Why not go with folder per feature?
There's no right or wrong, it's a matter of opionion. I felt that feature-per-folder is more of a frontend thing, and decided to stick to Rails' conventions strictly, when it comes to folder structure.
From my experience -- I can still navigate Rails apps easily, even though I didn't touch Rails code for the last 6 years. That means its folder structure really works -- so I kept sticking to it in Hyperstack.
How is authentication implemented?
The guideline was simple: implement as less custom security code as possible, reuse production-grade libraries and workflows. And so, authentication in Hyperstack is just JWT + Bearer auth and nothing more.
I have a strong security background, which is exactly why I know that to have good security, you want to not reinvent the wheel.
Why Sequelize and not Prisma?
I really like Prisma (I'm a Rust dev, and they have a fantastic Rust core), and in fact I started out with it.
I discovered a few things:
There's no ActiveRecord abstraction, in the sense, that I can't build an entity and let my users add code to it conveniently. So I could never do this:
const user = User.find(..)
My goal for developer happiness was to support this kind of ergonomics, instead of building a DataMapper like layer, where a user needs to get a data object which requires you to somehow handle context, state, and "just know" where everything is and always deal with wiring it.
const user = User.find(..)
In addition, I wanted Controller code to be very clean -- don't spread logic partly in controller, partly in models, partly in various logic layers.
For migrations, I could embed the Sequelize frameworks and tailor them to my needs
Relationship modeling -- more mature and more predictable with Sequelize. It just has that much more mileage than Prisma
There were more little bits, but eventually I went back to the old, familiar, stable Sequelize.
Yes, ActiveRecord has issues -- but there are MANY more issues going DataMapper or brewing your own. And in fact ActiveRecord is great up until the point you have a gigantic software project, and if you have a gigantic software project -- congratz my friend -- you made it! you probably have enough resources and engineers to think up what's the best way to split your code.
Testing backend with Snapshots? why?
For snapshot testing, actually, this is a place where the experience is improved over Rails. I know my approach is surprising, but all developers that worked with my approach to "snapshot testing the backend" could never go back. It's a massive productivity gain, especially when you're doing a lot of "left-right-testing" of entities and responses.
Actually, some of that was baked into Rails, but it was part of the community -- VCR was used many times for recorded tests in requests only. I took it to all over the different parts of the app.
For truncating etc. I actually give you the option through configuration. You can decide if you want to:
- destroy tables and sync
- destroy and migrate
This was a small layer I added, to solve all the "database_cleaner" and all of the wiring ceremonies I always did in Rails.
Can I build a multi-tenant architecture with dedicated DB per tenant?
If this is a real 1:1 mapping between customer and database, you can use the environments feature in Hyperstack to figure out, and wire up a connection for a tenant when an app comes up.
You can dynamically create an environment (when a server starts) with anything you need. For example you can write a custom environment script that goes to a catalog DB table, understands which server it is, which pod, which client, and grabs the correct connection string for the database. Then the app will continue to load as usual.
It's important to note that once an app goes online, it opens a single connection to a specific database and it stays that way through every request. So if you have smart load routing, or specific data regulation requirements -- you need to have a load balancer to direct requests to the right app serving from the right database (and chances are, you already have such a thing because of regulation or scale).