title: Building a CRUD API with FastAPI and Supabase
  - author: Adejumo Ridwan Suleiman
    author_link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adejumoridwan/
    link: https://medium.com/python-in-plain-english/build-an-sms-spam-classifier-serverless-database-with-faunadb-and-fastapi-23dbb275bc5b
    title: Build an SMS Spam Classifier Serverless Database with FaunaDB and FastAPI
  - author: Raf Rasenberg

    }
  }

  /**
   * Returns a {@link Collection} of all the permutations of the specified {@link Collection}.
   *
   * <p><i>Notes:</i> This is an implementation of the Plain Changes algorithm for permutations
   * generation, described in Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming", Volume 4, Chapter 7,
   * Section 7.2.1.2.
   *

(The meaning of the offset—offset from the frame pointer—distinct
from its use with <code>SB</code>, where it is an offset from the symbol.)
The assembler enforces this convention, rejecting plain <code>0(FP)</code> and <code>8(FP)</code>.
The actual name is semantically irrelevant but should be used to document
the argument's name.
It is worth stressing that <code>FP</code> is always a
pseudo-register, not a hardware

instead of being called directly (as it would block the server).

If you are coming from another async framework that does not work in the way described above and you are used to defining trivial compute-only *path operation functions* with plain `def` for a tiny performance gain (about 100 nanoseconds), please note that in **FastAPI** the effect would be quite opposite. In these cases, it's better to use `async def` unless your *path operation functions* use code that performs blocking <abbr...

## Request, System and Cluster Metrics

But if we use the same model for another *path operation*, we could be sending our user's passwords to every client.

!!! danger
    Never store the plain password of a user or send it in a response like this, unless you know all the caveats and you know what you are doing.

## Add an output model

			header: http.Header{
				"Content-Type": []string{"application/json"},
			},
			result: false,
		},
		{
			object: "object.txt",
			header: http.Header{
				"Content-Type": []string{"text/plain"},
			},
			result: false,
		},
		{
			object: "object",
			header: http.Header{
				"Content-Type": []string{"text/something"},
			},
			result: false,
		},
	}

      return this;
    }

    private void add(@Nullable Object[] elements, int n) {
      getReadyToExpandTo(size + n);
      /*
       * The following call is not statically checked, since arraycopy accepts plain Object for its
       * parameters. If it were statically checked, the checker would still be OK with it, since
       * we're copying into a `contents` array whose type allows it to contain nulls. Still, it's

 * Benchmarks (as of December 2011) show that:
 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>for an unnested {@code lock()} and {@code unlock()}, a cycle detecting lock takes 38ns as
 *       opposed to the 24ns taken by a plain lock.
 *   <li>for nested locking, the cost increases with the depth of the nesting:
 *       <ul>
 *         <li>2 levels: average of 64ns per lock()/unlock()
 *         <li>3 levels: average of 77ns per lock()/unlock()

     *
     * 1. We'll want to use something like @PolyNull once we can make that work for the various
     * platforms we target.
     *
     * 2. Kotlin's Map type has a getOrDefault method that accepts and returns a "plain V," in
     * contrast to the "V?" type that we're using. As a result, Kotlin sees a conflict between the
     * nullness annotations in ImmutableMap and those in its own Map type. In response, it considers