It looks like the page is so broken that Scott probably doesn't see the "Feedback" button.

I've submitted feedback on Scott's behalf with a link to this post.

Note - for the HTML attribute context (see https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Cross_Site_Scripting_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet.html#output-encoding-for-html-attribute-contexts) you should use EscapeHTML enclosed in double quotes.

@Evgeny Shvarov to some extent we already do, via the -DUnitTest.ManagerClass parameter we use to run TestCoverage and through custom resource processors (which I see @Jani Hurskainen is already playing with!)
The common pattern in ObjectScript if you're going to customize unit test processes is to write a subclass of %UnitTest.Manager that does things the way you want. (And probably a few subclasses of %UnitTest.TestCase that add the standard assertion types, maybe some application-specific utility methods / wrappers, etc.) IPM will play well with this model, it's more work (all around!) if you want to write your own entire unit test framework from scratch.

Re: Nexus, I don't see it listed here (https://oras.land/adopters/) but it's possible that it could be supported anyway. From an IPM perspective there isn't anything too registry-provider-specific (hooray standards!)

Phew!

Wrote a sample UDAF for this today: https://community.intersystems.com/post/writing-user-defined-aggregate-…

Wrote a sample UDAF for this today: https://community.intersystems.com/post/writing-user-defined-aggregate-…

Actually I just went ahead and filed the issue so this doesn't get lost:
https://github.com/intersystems/isc-ipm-js/issues/18

The purpose of IRIS embedded source control features is to keep code changes made in the database synchronized with the server filesystem, to automate any source control provider-specific operations in a way that ensures that synchronization, and to provide concurrency controls for developers working in a shared environment (when relevant). In the days of Studio, all code changes were made in the database first, rather than on any filesystem, so you needed an embedded source control solution to get real source control at all. With client-side editing in VSCode, there are *still* some changes to code that are made "in the database first" - specifically, all the management portal-based graphical editors for interoperability and business intelligence. For such use cases, embedded source control is relevant even when you're developing against a local Docker container (which I'd consider modern best practice and prefer over a remote/shared environment where feasible) - otherwise, you need to jump through extra hoops to get your changes onto the client/server filesystem.

In a client-centric mode, it's totally fine to use git-source-control alongside the git command line, built-in VSCode tools, or your preferred Git GUI (GitHub Desktop, GitKraken, etc). However, this misses an important benefit of git-source-control: when you pull, checkout, etc., if you do it through the extension, we can automatically reflect the operation in IRIS by loading added/modified items and deleting items that have been removed in the database. If you make changes on the filesystem through one of these other channels, it's up to you to make sure things are reflected properly in IRIS.

Another benefit of git-source-control for local development is that when working across multiple IPM packages loaded from separate local repos, changes made via isfs folders will automatically be reflected in the correct repository. This is more natural for established ObjectScript developers especially (e.g.: "I just want to edit this class, then this other class in a different package") than a client-centric multi-root VSCode workspace, which could achieve the same thing but with a bit more overhead.

isc.ipm.js supports Angular and React currently; we'd welcome a PR or issue for Next.js. Probably not too much work needed to support it, it's just a matter of determining the build and static files layout.

Ahh, I see. Honestly, if you're looking to adjust the two things to work together, you might be better off writing an adapter layer between %UnitTest.TestCase and your existing test case parent class rather than trying to make TestCoverage work for your custom unit test framework.

This is old enough to post a spoiler now - I got down to 35 with the *i trick; what's the 34-character solution?
 

Classascii.ascii
{

ClassMethodascii()
{
 f i=32:1:126{w:$t(+6)'[$c(i) *i}
}

}

(but the solution is dependent on compilation flags - not sure if that invalidates it)

Not much to add other than the same pointer.

I strongly relate to this. Zen was a huge part of what sold me on InterSystems tech 15 years ago when I started here as an intern - for all the reasons you've described - and if I want to throw together a really quick POC that just has results of a class query shown in a table, with maybe some basic interactions with the data, I might still use it.
That said, for my team's work and even for my own personal projects, I've found the combination of isc.rest and isc.ipm.js to be *almost* as quick as Zen. With something like Angular with an IRIS back-end (consisting of a bunch of %Persistent classes), you need to write:
1. REST APIs for all your basic CRUD operations, queries, and business logic
2. Client code to call all those REST APIs
3. Client code for all the models used in those REST APIs
4. The actual UI
Suppose you want to make a simple change to one of your models - say, adding a property to a class and making it available in the UI. With Angular, this probably means changes at all four levels; with Zen, you get to skip 1-3 entirely. That's compelling. An inevitable side effect of this is that your application's API surface (and therefore attack surface) is enormous and near-impossible to fully enumerate. It is possible to secure a Zen UI, but much easier to shoot yourself in the foot.
isc.rest makes (1) super easy - add a parent class to your %Persistent class and do a few easy parameter/method overrides to get CRUD and queries basically for free, and write a bit of XML if you want to do fancier things to expose business logic or class queries. This provides enough metadata to generate an OpenAPI spec, which can then be used to automate (2) and (3) with the help of openapi-generator. So while you can't skip 1-3 entirely, this toolset makes it all significantly faster.