SOC 2 certification. Instead of trying to tackle everything at once, focus on impactful measures that help you resolve the most issues with the least effort.

Role-based access control ensures that individuals and systems only get the permissions they actually need to perform their tasks. Start with a thorough audit of user permissions to identify and remove unnecessary access. Replace shared accounts with individual accounts tied to specific roles, and schedule regular reviews to keep permissions aligned with current responsibilities. Adopting the principle of least privilege reduces the risk of unauthorized actions and provides improved oversight of your systems.

Identity Providers and Centralized Access Control.

After mapping out user groups and roles, the next logical step is setting up an Identity Provider (IdP). Centralizing access control with an IdP such as Okta, MS Entra, or Google Workspace allows you to manage authentication and permissions in one place. This simplifies granting and revoking access, helps maintain proper permissions, and provides audit logs to meet compliance requirements.

Start by identifying your critical systems and integrating them with your chosen IdP. Enable single sign-on (SSO) and multi-factor authentication (MFA) to enhance security. Once centralized, enforce group-based access policies aligned with roles, ensuring sensitive environments are only accessible to authorized personnel.

While cloud services often charge extra for SSO, the investment quickly pays off by improving security and saving engineers time on access management.

Standardizing infrastructure with Infrastructure as Code (IaC) tools like Terraform improves consistency, reduces manual errors, and enforces security best practices. Document your infrastructure and create configurations that work across development, staging, and production environments.

IaC not only strengthens security and simplifies audits but also significantly boosts the flexibility and maintainability of your infrastructure by providing a clear, version-controlled record of changes.

CI/CD pipelines are essential for modern software delivery, but without proper security, they can also become a source of vulnerabilities. Enforce mandatory code reviews and integrate tools to automatically scan for vulnerabilities in dependencies and configurations. Restrict access to deployment tools so that only trusted individuals can approve changes to production. This ensures every change is thoroughly reviewed, minimizing the risk of insecure code being deployed and maintaining the integrity of your software.

Help your team recognize and respond to security threats by running regular training sessions or simulations. These can improve awareness of phishing attempts, secure data handling, and other common risks. Establish a straightforward process for reporting suspicious activity, so employees feel confident acting as a first line of defense. A well-trained team significantly reduces the likelihood of human error leading to security incidents.

Having clear processes and accountability is crucial for effectively addressing vulnerabilities. Assign specific responsibilities for compliance areas or security issues to individuals or teams, and track progress using task management tools. Set deadlines for resolving issues and review progress during regular meetings. This structured approach keeps priorities aligned and ensures consistent progress toward compliance.

Once you’ve closed all the critical security gaps, you’ll enter what’s called the observation period — a time frame during which your evidence is continuously gathered, cataloged, and stored.

For your first audit, this period usually lasts at least three months, as per the standard. After successfully completing it, you’ll receive a certification valid for one year. To keep your certification active, you’ll need to repeat the process at least annually. In essence, this means you’ll be in a permanent observation period, as there should be no gaps after your first certification.

Everything you collect during the observation period will be shared with your auditor.

No security checks should fail, and no issues should remain unaddressed.

During this time, treat your organization as if it’s already fully SOC 2 compliant. This approach will not only help you meet the standard but also build habits that make future audits much easier.

Congratulations on completing the observation period! What’s next?

To get certified, you’ll need to be audited by an external, independent, certified organization. Here's something significant to know about these companies:

Audit costs can range from $2,000–$3,000 to $30,000–$40,000 , depending on the auditor, your size, the complexity of your system, and the tools you use to gather evidence.

to , depending on the auditor, your size, the complexity of your system, and the tools you use to gather evidence. A higher cost doesn’t necessarily mean the business is a good fit. Meet with at least 3–4 auditors to find the one that works best for you.

An easy way is to ask your security platform provider for introductions. They usually have a range of recommended auditors who are already equipped to work with their platform.

As searching for the right corporation can take a while, it's significant to start looking at least one month before your observation period ends.

Once you’ve found an auditor and are ready to start the audit, here’s what happens next:

You’ll officially kick off the audit, and your auditor will get access to every piece of evidence you have collected during your observation period. The auditors will review your evidence. This can take anywhere from 1 to 4 weeks, depending on your system, auditor, and platform. Assuming all security checks pass at the start of your audit, there are two possible outcomes: Everything checks out — congratulations! A few formalities, and you’re certified. There are questions or failed controls. Fix the issues or explain why they’re acceptable, and you can still get certified if your explanation is solid.

SOC 2 Type 2 isn’t a one-time deal. To keep your certification active, you’ll need to pass annual audits from now on. Now that your system is in great shape, you need to keep it that way and maintain the highest security standards required by SOC 2.

Once you’ve gone through it the first time, you’ll have a pretty good idea of what to do. Future audits will be much easier. Just keep improving your system, and you’ll be golden.

Hey friends, today we will do a short introduction how to run envoy proxy with docker. We will work with the basic blocks of envoy, which are listener......

Percona, which provides enterprise support for open source database systems such as MongoDB and MySQL, has expanded its portfolio to also support the ......

A leading FinTech firm found that adding more ephemeral environments didn’t improve quality. The reason? Managing multiple high-fidelity setups int......