primary key – The ALTER TABLE statement conflicts with the FOREIGN KEY constraint

I had a specific relational database with different tables. what I wanted to do is actually copy two tables from different databases located on a different server into my database with the help of the Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio 2017 export function. new tables have been imported into my current database. However, the problem is that the tables that were exported from the other database in mine do not have primary and foreign keys. So, what I did, I deleted the old tables from my current database and I am now working on adding primary and foreign keys to freshly copied ones.

The problem is that I was able to create the primary keys without any problem, however, when I tried to create the foreign key to the second table to bind it to the first table, I had this mistake:

The ALTER TABLE statement conflicts with the FOREIGN KEY constraint

I know the reason for the mistake because of the unparalleled number of items in my first and second tables. I ran this query:

select UUT_RESULT in STEP_RESULT
WHERE UUT_RESULT NOT IN
(SELECT UUT_RESULT ID)

I could see that there are 883 entries in my second table does not fit in the first table.

How can I solve this problem? I can not clean the tables because they contain 15 million entries. Is there any way to remove these 883 from the second table and match the two?

gitflow – Git Flow, extraction requests, multi-destination branches and conflicts: how is it supposed to work?

I receive it for branches:

  • A branch is created from develop.
  • Only one PR is then created, going to develop.
  • If there are conflicts, correct them in the feature branch.

Quite simple.

However, regarding "multi-destination branches," such as publishing or patch branches, how are conflicts supposed to be resolved? Say for example with a software hotfix branch:

  • A patch branch is created from control.
  • Question: two public relations are created, one is controland one goes to develop, right?
  • Then, question: And if there are conflicts? For example, the branch does do not conflict with control, but this Is with develop: where to solve? Do we need two separate branches for control does not receive the conflict resolutions that were necessary for develop?

Boss level: A hotfix branch when a release branch is in progress. Does this case need three PRs? control, develop and the publishing branch?

Is it worth fighting conflicts?

Hi,

I am here to discuss the question of whether it's really worth fighting conflicts or if you simply have to pay back the customer's payment. If you win, you keep your money, but if you lose a litigation, you can be fined $ 10 to $ 20.

If it's better to fight it, what are the tips to help you solve a case in your favor?

edit: excuse me if it's the wrong section, if so, can anyone move it for me? Thank you!!

Thank you

data structures – Explain how to resolve hash conflicts in HAMT or hashtables in general

A hash table is a bucket array, where the bucket index is the hash values ​​of the keys (modulo the length of the array).

When collisions occur (two different keys mapped in the same bucket), you need a strategy to fix them. Here are two popular strategies.

  • Using a list: You design a bucket data structure that supports multiple key / value pairs, for example. a linked list of pairs. In case of collision (the list is not empty), you simply add a second / third / … pair to the list.
  • Using the next free bucket: Your bucket supports a single key / value pair. If the "correct" bucket (depending on the hash value) is already busy, you are looking for the next free linear and place the key / value pair at this location.

With both strategies, performance degrades in linear search when the number of collisions is large. The second strategy is deteriorating faster.

If you are in a tight memory situation, you may prefer the second because it does not generate an overload of a list per bucket.

With the second approach, it can be difficult to implement properly, especially the action of deletion.

How to avoid conflicts in a peer-to-peer topology (Bitcoin)?

For example, in Bitcoin, if I want a minor to check if other minors store a transaction, before deleting it from its mempool.

How can I handle the case of several minors performing the verification at the same time?

Is it possible to use the backoff algorithm?

dnd 5th – Help in handling rule conflicts

When I play D & D, I've always adopted the following approach:

  • I will do my best to respect the rules as written (RAW)
  • If I do not know a rule, I'll look for it
  • If anything I say is in conflict with RAW, I'll look at the rule and upgrade my decision
  • If RAW is not clear, I will make a decision

For the most part, it worked well for me, but I found that some players (while agreeing at the beginning) are not happy.

What has happened to me lately is that when I make a decision and some people will not be happy with this decision, they will stop playing to start looking for arguments to support the way which they thought the rule should have worked.

