Couto

Jails seems (to me) the most attractive feature in this package manager.

It's not feasible to believe we can just disable post-install scripts since so many older packages rely on these. Having them contained to avoid dubious scripts seems like the next best solution.

React was closer to elm during the times of stateless functions and redux. Since then it's getting further apart from elm.

Redux was kinda of a poor man's elm but it got the right principles. However the JS community hates boilerplate code so, new, more complicated abstractions appeared. Also, it was too easy, with redux, to shoot yourself in the foot.

Since then, with hooks, things are just getting harder and more complicated in my opinion.

Definitely interesting, albeit a bit too green to be a beta version imho (I can't select a contact when adding a relationship, added two pets by accident because there was no feedback... e.g).

However, it looks really promising and more feature rich than the current version of Monica.

I do have a question thought. Will this version support WebDav/Cal? Syncing contacts to my mobile phone is the main reason why I use monica on a daily base.

Used jslint extensively back in the days.

The reason why it fell mostly in disuse nowadays is because jshint appeared, which allowed a lot more customization of the available rules being applied.

Later eslint popped up with it's plugin engine allowing anyone to have their own custom set of rules.

As far as I know, no one cared about jshint's license because there was no code being shipped, and eventually code would be minified anyway leaving no traces of jshint.

Now... We can talk about the morality of ignoring a license, but ultimately jshint's license was simply ignored by almost everyone

Coverage only indicates which parts of the codebase were touched by the test suite. A big test suite size doesn't mean high coverage.

Coverage can be increased without increasing the test suite by reducing the code base size (within pratical limits obviously)

Personally, I only find coverage as a good indicator of which code still needs to be tested, like forgetting some edge cases or conditional branches.

This reminds me of the server that Zoom used to have. Accepting connections only from 127.0.0.1, alone, isn't enough, since any request from the browser would match that IP, even if the request was being made through a XSS attack.

I'm sure someone with more knowledge in security would better chime in.