I am being thrown a half backed, undocumented, non-handover project of VueJs with few other components as frontend and express as a backend. (Old developer who was maintaining things on git is abscond)
Backend/Express part I've figured it out most of the things but I got stuck on frontend part which is served using express_static
For VueJs I don't know what other things are depending
Is it using yarn or npm for build/deploy ?
Using mostly command line
What should be my starting point to look into project
Build/deploy yarn <> npm is interchangeable.
Is it possible to convert Individual .vue file to .js file and deploy it?
What other tips and tricks you suggest for making quicker changes live on productions without major disaster (on front-end side).
What is the fastest way to hack things in this situation :)
Is there any docs what happen internally? - Curious to know!
Thanks
Related
I have vue project which published on Digital Ocean. The main problem is when i make some changes on FileZilla it is not affect on website. How can i solve this issue?
This is not an issue per-se. This is just the way how modern web development works. Vue.js (but also Nuxt) is using a bundler right now (Webpack, Vite are the most common), hence to go to production it needs to be bundled each time you push something to it.
If you upload something via FTP or SSH and edit some source code, a bundle step will be required in order to get any changes on the actual webapp.
Backend languages may not need that, for example you could SSH into a server and change some .php file, if you F5 the page it will be updated in real time. But this is not how frontend JS code works, it needs to be optimised.
Another thing, sending code via SSH/FTP is not really a good workflow because it is not easily trackable, no version-controlled, will not trigger any build flags in case of an error etc...
The best approach is to have a git repo + some build step included in some CI.
A common platform for it is Netlify, you connect a Github repo, you tell which command to use to build the project and each time you push some code, it may do some checks/tests/optimizations/etc... via Github Actions before being released automatically to production (updated on your webapp).
This workflow have a lot of benefits as one may tell but is also de-facto, the official/regular approach for modern Web development on the frontend.
It seems a strict CSP for style-src will be unhappy when webpack's style-loader tries to append inline CSS in a create-react-app (CRA):
I was wondering if I need to use a webpack dev server to take advantage of using a nonce token, or if CRA had a way of circumventing this style issue during development. The REACT_APP_INLINE_RUNTIME_CHUNK=false value doesn't seem to help in this case (in fact, I'm not seeing a difference in the resources that come over the wire between setting it to true vs. false). But I am running npm start instead of npm build, I think the latter properly builds with environmental variables, not sure about the CRA dev server.
From what I can tell, CRA doesn't really want you overriding things. But if you must, you can use something like react-app-rewired, or eject (which is strongly advised against because it will derail package updates CRA uses to keep everything nice and neat and working).
There's also modifying the build files themselves in node_modules/react-scripts/config/webpack.config.prod.js, although what I'm currently doing is commenting-out the meta tag during development and uncommenting on submit, which is about the same amount of work I think if I have to rebuild/reinstall on updating the module anyway. Although I don't typically update it that often.
Source: https://stackoverflow.com/a/64361307/1580355
I'm trying to build an aspnetcore mvc-app from a console-app and I'm no comfortable with implementing the Program.cs and Startup.cs classes, adding the controller, action and view.
So now I'm ready to start working with frontend and I thought that I should learn a good package-manager and workflow to add front-end packages to wwwroot/lib. As I've understood it npm (and webpack) are highly recommended for this (unless I'm mistaken).
I have a hard time finding a tutorial teaching me how to do this though, most of them introduce several concepts (Angular, Typescript, Yeoman Gulp, etc.) that confuse me as to whether I'm learning what I'm looking for.
I asked this question and thought I'd start with a workflow rughly like this:
Run npm init in my project folder (adding a node_modules folder to the project)
Run npm install bootstrap --save. This will install the NPM module in a node_module folder.
Manually copy the bootstrap-module from my node_module to wwwroot/lib through the cp command.
Now this doesn't feel right or "correct" I'd love to look into WebPack which was suggested in my previous question as a way to do bundling (which I must admit I haven't learned yet) for step three.
So my general question would be if this seem to be a reasonable approach to start out with or if it's seriously flawed compared to how it's supposed to be done?
A specific question is what is the npm entry point? The default is Index.js but is this right for a dotnet mvc-app? As you might notice I'm a bit confused as to where to look for answers for my problem so hope if there's no good answer you might be able to point me in the right direction? :)
EDIT: PS, Using Visual Studio Code (my computer can't handle Visual Studio) so can't use tools unique for VS.
I've been developing in Aurelia-CLI for about 3 months and like it so far. I think it's a solid framework and obviously escalating in support and usage. That's a good thing!
Before I develop much more of my large app, I'm wondering if I'm using the best build system. I've only tried Aurelia-CLI and am not really familiar with Webpack or JSPM, and therefore I don't know what I'm missing. Are there any clear advantages or disadvantages in using either of the other two build systems, or is using the CLI the most clean and supported approach? Since I'm developing independently, I don't have any external constraints.
Thanks for your help.
UPDATE
This answer is almost two years old. Feel free to research updates and provide another more complete answer and I can replace this answer or point to that answer. Thanks!
Aurelia CLI
Aurelia CLI is great for getting started. It's important to understand that under the covers the CLI is using require.js but proxies the configuration through aurelia.json in your application. This means that you need to understand how to configure aurelia to work with require.js at the moment. Once you need to start configuring to match your workflow or change build steps up it gets a bit cumbersome at the moment. We are working to improve this. There are many features planned for the Aurelia CLI but given at the time of writing this that it is in an alpha / beta state it should generally be used on proof of concept or other smaller apps, not production-ready large scale apps yet.
WebPack
WebPack is arguably the most popular kid on the block at the moment. WebPack is not a module loader, but a bundler. It's important to understand this because while we strive to make Aurelia work great with all module loaders WebPack by default is not in charge of loading modules so a dynamically loaded application requires the developer to expand on this. WebPack is strong in creating optimized bundles and can be easy to use as long as you are comfortable with configure WebPack. WebPack has considerably more GitHub stars due to the popularity from React using WebPack it's hard to say whether the choice is better when using Aurelia simply because of the number of GitHub stars.
JSPM / System.js
Some of the skeletons use JSPM and System.js. The reason is that these are the closest to 'spec compliant' solutions. JSPM tries to help as much as possible when loading from the JSPM registry. If not yet available in the registry you can load from NPM or GitHub directly. From a module loading perspective you use a config.js file that is (usually) automatically maintained when installing dependencies to improve the developer workflow.
Side biased note
On most larger apps at the moment I typically prefer using JSPM / System.js simply because I have a great understanding of the tooling and prefer the control that I am provided. I work on a great number of Aurelia apps that are in production and typically reserve CLI for smaller proof of concept apps and WebPack is a great alternative but I prefer the flexibility and understanding I have with JSPM / System.js at the moment.
The CLI isn't currently feature complete, but it is a much simpler setup. Webpack can basically do anything you want to do, but you'll be maintaining your webpack configuration just as much as you maintain your Aurelia code.
Ok, maybe not just as much, but you'll have to learn Webpack to use webpack. The Aurelia CLI is simple to get started, but has some definite limitations. For example, CSS files that reference external resources won't work w/the Aurelia CLI, but they should work fine with Webpack.
First, I can understand if this post gets shutdown due to its subjective nature.
I believe it's time to re-visit the answers about Aurelia CLI being a second-class tool. I respect both PW Kad and Ashley Grant immensely, but I am just not convinced that a statement like this is true anymore:
There are many features planned for the Aurelia CLI but given at the
time of writing this that it is in an alpha / beta state it should
generally be used on proof of concept or other smaller apps, not
production-ready large scale apps yet.
Notably, I have a production application that way back in the day I started with Aurelia CLI, and changed it to JSPM precisely for the reasons noted. But recently, I rebuilt the same app from scratch using the CLI and I realize that it is much easier to use, particularly managing modules and publishing! And this is an app with Google Maps, Google Analytics, Auth0, DevExpress, Bootstrap, etc.
Just think it is time to give Aurelia CLI a little love. It's ready.
Aurelia CLI is the most preferred option with this announcement.
http://aurelia.io/blog/2017/08/18/aurelia-cli-webpack-update/
Now It has more flexibility for your choice of preferences.
I am curious to know why when I create a new Aurelia project, each project installs +600 node_modules. Understandably, the modules collectively don't take up a lot of space, but are all of these modules necessary? I was under the impression that Aurelia's aim was to help developers move away from depending on 3rd party libraries so it seems odd that each project comes with a massive dump of 3rd party libraries.
My guess is that you are starting your project from CLI - which comes preset with HTTP server, ES6/2015, SASS, live-reloading and more.
I created clean Aurelia project and looked at the package.json - there were 5 dependencies and 34 dev dependencies. Using all of above mentioned tools is somewhat standard in today's JS web development, and generating project from CLI reduces time needed for upfront setup. All of these features come with their own dependencies, and that's why node_modules/ folder grows rapidly.
The bottom line is - you could start new Aureila project with much fewer dependencies. On their home page you can find starter project with just three. But that also means that you won't have access to most of the tools used today.
Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't got the impression Aurelia ever aimed to move devs from third party libs and modules, just to be modern, fast, and unobtrusive.
All modern web frameworks have a host of tooling. The reasons in no particular order -
1. Transpiling ESNext or TypeScript - if you want to write in Future JavaScript but have it work in all browsers, you need this step. Both Babel and TypeScript tooling comes with extra stuff too. If you want to see coverage (everyone does) there's another tool.
2. Testing - Unit test and End to End testing require testing frameworks, test runners, and if you want to write like above (esnext or TypeScript) you also need transpiling.
3. Module Loading / Bundling - Require.js, JSPM/System.js, WebPack, etc... are used to allow your code to actually run in the browser. Without a module loader you could not break your code out in to separate files. Without a bundler you would be loading a lot of extra files in production.
4. Serving your application - If you want to run your app locally you need a way to serve it up and watch for changes.
5. Debugging - You want to debug? Now you need a way to debug the file that gets served to the browser back to the original source.
6. Linting - Lint your code base for style consistencies.
Each of these packages usually have their own dependencies, and they get pulled down as well.
This convention of small packages that have a single focus is arguably better than massive packages that do everything for you. This allows you to remove a package and replace it with the one that does the same thing but in a way you want it.