Sometimes, it ends up coming back on this website, by wise advice, or even by a random reddit post. The important point, once this player finds someone online who agrees with him, a debate ensues on how this rule should be applied. I'm trying to explain to this person that Sage Advice, and similar positions give him an RAI approach (Rules As Interpreted) and in my attempt to use the RAW format, I do not see him this way. This usually ends when that person gets angry and leaves.

We are at the point where they arrive with prepared web sources and bring them back to me in the middle of the game, so as not to annoy me if I do not agree. It seems that the player is almost trying to set up a moment of "play" where he is right and where I am wrong. If they spent more time talking to me about specific rules than they were trying to "trouble", I might be able to help them and talk about them before the session, but I really did not know them. impression that this person wants to be perceived as at the table. group and by launching these interpretations in the middle of the game, I will not be able to disagree.

All I want is to start a game where everyone has fun and where we do not constantly disagree on the rules.

How can I maintain my approach to the rules and find a way to have fun without letting people ignore it?

php – Conflicts between htaccess rules

I'm trying to use the url_rewrite system for php but, as I'm a beginner, I have a conflict problem (I guess) between the rules.

I have these three rules htaccess. The first two work, the last steps.

RewriteEngine On
RewriteRule ^ ([^/]*) / ([^/]*) . html $ /site/product.php?cid=$1&n=$2 [L]

RewriteEngine On
RewriteRule ^ ([^/]*) / ([^/]*) / ([^/]*) . html $ /site/product-detail.php?
cid = 1 $ & pid = 2 $ & n = 3 $ [L] 

RewriteEngine On
RewriteRule ^ ([^/]*) / ([^/]*) . html $ /site/news-full.php?id_news=$1&nw=$2 [L]

Here is how the link is defined on my php page:

    <a href = ".html ">

when i load the page, i have no printing of data on the page. I've tried using the prefix too but does not work

What can I do? Thank you

MAC Address – How to Troubleshoot Event ID 16945 in System Logs MAC Hyper-V Conflicts

After 3 years of perfect use with Hyper-V, I have suddenly network problems with Hyper-V on the Windows 2012 R2.
I installed my servers 3 years ago and I have never had this problem before this week.

By the time I started having problems, I started for the first time to see these events in the newspapers.
Event ID 16945 in the system logs.
"MAC conflict: A virtual switch port has the same MAC as one of the team members behind the multiplexer driver of the Microsoft Team Nic NIC."

This command shows that I have the same MAC address for the first three entries.

get-netadapter | sort macaddress

pNIC2

tNIC1

vNIC1

pNIC1

pNIC1 and pNIC2 are the physical network cards.
tNIC1 is the network adapter team of the two physical NICs pNIC1 and pNIC2 in independent standby adapters, dynamic and dynamic load balancing, none.
vNIC1 is the virtual network adapter of the server.

The servers have a virtual switch,
vswitch1,
Connection Type External Network – Microsoft Network Adapter Driver
and allow the management operating system to share the network card.
No VLAN is used and the only extensions checked are the MS filtering platform.

I have 4 identical hardware and software servers configured this way.
Start get-netadapter | Macaddress's spell on each of the 4 servers shows exactly the same.
The first three adapters have the same MAC address on the 4 servers, but the MAC addresses of the different servers are all different.
In other words, there are no MAC address conflicts between servers.

Server 1
pNIC1 Intel (R) 82576 Gigabit Dual Port Network ... 12 Up 00-25-90-2D-68-1A 1 Gbps
tNIC1 Multiplex Network Adapter Microsoft ... 16 Up 00-25-90-2D-68-1A 2 Gbps
vNIC1 Hyper-V Virtual Ethernet Card # 2 19 Up 00-25-90-2D-68-1A 10 Gbps
pNIC2 Intel (R) 82576 Dual Port N ... No. 2 13 Upward 00-25-90-2D-68-1B 1 Gbps

