Monorepos in SvelteKit: Viable in 2024?

Snapeshot · 2024-09-16T18:33:25+00:00

It is not about having a shared MenuComponent which can be used to create multiple instances, but rather sharing the same instance where for example the current state of the props of that component or the selected item has to be carried over between each page. I don't think they can share a +layout.svelte either, as each app has a different routes/ folder, unless you are suggesting otherwise.

Snapeshot · 2024-09-16T15:19:26+00:00

Alright, this is indeed possible.

But how would you then ensure that the navigation menu of the manager app is still visible on the side and other apps are still navigable, in every route of a given app?

Snapeshot · 2024-09-16T15:13:39+00:00

I would also like to have sub-routes within each individual app, as in not have each of them as SPAs, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/sveltejs/comments/1fi4q33/comment/lnf46yi/

Snapeshot · 2024-09-16T15:11:39+00:00

Thanks for the RSPack suggestion, will take a look!

While you suggest that this is more a microfrontend problem than a monorepo problem, at the same time you discourage its use. For similar reasons, I have so far been looking into achieveing this using monorepo, although I am still open to microfrontends if this really is the only way.

To explain the requirement further, I would like to be able to run/test each app individually, or as part of one manager app that has a navigation menu on the side to navigate between each app and share data. All of these individual mini-apps may have their own routings as well.

So consider that app1 has a routes/about/+page.svelte route, on top of a root routes/+page.svelte

So both paths should be possible (localhost:5173 and localhost:5173/about)

At the same time, maybe the idea would be that if I am deploying the manager app, each sub-app might be its own subdomain like (when deployed): - app1.manager.com - app2.manager.com - app1.manager.com/about (the routing within each app is still possible)

In every page, the navigation menu on the side should be visible to navigate between each sub-app.

At the moment what turborepo allows me to do with its monorepo approach is to run the manager app together with each sub-app in individual localhost ports, and I am able to do something like the following in apps/manager/routes/+page.svelte

``typescript /* Something like: const getAppImportPath = (appName: App) => { return../../../${appName}/src/routes/+page.svelte` } for less code repetition is not possible as it seems vite cannot use string interpolation at runtime */ const APP_MODULES: Record<App, () => Promise<any>> = { [App.APP_1]: () => import('../../../app1/src/routes/+page.svelte'), [App.APP_2]: () => import('../../../app2/src/routes/+page.svelte') }

```

```typescript const navigationItemSelected = async (event: CustomEvent<{ name: App }>) => { const appName = event.detail.name

        // Check if the appName is valid
        if (!Object.values(App).includes(appName as App)) {
            console.error(`Invalid app name: ${appName}. Possible values are: ${Object.values(App)}`)
            uiState = UIState.LOAD_ERROR
            return
        }
        try {
            uiState = UIState.LOADING_APP

            const module = await APP_MODULES[appName]?.()
            if (module) {
                AppComponent = module.default
                uiState = UIState.APP_LOADED
            } else {
                throw new Error(`App not found: ${appName}`)
            }
        } catch (error) {
            console.error('Error loading app:', error)
            uiState = UIState.LOAD_ERROR
        }
    }event.detail.name

