Developer Seeks SharePoint Tenant Testers for React Retention Review SPFx Sample

·1 views

A new read-only React SPFx web part for SharePoint retention and records review has been submitted to the PnP SharePoint Framework repository via pull request. The sample uses PnPjs v4 to read document libraries and folders, surfacing retention indicators, content types, modified dates, and missing review metadata without modifying any data or applying policies. It handles permission, throttling, and configuration errors gracefully, showing partial results where available. Local testing confirmed six deterministic unit tests passed alongside lint, TypeScript, Sass, and packaging validations. The developer is now seeking volunteers with a SharePoint Online tenant to validate real-world scenarios including limited permissions, pagination, and responsive layout.

Read the full story at DEV Community

This is an AI-generated summary. ShortSingh links to the original source for the complete article.

Discussion (0)

Adding a Fourth AI Model Mid-Test Revealed Flaws a Three-Model Setup Would Have Hidden

A developer running a field test for an AI debate validation tool called AdversarialDebate added a fourth language model halfway through the experiment after realizing the original three-model setup could not adequately test the full diversity spectrum. The initial lineup of GPT-4o-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and DeepSeek-V3 only covered pairings between US and Chinese labs, leaving no cross-continental comparison at the far end of diversity. Adding Mistral Small 3.2 introduced a China-EU pairing that became the highest-scoring combination, with a 0.982 average score and 97% verdict rate. The expanded setup also uncovered that weak model diversity could perform worse than no diversity at all, and that the top-scoring pair was not necessarily the safest due to capitulation cascades. The author concluded that a field test's primary value lies not in generating numbers but in determining whether an experiment can actually answer its core question.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Micro-Frontend Template Series Concludes With Ownership Model and Fork Guide

The final installment of a five-part developer series on a micro-frontend platform addresses team ownership and how organizations can adopt the template for their own use. Each platform component — Host, Store, domain MFEs, and the manifest registry — is assigned to a specific team, with domain teams restricted from importing each other's code to maintain a clean two-level dependency tree. All organization-specific settings such as branding, identity provider configuration, and manifest URL are centralized in a single platform.config.json file. The platform is distributed as a GitHub template repository, designed so adopters can fork it, edit that one config file, and point it at their own infrastructure without modifying core logic. This approach is intended to keep forks upgradable from the upstream template over time, with versioned contracts serving as stable seams for pulling in future changes.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Why One Tech Team Chose Webpack Module Federation for Enterprise Microfrontends

A software engineering team has published a multi-part series detailing the architecture of a real enterprise microfrontend platform built using Webpack 5 Module Federation. The core requirement driving the design was enabling any team to deploy changes independently, without triggering a rebuild or redeployment of the central Host application. To achieve this, the Host loads a runtime manifest file that maps page routes to remote bundle URLs, meaning adding or updating a team's page requires only a manifest entry change. Shared dependencies such as React and the design system are declared as singletons, ensuring all microfrontends use the same running instance rather than separate copies. The first installment focuses on why Module Federation was selected over two other viable alternatives, with subsequent parts covering auth, CI/CD, and safe manifest updates.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

How Adam and AdamW Became the Backbone of Modern LLM Training

Adam, the optimizer now central to training large language models, was originally proposed by Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba in December 2014 — well before the Transformer architecture existed. It works by maintaining adaptive per-parameter learning rates using exponential moving averages of gradients, allowing billions of parameters to update at different effective rates without exploding or stalling. The Transformer paper adopted Adam directly in its training recipe, cementing its dominance in deep learning. However, a subtle flaw in how Adam handles weight decay led Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter to propose AdamW in 2017, which decouples regularization from gradient statistics for more consistent weight shrinkage. AdamW is now the standard choice for Transformer training, and Adam's decade-long influence was formally recognised with an ICLR Test of Time Award in 2025.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community