Server 2
pNIC1 Intel (R) 82576 Gigabit Dual Port Network ... 12 Up 00-25-90-2C-6A-64 1 Gbps
tNIC1 Multiplex Network Adapter Microsoft ... 16 Up 00-25-90-2C-6A-64 2Gbps
vNIC1 Hyper-V Virtual Ethernet Adapter # 2 19 Up 00-25-90-2C-6A-64 10 Gbps
pNIC2 Intel (R) 82576 Dual Port N ... No. 2 13 upward 00-25-90-2C-6A-65 1 Gbps

Server 3
Name InterfaceDescription ifIndex Status MacAddress LinkSpeed
---- -------------------- ------- ------ ---------- --- ------
pNIC2 Intel (R) 82576 Dual Port N ... No. 2 13 Upward 00-25-90-4D-65-2A 1 Gbps
Microsoft Network Multiplex Adapter tNIC1 ... 16 Up 00-25-90-4D-65-2A 2 Gbps
vNIC1 Hyper-V Virtual Ethernet Adapter # 2 19 Up 00-25-90-4D-65-2A 10 Gbps
pNIC1 Intel (R) 82576 Gigabit Dual Port Network ... 12 Up 00-25-90-4D-65-2B 1 Gbps

Server 4
Name InterfaceDescription ifIndex Status MacAddress LinkSpeed
---- -------------------- ------- ------ ---------- --- ------
pNIC1 Intel (R) 82576 Gigabit Dual Port Network ... 12 Up 00-25-90-4D-40-E6 1 Gbps
Microsoft Network Multiplex Adapter tNIC1 ... 16 Up 00-25-90-4D-40-E6 2 Gbps
vNIC1 Hyper-V Virtual Ethernet Card # 2 19 Up 00-25-90-4D-40-E6 10 Gbps
pNIC2 Intel (R) 82576 Dual Port N ... No. 2 13 Upward 00-25-90-4D-40-E7 1 Gbps

I read where it is common and ok to see the same MAC address on one of the vNICs and one of the pNICs,
but it is not acceptable for a PNIC to have the same address as the NIC tNIC1 team.
https://serverfault.com/questions/702570/server-2012-r2-hyper-v-virtual-switch-host-mac-address-conflict-331flr

What should I do to resolve conflicts and prevent them from happening?

I've been looking for how to manually set these MAC addresses and how to do it, including making sure to use MAC addresses outside the dynamic range set on the vSwitch,
but I would like to feed myself before making these changes and ask myself why, after all these years, it started to happen?

Thank you!

magento2.2.3 – Magento2, Can we avoid the conflicts of values ​​of attributes in a large catalog of products?

I work with a very large catalog of products and I prepare the data to import into the basket. However, I have a pretty ugly problem, different products assign different meanings to the same attribute value.

For an example, Color Chart, each brand can have a color named "Dark Blue", but have a different shade! There seems to be a big difference between attributes that might really be useful as filters and attributes that are only useful when they are used in a configurable product.

Meaning, what good is a global attribute, site or defined, when it best avoids conflicts, but otherwise provides no real value. To make it useful as a product filter or in a layered navigation, it would take a predefined set of consistent values ​​across the entire product catalog. Which is impossible for any information on the product itself. This means that it is reasonable when we talk about filters, … but not when we talk about attributes intended to distinguish product variants.

What am I doing, has everyone just made workarounds?

Package Management – Minitube conflicts with phonon4qt5-backend-vlc

The version of Minitube included in Ubuntu 18.04.1 no longer works:

Error while uploading https://www.googleapis.com/youtube/v3/search?part=snippet&type=video&maxResults=50&q=cats - the server replied: Forbidden

Probably a protocol change, this happens often and the solution is probably to install the most recent version:

wget https://flavio.tordini.org/files/minitube/minitube.deb
sudo dpkg -i minitube.deb

Unfortunately, I get this error:

dpkg: about minitube.deb containing minitube:
minitube is in conflict with phonon4qt5-backend-vlc
phonon4qt5-backend-vlc: amd64 (version 0.10.1-2) is present and installed.
dpkg: minitube.deb (--install) error-handling archive:
conflicting packages - not install minitube
Errors were encountered during treatment:
minitube.deb

How to install the latest version of Minitube on Ubuntu?