pino VS snyk

Learn more about logging in Fastify and how to customize the Pino logger.

The Fastify framework includes the Pino logger by default (a really great logger with lots of cool features that doesn't compromise on performance). The framework itself allows a lot of really cool stuff, like controlling the level of logs at runtime.

Fastify provides a built-in logging mechanism based on Pino that allows you to capture various events in your applications. Once enabled, Fastify logs all incoming requests to the server and errors that occur while processing said requests. It also provides a convenient way to log custom messages through the log() method on the Fastify instance or the request object.

1. pino

Vitest is for frontend. Jest is not good for backend (I don’t like it for frontend either), take a look at this issue.

Have a look at https://github.com/pinojs/pino

NodeJS -> Pino, Winston, Bunyan, Npmlog, e.t.c.

Use a configurable logger like pino

Using pino as a logger, for every request on the _server_ , a unique ID generated client side in the headers, so a log may be something like:

There are a number of ways that you can install the Snyk CLI on your machine, ranging from using the available stand-alone executables to using package managers such as Homebrew for macOS and Scoop for Windows.

There's tons of tools to solve each of these problems Snyk for vulnerability scanning, tons of license checker plugins (like we use license-webpack-plugin which generates the license text for everything we distribute and fails a build if a license doesn't have one of our allowlisted licenses.

oh, such companies already exist: For example Snyk

Snyk provides security score and vulnerability count badges, which you can link to the relevant pages, as in these examples:

If you app is dockerized I would recommend adding something like Snyk to make sure your image is safe.

Note: I remind you that we support multiple strategy for vulnerabilities like Sonatype or Snyk.

My name is Adam, and I am a software engineer working at Snyk for the past 2.5 years. Over the past year, I have been leading a few projects that spanned multiple teams. My colleague is a tech lead at Snyk, and he’s been coaching people on how to lead projects effectively for a few years now.

So I'm curious, how are businesses building iOS apps securely? Could a tool like Snyk replace a manual audit, or is it a good idea to have an initial manual audit of our desired environment?

Ideally, software can quickly go from development to production. Continuous deployment and delivery are some processes that make this possible. Continuous deployment means establishing an automated pipeline from development to production while continuous delivery means maintaining the main branch in a deployable state so that a deployment can be requested at any time. Predecos uses these tools. When a commit goes into master, the code is pushed directly to the public environment. Deployment also occurs when a push is made to a development branch enabling local/e2e testing before push to master. In this manner the master branch can be kept clean and ready for deployment most of the time. Problems that surface resulting from changes are visible before reaching master. Additional automated tools are used. Docker images are built for each microservice on commit to a development or master branch, a static code analysis is performed by SonarCloud revealing quality and security problems, Snyk provides vulnerability analysis and CodeClimate provides feedback on code quality while Coveralls provides test coverage. Finally, a CircleCI build is done. Each of these components use badges which give a heads-up display of the health of the system being developed. Incorporating each of these tools into the development process will keep the code on a trajectory of stability. For example, eliminating code smells, security vulnerabilities, and broken tests before merging a pull-request (PR) into master. Using Husky on development machines to ensure that code is well linted and locally tested before it is allowed to be pushed to source-control management (SCM). Applying additional processes such as writing tests around bugs meaning reintroduction of a given bug would cause a test to fail. The automated tools would then require that test to be fixed before push to SCM meaning fewer bugs will be reintroduced. Proper development processes and automation have a strong synergy.