magento2 – Magento 2 How to implement UI Component XML Infinite Scroll data

I am working on One custom Module and loading all the Old orders items on the frontend page by using the UI component form. Currently data is coming in pagination but we have required it to load with infinite scroll.

I have usually worked in when data is coming in phtml then can implement infinite scroll successfully, In the current scenario data is loading with UI component so I don’t have any idea to achieve it.

Please help me to implement it and share your ideas.


8 – Integrating jQuery Auto Height with Views Infinite Scroll

Your privacy

By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree Stack Exchange can store cookies on your device and disclose information in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

evaluation – How does MMA return an unevaluated expression on errors without going into an infinite loop?

Consider the (bad) input NSolve(1,1,1). This yields an error message, and returns NSolve(1,1,1). This return value seems to be literally the expression NSolve(1,1,1): NSolve(1,1,1) // FullForm is again NSolve(1,1,1), and it seems usable as an inert expression internally (e.g. Nsolve(1,1,1) /. 3 sends two error messages, one each time it attempts evaluation, and ultimately returns NSolve(3,3,3)).

I want to make a function that behaves like this, and I’m curious how Mathematica manages to do this without hitting the recursion limit. Consider a function which throws an error if its argument is 0 and otherwise returns 1.

f::err = "Error!";
f(a_) := If(a == 0, Message(f::err); f(a), 1)

f(0) obviously goes into an infinite loop of definition application. The attempts

f(a_) := If(a == 0, Message(f::err); Unevaluated(f(a)), 1)

f(a_) := If(a == 0, Message(f::err); Return(Unevaluated(f(a))), 1)

f(a_) := If(a == 0, Message(f::err); Defer(f(a)), 1)

f(a_) := If(a == 0, Message(f::err); HoldForm(f(a)), 1)

are all inequivalent to whatever Mathematica does (as one can see upon applying FullForm if necessary).

So what’s Mathematica doing, or what’s an equivalent implementation? (Am I missing something obvious?) Does Mathematica somehow retain a record of whether it has already tried to evaluate a certain expression during a given evaluation process somehow? Or is there a better “don’t evaluate further” head than Unevaluated or Defer out there somewhere?

general topology – why is deleted infinite broom not path connected

There are many posts in google about this. I am not from core mathematics background. Deleted infinite broom are lines connecting (0,0) to $(1,frac{1}{n})$ but point (1,0) is not included.

I know this is NOT path-connected but connected.

If i had to prove that it is not path connected, there should exist 2 points between which no path exists. But in proof why is that (1,0) is considered when it is not part of X. X = deleted infinite broom.

I understood defn of path connectedness as any 2 points x and y in X, there should be path P(which is continuous function from (0,1) to X)

infinite product – Prove that $prod _{k=1}^{infty } prod _{n=1}^{infty } n^{frac{k}{n^{text{ks}} zeta (k s)}}=e^{-sum_{m=1}^{infty} sigma_1(m) : P'(m : s)}$

Where $ sigma_1(m) $ and $ P'(m : s) $ are the Divisor function and the derivative of the Prime Zeta function, respectively.

I’ve tried to expand the left side via the Euler Product of the Zeta function and then take the logarithmic derivative, but I get hung up on the reciprocal Zeta part.

Any ideas?

progress – In terms of levels and gamification what would be the best option between infinite points and scaled levels?

Infinite points or Scaled levels

I’m wondering what would be the best option UX-wise in terms of user levels and gamification for a contribution app :

Are the users more sensible about a goal that would not be visible (like in Stack exchange, there is no final level, only points till’ infinity) or are they more sensible about achieving levels over levels?

I would say that the first option, Infinite points would be simpler to implement and would be understandable for everyone.

But I’m concerned about this “getting rewards on a regular basis” option Scaled levels.

What would be your point on an issue like this one, UX-wise?

optimization – Non-convex linear program optimisation with infinite number of OR constraints

I am aware that when we have a linear problem subject to OR constraints, the LP would be a non-convex optimisation problem. For example,

${x = 0}$ OR ${1<=x<=2}$.

I could not find much explanation on the internet concerning a detailed explanation of this situation. I’d appreciate if anyone could explain this in more detail.

Similar questions in other sites:

photo editing – How do I create an infinite picture-in-picture effect?

I want to take a picture of an empty frame on a wall, then digitally edit that photo into itself infinite times. So the result should be a picture of a frame, which contains the same picture, which again contains the same picture, and so on. Here is a crappy Paint sketch to illustrate what I mean.

illustrative sketch

I of course could do it manually, but since I want it to look infinite, that would be a lot of work. Maybe there is a better way how I can achieve this effect? Preferably with GIMP since it is my most used editing software, but I’d be willing to use other software as well, if needed.

abstract algebra – Let G= an infinite cyclic group, put H= and K=. Prove that H intersection K = and = where d=gcd {i, j} and l=LCM {i, j}

It is given that G is an infinite cyclic group then obviously H intersection K and <H,K> are also cyclic, because they both are subgroups of G.
Since, by the definition of cyclic group, we know that
={x^n :n belongs to Z}
How should I proceed it further?

How to fix infinite jump in Unity 3D?

I have the following code:

public float jumpHeight = 3f;

bool isGrounded;

void Update()    
    if(Input.GetButtonDown("Jump")) && isGrounded)
        velocity.y = Mathf.Sprt(jumpHeight * -2f * gravity;