uuid VS sharp

I got this error when using a library with ECMAScript Module (ESM), such as [udid](https://github.com/uuidjs/uuid):

It has been decided to use uuid Version 4 for all of them. Noteworthy is the CommentId, which serves as the identifier for entities within the boundary, meaning local identifiers. For this case, there is no necessity to use uuid. Evans used positions such as front-left, rear-left, front- right, and rear-right to identify the wheels of a car. However, unlike wheels, no straightforward, real-world, understandable means of identification for CommentId came to my mind, so the uuid framework was adopted as a convenient and easy generation method.

9.uuid

.husky: Git hooks are custom scripts that run in response to some event (e.g. before a commit is created), and they can choose to abort that event under certain conditions. One of their main drawbacks though is that they live inside the .git folder, which means they cannot be directly versioned like the rest of the project. This folder is used by the popular Husky package that makes it possible to include Git hooks with your project and it takes care of installing them to their appropriate location so they can be detected by Git. Example from uuid.

Some popular npm packages for generating UUIDs in JavaScript are the uuid and short-uuid packages.

My first thought is to use something like https://github.com/uuidjs/uuid

activePlayers is a map of unique player IDs (determined by clients via uuid to timestamps of when they last made a GET https://farmhand.vercel.app/api/get-market-data?room=global request. Each time the function is invoked, it examines the map to see which timestamps are older than the HEARTBEAT_INTERVAL_PERIOD (currently 10 seconds) and deletes any that are expired. This data is returned to the client and also written back to Redis to be persisted across function invocations. This is how the active room participants are tracked.

By default Next.js uses nanoid to produce build ids so I used that too. You don't have to use it, there are other options, such as uuid.

You need to include some third-party libraries such as CometChat Widget, Uuid, Validator, Firebase via CDN because you are building the Javascript chat app. Therefore, npm should not be used here. You need to add those libraries for some reasons:

Last thing left is to use our new upload function in our server action. Since I like to upload images in single format and have some more control over them, I will additionally use sharp library. For file name, I'll generate some random string using nanoid:

blur is a technique to blur images while reducing the file size surprisingly. blur works by enlarging the pixels of the image, which reduces the details of the image, and the number of colors also decreases, thus saving storage space. Sharp is a popular image processing library in Node.js, and it supports the blur function. After going through the blur function, the image size at this point is only a few KB, which is reasonable for an image placeholder in the article.

sharp

For simplicity, I will be generating PNGs with JavaScript/Node and the Sharp image library. Any library that can convert between pixel arrays and image files will make the process quite straightforward.

There is also a library that Next.js itself uses: sharp. It can be setup as Node.js service. I even played around a little: image-proxy-service

Sharp Documentation: Link

ESLint does an amazing job in detecting floating promises. I've not had it miss one, ever. When adding this to a project, I've discovered multiple accidental bugs due to a missing "await" keyword--bugs that were extremely subtle and intermittent in many cases.

The only thing it can't do is determine that you actually did handle the promise later. Which is fine. It's a LINTING RULE, and false positives are the name of the game.

What's BAD is when you accidentally miss handling a promise at all. It's an invisible error without the linting rule.

Your other comments...don't even make sense. You're going to build a Lanczos filter by hand? Or you're only going to ... compile ImageMagick to WebAssembly?!, ... an implementation which is tremendously slower (nearly unusably so for large images) than that of Sharp:

https://www.npmjs.com/package/sharp

... which is simply an import away?

No, what you're doing is called "motivated reasoning." You've concluded that Deno is the best, and you're reinterpreting all of my complaints in convoluted ways to support your predetermined conclusion.

Standard fanboy behavior. Or troll behavior. I cite Poe's Law as why it's impossible to tell the difference.