We Keep Coding

In clean architecture between entity layer and use-case layer. What is the use-case boundary?

As I understand Entity caries fundamental properties, methods and validations. An User Entity would have name, DoB...email, verified, and what ever deemed 'core' to this project. For instance, one requires phone number while a complete different project would deem phone number as not necessary but mailing address is.
So then, moving out side of Entity layer, we have the Use-Case layer which depends on entity layer. I imagine this use-case as something slightly more flexible than entity. So this layer allows us to write additional logic and calculations while making use of existing entity or multiple entities.
But my first uncertainty lies whether use-case can create derived values(DoB => Age) from entity properties and even persist them in storage or does it need to already exist in User Entity class already ? Secondly, does use-case layer even NEED to use entity, could I have a use-case that literally just sums(a, b) and may or may not persist that in storage anyways? Thirdly, when persisting entity related properties into database, does retrieving them require once again validation, is this redundant and hurting performance?
Finally, the bigger quesetion is, what is use-case ? should use-case mean to be adaptable by being agnostic of where the inputs comes from and what it serves to? does this just mean the inversion dependency removes the responsibility of what framework it ties to. I.e. using express or Koa or plain http wouldn't force a rewrite of core logic . OR does it mean adaptable to something even greater? like whether it serves directly at the terminal-related applications or api request/response-like-applications via web server?
If its the latter, then it's confusing to me, because it has to be agnostic where it gets/goes, yet these outputs resembles the very medium they will deliver to. for instance, designing a restFUL api, a use case may be...
getUserPosts(userId, limit, offset). which will output a format best for web api consumers (that to me is the application logic right? for a specific application). And it's unlikely that I'll reuse the use-case getUserPost for a different requestor (some terminal interface that runs locally, which wants more detailed response), more or less. So to me i see it shines when the times comes to switch between application-specific framework like between express/koa/httprequest/connect for a restapi for the same application or node.js/bun environment to interact with the same terminal. Rather than all mightly one usecase that criss-cross any kind of application(webservice and terminal simultaneously or any other).
If it is allmighty, should use-case be designed with more generalized purpose? Make them take more configurable? like previously i could've add more parameters getUserPosts(userId, limit, offset, sideloadingConfig, expandedConfig, format: 'obj' | 'csv' | 'json' ), I suppose the forethought to anticipate different usage and scaling requires experience - unless this is where the open-close principle shines to make it ready to be expandable? Or is it just easier to make a separate use-case like getUserPostsWebServices and getUserPostsForLocal , getPremiumUsersPostsForWebServices - this makes sense to me, because now each use-case has its own constraints, it is not possible for WebServieces to reach anymore data fetch/manipulation than PostsForLocal or getPremiumUsersPostsForWebServices offers. and our reusability of WebServices does not tie to any webserver framework. I suppose this is where I would draw the line for use-case, but I'm inexperienced, and I don't know the answer to this.
I know this has been a regurgitation of my understanding rather than a concrete question, but it still points to the quesiton of what the boundary and defintion of use-case is in clean architecture. Thanks for reading, would anyone chime to clarify anything I said wrong?

But my first uncertainty lies whether use-case can create derived values(DoB => Age) from entity properties and even persist them in storage or does it need to already exist in User Entity class already ?
The age of a user is directly derived from the date of birth. I think the way it is calculated is the same between different applications. Thus it is an application agnostic logic and should be placed in the entity.
Defining a User.getAge method does not mean that it must be persisted. The entities in the clean architecture are business object that encapsulate application agnostic business rules.
The properties that are persisted is decided in the repository. Usually you only persist the basic properties, not derived. But if you need to query entities by derived properties they can be persisted too.
Persisting time dependent properties is a bit tricky, since they change as time goes by. E.g. if you persist a user's age and it is 17 at the time you persist it, it might be 18 a few days or eveh hours later. If you have a use case that searches for all users that are 18 to send them an email, you will not find all. Time dependent properties need a kind of heart beat use case that is triggered by a scheduler and just loads (streams) all entities and just persists them again. The repository will then persist the actual value of age and it can be found by other queries.
Secondly, does use-case layer even NEED to use entity, could I have a use-case that literally just sums(a, b) and may or may not persist that in storage anyways?
The use case layer usually uses entities. If you use case would be as simple as sum two numbers it must not use entities, but I guess this is a rare case.
Even very small use cases like sums(a, b) can require the use of entities, if there are rules on a and b. This can be very simple rules like a and b must be positive integer values. But even if there are no rules it can make sense to create entities, because if a and be are custom entities you can give them a name to emphasize that they belong to a critial business concept.
Thirdly, when persisting entity related properties into database, does retrieving them require once again validation, is this redundant and hurting performance?
Usually your application is the only client of the database. If so then your application ensures that only valid entities are stored to the database. Thus it is usually not required to validate them again.
Valid can be context dependent, e.g. if you have an entity named PostDraft it should be clear that a draft doesn't have the same validation rules then a PublishedPost.
Finally a note to the performance concerns. The first rule is measure don't guess. Write a simple test that creates, e.g. 1.000.000 entities, and validates them. Usually a database query and/or the network traffic, or I/O in common, are performance issues and not in memory computation. Of cource you can write code that uses weird loops that mess up performance, but often this is not the case.
Finally, the bigger quesetion is, what is use-case ? should use-case mean to be adaptable by being agnostic of where the inputs comes from and what it serves to? does this just mean the inversion dependency removes the responsibility of what framework it ties to. I.e. using express or Koa or plain http wouldn't force a rewrite of core logic . OR does it mean adaptable to something even greater? like whether it serves directly at the terminal-related applications or api request/response-like-applications via web server?
A use case is is an application dependent business logic. There are different reasons why the clean architecture (and also others like the hexagonal) make them independent of the I/O mechanism. One is that it is independent of frameworks. This makes them easy to test. If a use case would depend on an http controller or better said you implemented the use case in an http controller, e.g. a rest controller, it means that you need to start up an http server, open a socket, write the http request, read the http response, extract the data you need to test it. Even there are frameworks and tools that make such an test easy, these tools must finally start a server and this takes time. Tests that are slow are not executed often, are they? And tests are the basis for refactoring. If you don't have tests or the tests ran slow you do not execute them. If you do not execute them you do not refactor. So the code must rot.
In my opinion the testability is most import and decoupling use cases from any details, like uncle bob names the outer layers, increases the testability of use cases. Use cases are the heart of an application. That's why they should be easy testable and be protected from any dependency to details so that they do not need to be touched in case of a detail change.
If it is allmighty, should use-case be designed with more generalized purpose? Make them take more configurable? like previously i could've add more parameters getUserPosts(userId, limit, offset, sideloadingConfig, expandedConfig, format: 'obj' | 'csv' | 'json' )
I don't think so. Especially the sideloadingConfig, format like json or csv are not parameters for a use case. These parameters belong to a specific kind of frontend or better said to a specific kind of controllers. A use-case provides the raw business data. It is the responsibility of a controller or better a presenter to format them.

Why is EOSJS JsSignatureProvider considered insecure?

In the eosjs docs (https://developers.eos.io/manuals/eosjs/latest/faq/what-is-a-signature-provider) it's said that JsSignatureProvider is insecure. Why exactly it's insecure?
I'm kinda new and would like to use it in my backend pet project.
I feel like if I'm gonna write my own signature provider I would just reinvent eosjs JsSignatureProvider.

The main reason why JsSignatureProvider is insecure is that the constructor takes the private keys directly to perform the signing (which can be exposed to potential attack vectors, i.e., malicious extensions, etc.).
A more secure way may be to route the signing requests to a secure enclave without exposing the private keys, perform the signing there, and get back the signature.

Using server.inject in regular production use cases - bad idea or good idea?

Here's my default use case: I'm thinking about serving some of my REST resources over a socket.io layer instead of over http (since I end up needing to serve a lot of small api requests to render a typical page, and they're all over https, which has extra handshaking issues).
I'm still not sure this is a good idea in general (and have been looking at http2.0 as well). In the short term, I don't want to migrate off of hapijs or rewrite a ton of modular code, but I do want to try out making this work on some test servers to see how well it performs.
So I wrote a super-basic socket.io event handler that just takes requests off of the websocket event emitter and repackages them into hapi via a server.inject call:
module.exports = {
addSocket: function(sock) {
sock.on('rest:get:request', function(sock) {
return function(url) {
console.log(url);
hapi.inject({url: url, credentials: {user: sock.user}}, function(res) {
sock.emit('rest:get:response', url, res.payload);
});
};
})(sock);
}
};
So, all it really does is make sure the authentication object is set up (I have previously authenticated the user on the socket) and then inject a GET request to the server.
Usually, it seems like server.inject is used for testing, but this seems like a perfectly cromulent plan, unless (of course), it's super-slow or a bad idea for reasons I haven't foreseen. Hence: my question.

