Kissaki

Code before:

async function createUser(user) {
    if (!validateUserInput(user)) {
        throw new Error('u105');
    }

    const rules = [/[a-z]{1,}/, /[A-Z]{1,}/, /[0-9]{1,}/, /\W{1,}/];
    if (user.password.length >= 8 && rules.every((rule) => rule.test(user.password))) {
        if (await userService.getUserByEmail(user.email)) {
            throw new Error('u212');
        }
    } else {
        throw new Error('u201');
    }

    user.password = await hashPassword(user.password);
    return userService.create(user);
}

Here's how I would refac it for my personal readability. I would certainly introduce class types for some concern structuring and not dangling functions, but that'd be the next step and I'm also not too familiar with TypeScript differences to JavaScript.

const passwordRules = [/[a-z]{1,}/, /[A-Z]{1,}/, /[0-9]{1,}/, /\W{1,}/]
function validatePassword(plainPassword) => plainPassword.length >= 8 && passwordRules.every((rule) => rule.test(plainPassword))
async function userExists(email) => await userService.getUserByEmail(user.email)

async function createUser(user) {
    // What is validateUserInput? Why does it not validate the password?
    if (!validateUserInput(user)) throw new Error('u105')
    // Why do we check for password before email? I would expect the other way around.
    if (!validatePassword(user.password)) throw new Error('u201')
    if (!userExists(user.email)) throw new Error('u212')

    const hashedPassword = await hashPassword(user.password)
    return userService.create({ email: user.email, hashedPassword: hashedPassword });
}

Noteworthy:

• Contrary to most JS code, [for independent/new code] I use the non-semicolon-ending style following JavaScript Standard Style - see their no semicolons rule with reasoning; I don't actually know whether that's even valid TypeScript, I just fell back into JS
• I use oneliners for simple check-error-early-returns
• I commented what was confusing to me
• I do things like this to fully understand code even if in the end I revert it and whether I implement a fix or not. Committing refacs is also a big part of what I do, but it's not always feasible.
• I made the different interface to userService.create (a different kind of user object) explicit
• I named the parameter in validatePassword plainPasswort to make the expectation clear, and in the createUser function more clearly and obviously differentiate between "the passwords"/what password is. (In C# I would use a param label on call validatePassword(plainPassword: user.password) which would make the interface expectation and label transformation from interface to logic clear.

Structurally, it's not that different from the post suggestion. But it doesn't truth-able value interpretation, and it goes a bit further.

2FA? But it said "with one click". So that's not true?

I don't remember whether I serious considered that. I don't see it in the Play store. I likely preferred original source.

Looking at the screenshots, it looks like a waste of space. A no go for me, given the alternative.

https://keepassxc.org/assets/img/screenshots/database_view.png

Compare that to the condensed, concise Keepass interface:

https://keepass.info/screenshots/keepass_2x/main_big.png

Being able to build the app as you are trying to do here is an issue we plan to resolve and is merely a bug.

Being able to build the app as you are trying to do here is an issue we plan to resolve and is merely a bug.

I use KeePass and manually sync my password database file through cloud storage. I specifically prefer it over anything giving me web and online interfaces. I load from local file or on my phone from cloud storage.

• KeePass website
• KeePass2Droid in Play Store

So it really is that simple: a small bash script, building locally, rsync'ing the changes, and restarting the service. It's just the bare essentials of a deployment. That's how I deploy in 10 seconds.

I'm strongly opposed to local builds on any semi-important or semi-complex production product or system.

Tagged CI release builds give you a lot of important guarantees involved in release concerns.

I'll take the fresh checkout and release build time cost for those consistency and versioned source state guarantees.

learned from 10 years/millions of users in production

10 years per millions of users is an interesting metric :P

I wasn't aware the GitHub terms of service explicitly grant / require you to grant permission to fork [within GitHub].

GitHub ToS section License Grant to Other Users

By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).

If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). […] If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users.

It's been over 10 years since we released Rogue Legacy 1, and in the pursuit of sharing knowledge, we are officially releasing the source code to the public.

https://github.com/flibitijibibo/RogueLegacy1/

License head

Rogue Legacy 1's source code is made available under a custom license. Basically, you can compile yourself a copy, for free, for personal use. But if you want to distribute a compiled version of the game, you might need permission first. See the EXCEPTIONS.md page for more information.

Yeah, I thought the same. Pretty bad name.