vouch VS FluentValidation

If you don't know the author, signatures do nothing. Anybody can sign their package with some key. Even if you could check the author's identity, that still does very little for you, unless you know them personally.

It makes a lot more sense to use cryptography to verify that releases are not malicious directly. Tools like crev [1], vouch [2], and cargo-vet [3] allow you to trust your colleagues or specific people to review packages before you install them. That way you don't have to trust their authors or package repositories at all.

That seems like a much more viable path forward than expecting package repositories to audit packages or trying to assign trust onto random developers.

[1]: https://github.com/crev-dev/crev [2]: https://github.com/vouch-dev/vouch [3]: https://github.com/mozilla/cargo-vet

Alternatives to cargo-vet that has been mentioned before here on HN:

- https://github.com/crev-dev/crev

- https://github.com/vouch-dev/vouch

Anyone know of any more alternatives or similar tools already available?

I've created Vouch in an attempt to address this problem:

https://github.com/vouch-dev/vouch

Vouch lets users create and share reviews for NPM packages. Project dependencies can then be checked against those reviews.

Vouch uses extensions to interface with package ecosystems. It's simple to create a new extension. Extensions currently exist for NPM, PyPi, and Ansible Galaxy.

I'm currently working on a website to index known reviews and publish official reviews.

I hope you guys find it useful! Drop by the Matrix channel if you have any feedback to share: #vouch:matrix.org

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.