Server.inject is a great way of encapsulating sub requests however it can become more complicated than necessary though. A lighter approach would be to use shared handler functions and run them as pre-handlers.
What's nice about the pre handlers is that you can run them in parellel if needed.
One use case where I have used server.inject (other than in tests) is for a health check route. I'd have a route /health-check/db and /health-check/queue. I'd then have a /health-check route which encapsulated all of them. But again, this could have been completed with shared route handlers.
I had a lengthy discussion on the gitter channel the other day about this and my understanding is that it is neither good nor bad.
I guess a really good use case would be if you have multiple teams building plugins which expose routes and you want to use one of those routes in your plugin. You don't care about the implementation; you can just call the route.
Anothe reason for using server.inject is that it includes the validation steps provided by the route so you only need to have your resource defined in one place.

Sails.js simple private messaging (pub/sub and models)

My Goal:
Create a private messaging platform using Sails.js with the simplest code possible
Assumptions of Best Practices:
Use Sails.js Webockets for realtime notifications
Use Sails.js PubSub for DB use with websockets
Use Sails.js .watch() to get messages
My Questions:
Can I have a socket watch only certain new models (e.g. find where userid matches sender or recipient id) OR do I need to set up rooms? Selective watching seems much easier, but the documentation doesn't seem to support it.
If any of my above assumptions or questions are not the best way to realize my goal, then what is the simplest way to implement private messaging using Sails?
What I've Tried:
Subscribing and watching a socket
Reading the Sails.js documentation
Looking at the sailsChat example (uses rooms)
Searching StackOverflow and Google for sails chat examples

The simplest way I guess it is using the socket.io implemented in sails, if I remember correctly it is simply called socket.
All controllers can be called with socket.io (client side) IIRC.
The approach that I took is to create a model called messages, and then simply create few endpoints for the messages. If you want to use the models (pub/sub) it is possible to subscribe just to the ones you want. you can subscribe every single user to just a single Model, even if you have plenty of them.
What I used to do is do it manually, when I receive one message, i would emit it to the right client straight away. But if you want to write less code probably you simply have to subscribe the users to your model Model.subscribe()( http://sailsjs.org/documentation/reference/web-sockets/resourceful-pub-sub/subscribe )
so when a message is added to the Database then you can send it to whoever you need to.
Here's another example of a chat built on top of sails.js: https://github.com/asm-products/boxychat-old

Ajax Architecture - MVC? Other?

Hey all, I'm looking at building an ajax-heavy site, and I'm trying to spend some time upfront thinking through the architecture.
I'm using Code Igniter and jquery. My initial thought process was to figure out how to replicate MVC on the javascript side, but it seems the M and the C don't really have much of a place.
A lot of the JS would be ajax calls BUT I can see it growing beyond that, with plenty of DOM manipulation, as well as exploring the HTML5 clientside database. How should I think about architecting these files? Does it make sense to pursue MVC? Should I go the jquery plugin route somehow? I'm lost as to how to proceed and I'd love some tips. Thanks all!

I've made an MVC style Javascript program. Complete with M and C. Maybe I made a wrong move, but I ended up authoring my own event dispatcher library. I made sure that the different tiers only communicate using a message protocol that can be translated into pure JSON objects (even though I don't actually do that translation step).
So jquery lives primarily in the V part of the MVC architecture. In the M, and C side, I have primarily code which could run in the stand alone CLI version of spidermonkey, or in the serverside rhino implementation of javascript, if necessary. In this way, if requirements change later, I can have my M and C layers run on the serverside, communicating via those json messages to the V side in the browser. It would only require some modifications to my message dispatcher to change this though. In the future, if browsers get some peer to peer style technologies, I could get the different teirs running in different browsers for instance.
However, at the moment, all three tiers run in a single browser. The event dispatcher I authored allows multicast messages, so implementing an undo feature now will be as simple as creating a new object that simply listens to the messages that need to be undone. Autosaving state to the server is a similar maneuver. I'm able to do full detailed debugging and profiling inside the event dispatcher. I'm able to define exactly how the code runs, and how quickly, when, and where, all from that central bit of code.
Of course the main drawback I've encountered is I haven't done a very good job of managing the complexity of the thing. For that, if I had it all to do over, I would study very very carefully the "Functional Reactive" paradigm. There is one existing implementation of that paradigm in javascript called flapjax. I would ensure that the view layer followed that model of execution, if not used specifically the flapjax library. (i'm not sure flapjax itself is such a great execution of the idea, but the idea itself is important).
The other big implementation of functional reactive, is quartz composer, which comes free with apple's developer tools, (which are free with the purchase of any mac). If that is available to you, have a close look at that, and how it works. (it even has a javascript patch so you can prototype your application with a prebuilt view layer)
The main takaway from the functional reactive paradigm, is to make sure that the view doesn't appear to maintain any kind of state except the one you've just given it to display. To put it in more concrete terms, I started out with "Add an object to the screen" "remove an object from the screen" type messages, and I'm now tending more towards "display this list of objects, and I'll let you figure out the most efficient way to get from the current display, to what I now want you to display". This has eliminated a whole host of bugs having to do with sloppily managed state.
This also gets around another problem I've been having with bugs caused by messages arriving in the wrong order. That's a big one to solve, but you can sidestep it by just sending in one big package the final desired state, rather than a sequence of steps to get there.
Anyways, that's my little rant. Let me know if you have any additional questions about my wartime experience.

At the risk of being flamed I would suggest another framework besides JQuery or else you'll risk hitting its performance ceiling. Its ala-mode plugins will also present a bit of a problem in trying to separate you M, V and C.
Dojo is well known for its Data Stores for binding to server-side data with different transport protocols, and its object oriented, lighting fast widget system that can be easily extended and customized. It has a style that helps guide you into clean, well-divisioned code – though it's not strictly MVC. That would require a little extra planning.
Dojo has a steeper learning curve than JQuery though.
More to your question, The AJAX calls and object (or Data Store) that holds and queries this data would be your Model. The widgets and CSS would be your View. And the Controller would basically be your application code that wires it all together.
In order to keep them separate, I'd recommend a loosely-coupled event-driven system. Try to directly access objects as little as possible, keeping them "black boxed" and get data via custom events or pub/sub topics.

JavaScriptMVC (javascriptmvc.com) is an excellent choice for organizing and developing a large scale JS application.
The architecture design is very practical. There are 4 things you will ever do with JavaScript:
Respond to an event
Request Data / Manipulate Services (Ajax)
Add domain specific information to the ajax response.
Update the DOM
JMVC splits these into the Model, View, Controller pattern.
First, and probably the most important advantage, is the Controller. Controllers use event delegation, so instead of attaching events, you simply create rules for your page. They also use the name of the Controller to limit the scope of what the controller works on. This makes your code deterministic, meaning if you see an event happen in a '#todos' element you know there has to be a todos controller.
$.Controller.extend('TodosController',{
'click' : function(el, ev){ ... },
'.delete mouseover': function(el, ev){ ...}
'.drag draginit' : function(el, ev, drag){ ...}
})
Next comes the model. JMVC provides a powerful Class and basic model that lets you quickly organize Ajax functionality (#2) and wrap the data with domain specific functionality (#3). When complete, you can use models from your controller like:
Todo.findAll({after: new Date()}, myCallbackFunction);
Finally, once your todos come back, you have to display them (#4). This is where you use JMVC's view.
'.show click' : function(el, ev){
Todo.findAll({after: new Date()}, this.callback('list'));
},
list : function(todos){
$('#todos').html( this.view(todos));
}
In 'views/todos/list.ejs'
<% for(var i =0; i < this.length; i++){ %>
<label><%= this[i].description %></label>
<%}%>
JMVC provides a lot more than architecture. It helps you in ever part of the development cycle with:
Code generators
Integrated Browser, Selenium, and Rhino Testing
Documentation
Script compression
Error reporting

I think there is definitely a place for "M" and "C" in JavaScript.
Check out AngularJS.
It helps you with your app structure and strict separation between "view" and "logic".
Designed to work well together with other libs, especially jQuery.
Full testing environment (unit, e2e) + dependency injection included, so testing is piece of cake with AngularJS.

There are a few JavaScript MVC frameworks out there, this one has the obvious name:
http://javascriptmvc.com/