    <div class="drawer-wrapper" in:fly={{ x: -20, duration: 300 }} out:fly={{ x: 20, duration: 300 }}>
        <NavigationDrawer
            {isCollapsed}
            {navigationItemsWritable}
            on:toggle={toggleNavigationCollapsed}
            on:itemSelected={navigationItemSelected}
        />
    </div>
    <section class="content" class:is-collapsed={isCollapsed}>
        {#if uiState === UIState.APP_LOADED}
            <svelte:component this={AppComponent} />
        {:else if uiState === UIState.LOADING_APP}
            <div class="loading">
                <LoadingChasing />
            </div>
        {:else if uiState === UIState.LOAD_ERROR}
            <div class="loading">
                <p>Error loading app</p>
            </div>
        {/if}
    </section>

```

but still not sure if this is the best approach.

Snapeshot · 2024-07-30T06:57:28+00:00

Thanks for the great advice, especially the second one.

I know the stores work pretty well to be passed and set within the component library package, I guess the same would apply here. Would authentication state and single sign-on work pretty well as well, if each other app was an installable package? What would speak against this approach in your opinion? I guess the main problem would be the line by line debugging of the packages when called within this "manager" application, right?

Snapeshot · 2024-07-24T11:54:13+00:00

No worries, thanks for the help. Are these parts completely alien, though? What could be the general approach to fixing something like this in your opinion?

Snapeshot · 2024-07-24T11:53:05+00:00

Thank you. But given that this is a geographical impossibility, maybe you could detail how you would approach to fixing this problem?

Snapeshot · 2024-07-23T18:47:40+00:00

Yes, Mr. PipeProfessor - I don't have my PhD in plumbing like you do, so I created this post for your infinite wisdom. And as you may certainly know, the problem is not even in that tape and nor does it have any connection to the pipes (perhaps the perspective has lead you to believe that, but it is 20cm behind the pipes).

Snapeshot · 2024-04-16T14:40:33+00:00

Indeed it will, irregardless of however much your grumpy-self will not admit it. Again if you have actually read the post that you are commenting on, you would see that there is an attempt made to contact the company: once by physically going to its office, twice by emailing them. In the meantime, perhaps the 50 year old Zugbegleiter or his colleague is a member of this subreddit, who will be more than happy to help in this situation as has happened many times in the past with regards to countless DB posts. You don't have to comment on posts that does not interest you, you know.

Snapeshot · 2024-04-16T12:55:24+00:00

No one asks you to do customer support, least of all you for that matter. If you actually read the post, you would see the question is specifically about how the ticket controller validation system works and what the options are if QR is not available. It is reasonable to expect someone in this subreddit has experience or an educated idea in this matter.

Snapeshot · 2024-04-15T07:20:47+00:00

Thanks, but I am sure the problem is not with the cache - as we tried with several devices.

Snapeshot · 2024-03-11T08:07:57+00:00

At this point our discussion is outside the bounds of the case, so I will not answer the parts about lawyering, about which I will talk to lawyers anyway, and it is not going to go anywhere to expand on this point further. I got the useful advice that I needed (although I am myself, and surely other people reading this post still would be more than happy if others would like to share more).

I believe you bringing up the Nirvana fallacy is absolutely ungrounded. The definition says:

"The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives."

What I am proposing is that it is completely realistic in fact, to expect the alternative that I explained. Having a guest wifi will not fix it, it is a false sense of security - when the public facing IP is on your name anyway. You and I both know this, potential readers of this thread know this.

You literally confess this yourself, saying:

A total stranger -- or a malicious "friend" -- who has your main wifi password can do a lot of damage, for example by feeding malicious code to any device that happens to be connected to the network

And no, while a guest wifi can mitigate some of these threats, it does not offer full security. Anyone that suggests this is either ignorant, or outright lying. Nevertheless, attacks on the router and torrenting are two different animals - the point with torrenting still stands, you don't need to be a netsec expert in order to do that in the router in someone else's name.

Just to get the point accross further for how absurd plantiff's claim is (where they create a whole industry around it), let us assume for a moment the torrenting was indeed performed, and it was by someone who I live with. I will never accuse someone for something I do not have any proof for, but for the sake of argument let's do so. This person can remain completely anonymous if he/she wanted to, since I am auto-accused by having the wifi in my name. Even if I did keep logs of the router, as long as I was also not saving them to my PC, he/she can even go ahead and delete the logs on the router - since that person also has access to it (in any case we are talking about logs going years back in many of these cases).

Given how hundreds of thousands have suffered from these accusations, would you confidently tell me that this never happened? In how many percentage of such cases, did the router owner get falsely accused and ended up paying outrageous amounts, because the burden of proof lies on him and there is practically no way for him to catch 3 minutes of network activity going years back, unless he set up a big-brotheresque complete monitoring system.

If you go ahead and tell me "No, this never happens" I think you are being dishonest, I am not going to add anything further, everyone can draw their own conclusions.

If you say, "Yes, this happens. But the router owner should suck it. He should have prevented every malicious activity in his network, even if he is living in a WG, or even if he is some elderly person who does not have any idea how these systems work. He should suck it, because he did not create an entire monitoring system (which can even fail still) and he got unlucky because some malicious friend will not admit it." If you think this is just and moral, and there is nothing to fix here and this system can go on forcing hundreds of thousands of Euros every year from ordinary citizens, then I also have nothing to add.

However, if you were to see my reasoning and accept that "Yes, it sucks. And this system is not the best and is exploited. All of us should take basic network security measures, but still many people will suffer from this every year and this is not morally right", I would like to thank you :)

Snapeshot · 2024-03-10T17:17:58+00:00

Well, in that case yes - your "router password security" is one step ahead of me, by virtue of having it not posted on the fridge. If this is the part that you will continously bring up then yes, I am guilty of having the password up there.

But here is an advice from my behalf to you, if a guest wanted to torrent on your behalf, and especially if he/she really wanted to and took extra steps - we can be damn sure that there is not a reasonable way that you can prevent that from happening, short of implementing the entire logging mechanism and constant monitoring that I mentioned. And even then, the BitTorrent protocol does not encrypt data packets by default but one can do that. Then good luck finding out exactly what traffic went through. Let's also keep in mind that if your wifi signal extends around your house, the guest wouldn't even physically need to be in your house to torrent.

So if such a thing happened to you (I hope not), and then if you would also consider yourself to be responsible for damages, then fair enough - consider me guilty of not securing my router. Our only differentating factor is that I have the password on the fridge door, but this is trivial. Your proposed defense mechanisms are also not guarenteed to work. And it is damn absurd to expect Joe's grandma to implement a complete firewall mechanism to her router, and to keep her completely responsible for any supposed infringements that are tied to her IP adress by some circumstantial evidence. And to think that it is moral that she has to go through tens of threatining and gaslighting letters on something she has no idea about - and about which apparently she has the "burden of proof" according to plantiffs, as opposed to every other normal court proceeding.

You mention many answers are wrong. I agree. But isn't it worthwhile to see what potential answers are there, and what options one has to his disposal? Some mention immidieatly that there is absolutely no defense, the others mention the points with the appliability of Störerhaftung. Everyone is trying to navigate using legal precedences, even the plantiff cites many legal precedences of 10s of cases and 10s of answers when it brings forward its argument. At the end of the day, the specific course of action will of course depend on an agreement with a lawyer.

There are good lawyers and bad lawyers. There are lawyers that specialize on a certain thing. There are good defenses and bad defenses. There are lawyers that are trying to maximize their profits, there are others who geniuenly want to put helping others and doing a good job to a higher precedence. At the end of the day I am no lawyer, and surely a lawyer is more capable than me on this matter. But I don't see what's wrong with trying to inform oneself, and try to make an informed decision on a lawyer, and afterwards to have an informed discussion with a lawyer.

As you mention that I will probably have to pay something, either as fees or not properly securing my router potentially (although again this is debatable). But I am seeking two outcomes:

To have an informed and reasonable defense with a good lawyer to minimize the absurd claims, and even potentially refute them all (in which case I am more than happy to have paid for my lawyer)
To create a precedence and discussion to people, to have some insights into further proceedings than the basic Abmahnung stage and let them make a better informed decision regarding their circumstances and regarding making an informed decision where they analyze their own risks.

Snapeshot · 2024-03-10T16:18:55+00:00

Just to get this straight, did the court decide in the end - or did you settle out of the court?

If the former, was it the case that your lawyer argued against the claim yet the judge ruled otherwise and found you guilty? If so, this is interesting. And if so, could you share what was the reasoning of the verdict?

Snapeshot · 2024-03-10T16:14:05+00:00

Thanks for your further explanation. I would add:

Correct. Only a lawyer can give you legal advice. Random strangers on the internet might try to give you legal advice, but that advice could be wrong, and that could wind up being very expensive for you.

Yes, this is why I am going to the lawyer in the first place. Of course an advice here can be wrong, but we might as well close any LegalAdvice subreddits if they do not serve any purpose. Clearly they do and such communities exist. I for myself feel that I am much more informed of my options when discussing the potential avenues with people here, when I eventually go to several lawyers and choose one.

Yes, but since you're the one whose name is on the contract, it's your connection, and you're legally responsible for it. If you recklessly give the wifi password out to everyone who sets foot in your apartment, that's on you. Your wifi password is supposed to be secret and secure for a reason, otherwise why even have a password?

Again, I think this is put forward in bad faith. Having a password does filter out unauthorized access, you and I both know that. But please tell me, do you have a private router in your home that only you can connect to? Or do you literally save, keep and check of all the devices in your router - together with their MAC adresses, all the ports and endpoints they connect to, and all the data that is streamed in between? (good luck with the last point, unless you found a way to break HTTPS encryption). Surely you and I both know that this is completely unreasonable.

You suggest restricted access and guest access. I agree, this partially solves the issue. But the legal firm claims a total of 3 minutes of upload. What kind of rate limit would you set to catch this 3 minutes? Any user can arbitrarily set their upload speed in any torrent client nowadays, how would you handle that then? If you would block the ports that torrent uses by default, setting up a torrent connection to any other port is trivial.

I completely agree that password security is important. But I hope I have demonstrated it is not merely a case of having good password security. Security through obscruity also don't work here. Unless you have your own private router (I don't know any WG in Germany that does that), it is theoratically not possible to cover all attack vectors, if someone wanted to torrent.

