enquirer VS FluentValidation

jonschlinkert (Jon Schlinkert) · GitHub

Although I'm happy there is a way to bundle Node.js apps with support for pnpm, and for a modern-ish version of Node.js, it's somewhat slow in my experience to build locally. Interactivity doesn't have the greatest ecosystem there, especially with TypeScript. Best library I've found is Enquirer.

{ "name": "@jonschlinkert/omit-deep", "description": "Recursively omit specified keys from an object", "tags": ["object", "deep", "remove", "omit"], "version": "0.3.0", "author": "Jon Schlinkert (https://github.com/jonschlinkert)", "repository": "jonschlinkert/omit-deep", "bugs": "https://github.com/jonschlinkert/omit-deep/issues", "license": "MIT" }

In case you need to ask for user input, optionally you can use a prompt file. This is very useful to customize the output of the generator. Prompts are defined using a library named Enquirer.

> I don't fully understand why packages like this are so popular.

It actually works like this: Author X develops `iseven`, `isodd`, etc. No one really downloads such packages. Author X then develops `importantPackage` which does do something useful developers out here download. Now `iseven`, `isodd` are downloaded alongside `importantPackage`.

My point is, we should recognize certain NPM authors as toxic, but I guess "freedom of speech/code" stops us from doing so. Example of such an author: https://github.com/jonschlinkert/

something like enquirer

You're thinking of Jon Schlinkert, publisher of 1435 packages on npm.

It's insanely funny to me that these packages exist while one of his bigger projects (https://github.com/enquirer/enquirer) lists the following reason under "why use it":

> Lightweight - Only one dependency, the excellent ansi-colors by Brian Woodward.

It's written by this guy, who shits out micro libraries by the hundreds. He moved the project to another user under the pretense that he was learning to program back then, but a lot of his stuff is similarly inconsequential micro libraries.

Here is an example of Command handler with built-in Fluent Validation and fire and forget style:

There is an RFC called Problem Details (RFC7807) that standardizes how an error in an API should be responded to for the client. If you use Fluent validation, you may have noticed that the response is within this pattern.

here we're defining the input validation requirements using fluent validation rules. let's see what happens when the user input doesn't meet the above criteria. execute the same request in swagger with the following incorrect json content:

I remember FluentValidation being a nice library for this type of stuff.

Literally the code example in the front page: https://fluentvalidation.net/

https://www.nuget.org/packages/Newtonsoft.Json/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/AutoMapper/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/Dapper/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/FluentValidation/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/FluentAssertions/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/NUnit/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/xunit/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/YamlDotNet/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/Moq/ That is simply not true. Mature c# projects purposely maintain no downstream dependencies and is they do, it's to a major reputable lib. See for yourself - these are staple third party packages commonly used. Anything dependency starting with System or NETStandard is Microsoft maintained.

FluentValidator for validating and authorising certain fields.

Now that we know the importance of providing users with enough information about their requests and how it was processed, let’s focus on how we can configure our API to help us do that.One aspect of such meaningful experience is Request Validation (400 Error Range). For that purpose I am using a library called Fluent Validation.