100 lines
No EOL
5.3 KiB
JSON
100 lines
No EOL
5.3 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"uuid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "f402179d-5041-4df2-92c2-453d71bc6c7a"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"type": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_id": "daily_email",
|
|
"target_type": "node_type",
|
|
"target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_timestamp": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-04-16T14:13:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_log": [],
|
|
"status": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"title": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "Do you really need it?"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"created": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2024-02-10T00:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"changed": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-04-16T14:13:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"promote": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"sticky": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"default_langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_translation_affected": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"path": [
|
|
{
|
|
"alias": "\/daily\/2024\/02\/10\/do-you-really-need-it",
|
|
"langcode": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"body": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "\n <p>Before adding a new feature or change to a codebase, ask if it's really needed and consider its long-term implications.<\/p>\n\n<p>Code is easy to write, but needs to be maintained as newer language or framework features are added or have breaking changes.<\/p>\n\n<p>Something I've added recently to Build Configs was an option to use an <a href=\"http:\/\/localhost:8000\/daily\/2024\/01\/27\/gitignore-inclusive-or-exclusive\">inclusive or exclusive .gitignore file<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n<p>Whilst it's only adding an if condition based on a value, it adds a separate path in my code and both need to be maintained.<\/p>\n\n<p>I've been thinking of adding <code>just<\/code> again to some projects instead of a <code>run<\/code> file, which would add separate files that need to be maintained and kept up-to-date with each other so both offer the same features.<\/p>\n\n<p>Is this something I want to maintain going forward? Does it add enough value to justify its maintenance?<\/p>\n\n<p>Different to a feature flag, which usually has a known lifespan, this could need be maintained for the whole lifespan of the application.<\/p>\n\n<p>On a client project, this could be having two sets of buttons with rounded and square corners.<\/p>\n\n<p>Do we need both?<\/p>\n\n<p>It could be the positioning of a title in a header. Fewer options mean there is less code to write and maintain.<\/p>\n\n<p>In a Drupal project, each choice could mean adding a different field, taxonomy term, or content or block type to achieve the desired result.<\/p>\n\n<p>The more we can achieve with fewer options means the application will be easier to maintain and work on in the future.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>Before adding a new feature or change to a codebase, ask if it's really needed and consider its long-term implications.<\/p>\n\n<p>Code is easy to write, but needs to be maintained as newer language or framework features are added or have breaking changes.<\/p>\n\n<p>Something I've added recently to Build Configs was an option to use an <a href=\"http:\/\/localhost:8000\/daily\/2024\/01\/27\/gitignore-inclusive-or-exclusive\">inclusive or exclusive .gitignore file<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n<p>Whilst it's only adding an if condition based on a value, it adds a separate path in my code and both need to be maintained.<\/p>\n\n<p>I've been thinking of adding <code>just<\/code> again to some projects instead of a <code>run<\/code> file, which would add separate files that need to be maintained and kept up-to-date with each other so both offer the same features.<\/p>\n\n<p>Is this something I want to maintain going forward? Does it add enough value to justify its maintenance?<\/p>\n\n<p>Different to a feature flag, which usually has a known lifespan, this could need be maintained for the whole lifespan of the application.<\/p>\n\n<p>On a client project, this could be having two sets of buttons with rounded and square corners.<\/p>\n\n<p>Do we need both?<\/p>\n\n<p>It could be the positioning of a title in a header. Fewer options mean there is less code to write and maintain.<\/p>\n\n<p>In a Drupal project, each choice could mean adding a different field, taxonomy term, or content or block type to achieve the desired result.<\/p>\n\n<p>The more we can achieve with fewer options means the application will be easier to maintain and work on in the future.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"feeds_item": [
|
|
{
|
|
"imported": "2025-04-16T14:13:00+00:00",
|
|
"guid": null,
|
|
"hash": "56d6501d562751f19129c912ae1c0c0b",
|
|
"target_type": "feeds_feed",
|
|
"target_uuid": "90c85284-7ca8-4074-9178-97ff8384fe76"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |