Note: Instead of storing a user’s ID in the session cookie you could store a JWT, but I’m not sure what that buys you. However, you may be using specific JWT claims that make this worthwhile.

When mocking is deemed profitable:

There used to be other backends in addition to C: Java, CSharp, and Javascript but those suffered from bitrot and have been removed.

Personally, I'm starting to think that the feature where it automatically adds xray.js to the document is more trouble than it's worth. I propose that we remove that automatic feature and just make it part of the install instructions that you need to add this line to your template/layout: <%= javascript_include_tag 'xray', nonce: true if Rails.env.development? %>

Now that I've thought more about it, I honestly think the auto-adding the script feature is overrated, over-complicated, and error-prone (#98, #100), and I propose we just remove it (#110).

now that I've thought more about it, I think the auto-adding the script feature is overrated, over-complicated, and error-prone (#100), and ought to just be removed (#110).

now that I realize how easy it is to just manually include this in my app: <%= javascript_include_tag 'xray', nonce: true if Rails.env.development? %> I regret even wasting my time getting it to automatically look for and add a nonce to the auto-injected xray.js script

What’s the use of ie. snap libreoffice if it can’t access documents on a samba server in my workplace ? Should I really re-organize years of storage and work in my office for being able to use snap ? A too high price to pay, for the moment.

If the client JS is disabled, then handleSubmit will never be executed and you have to care that your /api/fakeBackendRoute will handle the data exactly how the client would.

Of all the compile-to-languages, the one that strikes me as having the least merit is JSX. It's basically a ton of added complexity for the sake of what boils down to syntax. There are no real gains in terms of language semantics in JSX.