node-config VS zap

node-config

This will allow to set a security operation mode and configure the channels. I chose to use the config package as I had good experience with it and it supports cascading config options.

Tailwind CSS v3.2.4 includes a new @config directive that lets you specify which Tailwind CSS config to use for that file.

Use https://www.npmjs.com/package/config so you can have runtime variables accessible based on provided json's

I am using this node-config package (https://github.com/node-config/node-config) in my project. I feel like I am brute-forcing my way, is there a better way to do this? Any hint would be appreciated or just point me in a direction that would be great. Thank you!

In this article, I'm going to demonstrate how the dotenv and node-config NPM packages can be used together to keep your Node.js application code organized across environments.

#3 Environment-specific config files with Config package

I always disliked the .env file. Almost every time I was forced to place it on the top level of my app directory. At some point i started to use the npm config package. This gives the application a consistent configuration interface and there is a formidable way to implement it into the NextJS environment. For people which prefer code over text, feel free to checkout the finished implementation.

How do I handle configs? In our Node APIs we use this config package, which allows us to override default configs on a per-environment basis. What's the standard way of doing this in Go?

The project currently uses slog package from standard library for logging. But switching to a more advanced logger like zap could offer more flexibility and features.

It's nice to have this in the standard library, but it doesn't solve any existing pain points around structured log metadata and contexts. We use zap [0] and store a zap logger on the request context which allows different parts of the request pipeline to log with things like tenantid, traceId, and correlationId automatically appended. But getting a logger off the context is annoying, leads to inconsistent logging practices, and creates a logger dependency throughout most of our Go code.

[0] https://github.com/uber-go/zap

Kubebuilder, like much of the k8s ecosystem, utilizes zap for logging. Out of the box, the Kubebuilder zap configuration outputs a timestamp for each log, which gets formatted using scientific notation. This makes it difficult for me to read the time of an event just by glancing at it. Personally, I prefer ISO 8601, so let's change it!

What else would you expect from a structured logging package?

To me it absolutely makes sense as the default and standard for 99% of applications, and the API isn't much unlike something like Zap[0] (a popular Go structured logger).

The attributes aren't an "arbitrary" concept, they're a completely normal concept for structured loggers. Groups are maybe less standard, but reasonable nevertheless.

I'm not sure if you're aware that this is specifically a structured logging package. There already is a "simple" logging package[1] in the sodlib, and has been for ages, and isn't particularly fast either to my knowledge. If you want really fast you take a library (which would also make sure to optimize allocations heavily).

[0]: https://pkg.go.dev/go.uber.org/zap

[1]: https://pkg.go.dev/log

And finally for structured logging: https://github.com/uber-go/zap

For logging: I recommend using Uber Zap https://github.com/uber-go/zap It will log stack backtraces and makes it super easy to debug errors when deployed. I typically log in the business logic and not below. And log at the entry for failures to start the system. Maybe not necessary for this example, but it’s an essential piece of any API backend.