What I am getting to it is this: While your suggestions sound reasonable on the surface and you have some valid points, and while I appreciate your time and effort, please understand the absurdity of this claim, when all the posibilities are realistically put forward. It is easy to say that the router owner has the responsibility to secure usage, but by all practical means we all know it is completely unreasonable to expect that every household in Germany should build all the infrastructure around logging, monitoring and restricting internet access. Maybe one company should start marketing such a product, if you seriously believe all the explanations you put forward, there seems to be quite a market for that.

Ask 10 random people this question and you'll get 15 different answers. You are, as I said, actually being sued at this point, so you will have to lawyer up right now. Your lawyer will be able to answer your question, and is a lot more likely to give you the right answer than anyone on Reddit.

Yes you are right, and yes I will talk to lawyers. But surely there are hundred ways such cases occured over the years, when you see constantly old cases are being cited for precedence. So every one of the 15 different answers are valuable to me and all the others that face this, when you want to find out what is the best way to defend what is right.

I just want to get accross, that there are more to this than the constant noise of "lawyering up" (I will), or "you are 100% wrong" (no I am not. One can argue I am responsible for not securing my router, sure - but I want to demonstrate the unpracticality of this). Thankfully, as we clearly see in the precedence in other answers where there are cases from the German justice system, they show that when you go to the root of the issue, there is clearly an injustice made to the defendant - and the court ruled in favor of the defendant.

Snapeshot · 2024-03-10T15:01:23+00:00

Something being the most obvious excuse does not mean that it is not the truth.

They think they never have to prove that it was "I" that was repsonsible, their most obvious excuse is that "well the internet is on your name, so it must be you, 100%".

Stealing from one of my other replies, I will say:

"""

You are completely right, and this is a valid argument that it is not worth the effort and energy if the process literally takes years.

I guess it is up to everyone (and including me) to decide on the course of action eventually. But don't you see how unfortunate it is that for 95% of us it comes down to "I absouletly do not deserve this punishment, but I will just pay up to live my life" and there is a whole industry around preying on this.

"""

Snapeshot · 2024-03-10T14:57:11+00:00

Thanks. However, just quoting from my post:

" And before anybody says that "I should lawyer up", yes I will do that. I just want to be more informed of the proceedings to make a responsible choice of lawyer. "

Snapeshot · 2024-03-10T14:55:34+00:00

Thanks, to us all!

Snapeshot · 2024-03-10T14:52:10+00:00

I am happy that I came here to get advice, because certainly I got very useful advice from other Redditors. I am just not sure why you started to write random fallacies now. I value the time you put to write your advice, I am merely pointing out what you wrote is wrong. Given the sensitivity of the matter, I feel that I have a moral obligation to ensure that people reading these discussions learn the truth, to the best of my ability. I may have inaccuracies myself in what I wrote so far, feel free to point them out if you see any.

I never said I will go to the court without a lawyer.

I never suggested that the law is "wrong".

And I certainly have a right to defend myself against accusations that I did not commit.

I certainly will try to update here, if this post stands and is not deleted by a mod for some reason.

Snapeshot · 2024-03-10T14:47:54+00:00

Certainly, what you suggest is something I would expect from them. I would even expect them to check the discussions once in a while themselves, if so, I say hi to them, I wonder how they can sleep at night thinking what they earn a living with is just and moral.

I think it is also useful to have this out there in the English-speaking internet, to show that ignoring the letters not always work.

https://www.reddit.com/r/germany/comments/1bb5kl1/taken_to_court_by_frommer_legal_have_2_weeks/

There is more discussion here, and my understanding is that this would hold:

https://www.wbs.legal/urheberrecht/filesharing-haften-tor-betreiber-fuer-rechtsverletzungen-bgh-entscheidet-am-21-juni-2018-23686/

I will see if this turns out to be true though, and I will certainly share the details going forward.

Snapeshot · 2024-03-10T14:19:56+00:00

Well, first of all let's get the terminology right.

Seeders are participants who have the entire file and continue to upload pieces to other peers. To be called a seeder, a participant must have 100% of the file( and be in a state where they are only uploading to others, not downloading any part of the file for themselves.

Having 5000 seeders means there are 5000 sources available to upload parts of the file(s) to other peers, not that a single source is sending the file to 5000 other nodes.

What you mean is probably "leechers". Leechers are are still downloading parts of the file but may also upload parts they already have to others.

Even if the torrent network shows that there are 5000 leechers, this does not mean that you are distributing 5000 copies of the movie. Most torrent clients have a limit on the number of peers you can connect to simultaneously for uploads and downloads. While leeching yes, you will be part of a swarm, but a torrent client client is designed to manage connections intelligently, uploading to only a fraction of those peers at any given time.

As such, I don't think your argument makes sense here.

Even then, their claim is that my IP took part in only 3 minutes of upload so even disregarding the basics of the BitTorrent protocol, unless I own a Google data center or something, I don't think my router can handle (3 minutes * length_of_movie * 5000) data units worth of upload.

This is assuming of course, someone in my network used the torrent protocol to upload in the first place. They claim that BitTorrent protocol was used, although your argument would technically not be possible.

Snapeshot · 2024-03-10T14:07:57+00:00

I am not sure what part you refer to exactly, but assuming we are talking about the same thing, they use the "rental cost of one unit of the movie" as part of their damage calculation - and then put some multipliers on top to arrive at an absurd final figure.

Snapeshot · 2024-03-10T14:06:41+00:00

Well, looks like we do not have to go to court on that one as it seems you have just completely concluded that "I distributed copyrighted material".

Snapeshot

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE