<div class="wrapper">
    <jsp:include page="/WEB-INF/view/common/admin/header.jsp"></jsp:include>
    <jsp:include page="/WEB-INF/view/common/admin/sidebar.jsp">
        <jsp:param name="menuCategoryType" value="system"/>
        <jsp:param name="menuType" value="dict"/>
    </jsp:include>
    <div class="content-wrapper">
        <div class="content-header">
            <div class="container-fluid">
                <div class="row mb-2">

<div class="wrapper">
    <jsp:include page="/WEB-INF/view/common/admin/header.jsp"></jsp:include>
    <jsp:include page="/WEB-INF/view/common/admin/sidebar.jsp">
        <jsp:param name="menuCategoryType" value="system"/>
        <jsp:param name="menuType" value="dict"/>
    </jsp:include>
    <div class="content-wrapper">
        <div class="content-header">
            <div class="container-fluid">
                <div class="row mb-2">

          @Throws(IOException::class)
          override fun authenticate(
            route: Route?,
            response: Response,
          ): Request? {
            if (response.request.header("Authorization") != null) {
              return null // Give up, we've already attempted to authenticate.
            }

            println("Authenticating for response: $response")

Konkret geht es darum, Uvicorn, Starlette und FastAPI miteinander zu vergleichen (neben vielen anderen Tools).

Je einfacher das Problem, welches durch das Tool gelöst wird, desto besser ist die Performanz. Und die meisten Benchmarks testen nicht die zusätzlichen Funktionen, welche das Tool bietet.

Die Hierarchie ist wie folgt:

* **Uvicorn**: ein ASGI-Server

val codenarcVersion = if (isGroovy4) "3.1.0-groovy-4.0" else "3.1.0"
val spockVersion = if (isGroovy4) "2.2-groovy-4.0" else "2.2-groovy-3.0"
val asmVersion = "9.7"
// To try out better kotlin compilation avoidance and incremental compilation
// with -Pkotlin.incremental.useClasspathSnapshot=true
val kotlinVersion = providers.gradleProperty("buildKotlinVersion")
    .getOrElse(embeddedKotlinVersion)

    return client


@needs_py310
@pytest.mark.parametrize(
    "path,headers,expected_status,expected_response",
    [
        ("/items", None, 200, {"User-Agent": "testclient"}),
        ("/items", {"X-Header": "notvalid"}, 200, {"User-Agent": "testclient"}),
        ("/items", {"User-Agent": "FastAPI test"}, 200, {"User-Agent": "FastAPI test"}),
    ],
)
def test(path, headers, expected_status, expected_response, client: TestClient):

name: Feature Enhancement Request
description: I want to make an existing feature better
labels: ["type=enhancement"]
body:
  - type: markdown
    attributes:
      value: >
        Filing feature requests is one of the most popular ways to contribute to Guava.


        Be aware, though: most feature requests are not accepted, even if they're suggested by
        a full-time Guava team member. [Feedback](https://stackoverflow.com/a/4543114) from our

</div>

With this feature from **Pydantic v2**, your API documentation is more **precise**, and if you have autogenerated clients and SDKs, they will be more precise too, with a better **developer experience** and consistency. 🎉

## Do not Separate Schemas

Now, there are some cases where you might want to have the **same schema for input and output**.

     * deduped.
     *
     * TODO: See if duped headers should be preserved on decode and verify.
     */
    private fun assertSetEquals(
      message: String,
      expected: List<Header>,
      observed: List<Header>,
    ) {
      assertThat(LinkedHashSet(observed), message)
        .isEqualTo(LinkedHashSet(expected))
    }
  }

import org.jline.consoleui.prompt.builder.ListPromptBuilder;
import org.jline.consoleui.prompt.builder.PromptBuilder;
import org.jline.reader.Candidate;
import org.jline.reader.Completer;
import org.jline.reader.LineReader;
import org.jline.reader.ParsedLine;
import org.jline.utils.Colors;

import static org.apache.maven.cling.invoker.mvnenc.DefaultEncryptInvoker.BAD_OPERATION;