86
Self-documenting Code
(lackofimagination.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
86 points (86.4% liked)
Programming
17314 readers
8 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Perhaps I was unclear. What I meant to say is that, whenever possible, we shouldn't have multiple versions of a field, especially when there is no corresponding plaintext password field in the database, as is the case here.
And they were arguing the same - just renaming the property rather than reusing it. You should only have one not both but naming them differently can make it clear which one you have.
But here I am arguing to not have either on the user object at all. They are only needed at the start of a request and should never be needed after that point. So no point in attaching them to a user object - just verify the username and password and pass around user object after that without either the password or hash. Not everything needs to be added to a object.