Tracy Lee talks with industry veteran Grant Ingersoll about his insights and experiences as a Fractional CTO, shedding light on the patterns and anti-patterns he encounters while working with various engineering teams. As a Fractional CTO, Grant's role involves tackling challenging situations, bridging transitions, and ensuring that technical decisions align with a company's long-term vision. His rich experiences and observations offer valuable lessons for both aspiring CTOs and businesses seeking to optimize their software development processes.
General
Get Inside the Mind of a Fractional CTO: The Untold Secrets of Tech Leadership!
This Dot is a consultancy dedicated to guiding companies through their modernization and digital transformation journeys. Specializing in replatforming, modernizing, and launching new initiatives, we stand out by taking true ownership of your engineering projects.
We love helping teams with projects that have missed their deadlines or helping keep your strategic digital initiatives on course. Check out our case studies and our clients that trust us with their engineering.
You might also like
Psychologically Safe Workplaces with Krystal Smith-Moore
Krystal Smith-Moore, Engineering Manager at Spotify, shares her journey from a non-traditional background to management, and how it informs her empathetic leadership approach. Krystal emphasizes the significance of self-awareness, seeking support, and aligning personal values with management roles. By ensuring our values align with the company's mission and culture, we can create a more fulfilling leadership experience. Krystal stresses the need for self-care, setting boundaries to prevent burnout, and recognizing when it's time to recharge. By prioritizing self-care, leaders can maintain their energy and enthusiasm, leading to better decision-making and a more positive work environment. She also discusses the importance of empathy, continuous learning, and creating psychologically safe workplaces where employees feel comfortable expressing their ideas and concerns. By aligning personal values with management roles, prioritizing self-care, and fostering a psychologically safe workplace, leaders can create a positive and impactful experience for themselves and their teams. Download this episode here....
Jun 13, 2024
1 min
“Recognize leadership behavior early. Sometimes people don’t even realize it in themselves…” Kelly Vaughn on Product Leadership, Creating Pathways for Women in Tech, & Conferences
Some leaders build products. Some lead engineering teams. Kelly Vaughn is doing both. As Director of Engineering at Spot AI—a company building video intelligence software—Kelly recently expanded her role to oversee both Product and Engineering for their VMS offering. That shift means juggling strategy, execution, and team development, all while helping others step confidently into leadership themselves. And yes, she still finds time to speak at conferences and answer DMs from people navigating the same transitions she once did. We spoke with Kelly about spotting leadership potential early, why ambiguity doesn’t have to feel chaotic, and the lesson she learned the hard way about managing up. Stepping into Product Leadership Kelly’s new title might look like a promotion on paper, but the shift is more philosophical than anything. > “Engineering leadership is about execution,” she says. “Product leadership is about defining why we’re building something in the first place.” Now leading Product and Engineering for Spot AI’s VMS product, she’s talking to customers, researching market trends, and making smart bets on where to invest next. It’s a role she’s clearly energized by. > “I’m really looking forward to dedicating time to shaping our product’s future.” Thriving in Ambiguity Some people panic when problems are fuzzy or undefined. Others use it as fuel. > “There are two key traits I see in people who handle ambiguity well,” Kelly says. “They stay calm under stress, and they know how to form a hypothesis from a vague problem statement.” That means asking the right questions, taking action quickly, and being totally okay with pivoting when something doesn’t pan out. It’s no surprise that these same traits overlap with great product thinking—a mindset she’s now leaning into more than ever. > “I do some of my best work when navigating uncertainty,” she adds. Read Kelly’s blog on embracing ambiguity in Product! Creating Leadership Pathways for Women in Tech When asked how leaders can create more leadership pathways for women in software engineering, Kelly stressed that it is not a passive process. > “Senior leaders need to be proactive,” Kelly says. “That starts with identifying and addressing bias across hiring, promotions, and day-to-day interactions.” She emphasizes psychological safety—so women feel confident advocating for themselves and others. But she also knows not everyone feels ready to raise their hand. > “Don’t wait for someone to ask for a title change or a growth opportunity. Recognize leadership behavior early. Sometimes people don’t even realize it in themselves yet.” On Stage, In Real Life Kelly’s no stranger to the tech conference circuit—often giving talks on engineering leadership and team growth. Her biggest source of inspiration? Conversations with people trying to make the leap into leadership. > “I might use the same slide deck at three conferences,” she says, “but the talk itself will be different every time.” Rather than sticking to a script, she likes to share recent examples from her own work, tailoring the delivery to the audience in front of her. It keeps things relevant, grounded, and never too polished. Between setting product strategy, mentoring the next generation of leaders, and hopping from one tech conference to the next, Kelly Vaughn is showing what it means to lead with clarity—even when things are unclear. She’s not here to tell you it’s easy. But she will tell you it’s worth it. Connect with Kelly Vaughn on Bluesky. Sign up for Kelly Vaughn’s Newsletter! Sticker Illustration by Jacob Ashley....
Apr 4, 2025
3 mins
The Importance of a Scientific Mindset in Software Engineering: Part 2 (Debugging)
The Importance of a Scientific Mindset in Software Engineering: Part 2 (Debugging) In the first part of my series on the importance of a scientific mindset in software engineering, we explored how the principles of the scientific method can help us evaluate sources and make informed decisions. Now, we will focus on how these principles can help us tackle one of the most crucial and challenging tasks in software engineering: debugging. In software engineering, debugging is often viewed as an art - an intuitive skill honed through experience and trial and error. In a way, it is - the same as a GP, even a very evidence-based one, will likely diagnose most of their patients based on their experience and intuition and not research scientific literature every time; a software engineer will often rely on their experience and intuition to identify and fix common bugs. However, an internist faced with a complex case will likely not be able to rely on their intuition alone and must apply the scientific method to diagnose the patient. Similarly, a software engineer can benefit from using the scientific method to identify and fix the problem when faced with a complex bug. From that perspective, treating engineering challenges like scientific inquiries can transform the way we tackle problems. Rather than resorting to guesswork or gut feelings, we can apply the principles of the scientific method—forming hypotheses, designing controlled experiments, gathering and evaluating evidence—to identify and eliminate bugs systematically. This approach, sometimes referred to as "scientific debugging," reframes debugging from a haphazard process into a structured, disciplined practice. It encourages us to be skeptical, methodical, and transparent in our reasoning. For instance, as Andreas Zeller notes in the book _Why Programs Fail_, the key aspect of scientific debugging is its explicitness: Using the scientific method, you make your assumptions and reasoning explicit, allowing you to understand your assumptions and often reveals hidden clues that can lead to the root cause of the problem on hand. Note: If you'd like to read an excerpt from the book, you can find it on Embedded.com. Scientific Debugging At its core, scientific debugging applies the principles of the scientific method to the process of finding and fixing software defects. Rather than attempting random fixes or relying on intuition, it encourages engineers to move systematically, guided by data, hypotheses, and controlled experimentation. By adopting debugging as a rigorous inquiry, we can reduce guesswork, speed up the resolution process, and ensure that our fixes are based on solid evidence. Just as a scientist begins with a well-defined research question, a software engineer starts by identifying the specific symptom or error condition. For instance, if our users report inconsistencies in the data they see across different parts of the application, our research question could be: _"Under what conditions does the application display outdated or incorrect user data?"_ From there, we can follow a structured debugging process that mirrors the scientific method: - 1. Observe and Define the Problem: First, we need to clearly state the bug's symptoms and the environment in which it occurs. We should isolate whether the issue is deterministic or intermittent and identify any known triggers if possible. Such a structured definition serves as the groundwork for further investigation. - 2. Formulate a Hypothesis: A hypothesis in debugging is a testable explanation for the observed behavior. For instance, you might hypothesize: _"The data inconsistency occurs because a caching layer is serving stale data when certain user profiles are updated."_ The key is that this explanation must be falsifiable; if experiments don't support the hypothesis, it must be refined or discarded. - 3. Collect Evidence and Data: Evidence often includes logs, system metrics, error messages, and runtime traces. Similar to reviewing primary sources in academic research, treat your raw debugging data as crucial evidence. Evaluating these data points can reveal patterns. In our example, such patterns could be whether the bug correlates with specific caching mechanisms, increased memory usage, or database query latency. During this step, it's essential to approach data critically, just as you would analyze the quality and credibility of sources in a research literature review. Don't forget that even logs can be misleading, incomplete, or even incorrect, so cross-referencing multiple sources is key. - 4. Design and Run Experiments: Design minimal, controlled tests to confirm or refute your hypothesis. In our example, you may try disabling or shortening the cache's time-to-live (TTL) to see if more recent data is displayed correctly. By manipulating one variable at a time - such as cache invalidation intervals - you gain clearer insights into causation. Tools such as profilers, debuggers, or specialized test harnesses can help isolate factors and gather precise measurements. - 5. Analyze Results and Refine Hypotheses: If the experiment's outcome doesn't align with your hypothesis, treat it as a stepping stone, not a dead end. Adjust your explanation, form a new hypothesis, or consider additional variables (for example, whether certain API calls bypass caching). Each iteration should bring you closer to a better understanding of the bug's root cause. Remember, the goal is not to prove an initial guess right but to arrive at a verifiable explanation. - 6. Implement and Verify the Fix: Once you're confident in the identified cause, you can implement the fix. Verification doesn't stop at deployment - re-test under the same conditions and, if possible, beyond them. By confirming the fix in a controlled manner, you ensure that the solution is backed by evidence rather than wishful thinking. - Personally, I consider implementing end-to-end tests (e.g., with Playwright) that reproduce the bug and verify the fix to be a crucial part of this step. This both ensures that the bug doesn't reappear in the future due to changes in the codebase and avoids possible imprecisions of manual testing. Now, we can explore these steps in more detail, highlighting how the scientific method can guide us through the debugging process. Establishing Clear Debugging Questions (Formulating a Hypothesis) A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon that can be tested through experimentation. In a debugging context, that phenomenon is the bug or issue you're trying to resolve. Having a clear, falsifiable statement that you can prove or disprove ensures that you stay focused on the real problem rather than jumping haphazardly between possible causes. A properly formulated hypothesis lets you design precise experiments to evaluate whether your explanation holds true. To formulate a hypothesis effectively, you can follow these steps: 1. Clearly Identify the Symptom(s) Before forming any hypothesis, pin down the specific issue users are experiencing. For instance: - "Users intermittently see outdated profile information after updating their accounts." - "Some newly created user profiles don't reflect changes in certain parts of the application." Having a well-defined problem statement keeps your hypothesis focused on the actual issue. Just like a research question in science, the clarity of your symptom definition directly influences the quality of your hypothesis. 2. Draft a Tentative Explanation Next, convert your symptom into a statement that describes a _possible root cause_, such as: - "Data inconsistency occurs because the caching layer isn't invalidating or refreshing user data properly when profiles are updated." - "Stale data is displayed because the cache timeout is too long under certain load conditions." This step makes your assumption about the root cause explicit. As with the scientific method, your hypothesis should be something you can test and either confirm or refute with data or experimentation. 3. Ensure Falsifiability A valid hypothesis must be falsifiable - meaning it can be proven _wrong_. You'll struggle to design meaningful experiments if a hypothesis is too vague or broad. For example: - Not Falsifiable: "Occasionally, the application just shows weird data." - Falsifiable: "Users see stale data when the cache is not invalidated within 30 seconds of profile updates." Making your hypothesis specific enough to fail a test will pave the way for more precise debugging. 4. Align with Available Evidence Match your hypothesis to what you already know - logs, stack traces, metrics, and user reports. For example: - If logs reveal that cache invalidation events aren't firing, form a hypothesis explaining why those events fail or never occur. - If metrics show that data served from the cache is older than the configured TTL, hypothesize about how or why the TTL is being ignored. If your current explanation contradicts existing data, refine your hypothesis until it fits. 5. Plan for Controlled Tests Once you have a testable hypothesis, figure out how you'll attempt to _disprove_ it. This might involve: - Reproducing the environment: Set up a staging/local system that closely mimics production. For instance with the same cache layer configurations. - Varying one condition at a time: For example, only adjust cache invalidation policies or TTLs and then observe how data freshness changes. - Monitoring metrics: In our example, such monitoring would involve tracking user profile updates, cache hits/misses, and response times. These metrics should lead to confirming or rejecting your explanation. These plans become your blueprint for experiments in further debugging stages. Collecting and Evaluating Evidence After formulating a clear, testable hypothesis, the next crucial step is to gather data that can either support or refute it. This mirrors how scientists collect observations in a literature review or initial experiments. 1. Identify "Primary Sources" (Logs, Stack Traces, Code History): - Logs and Stack Traces: These are your direct pieces of evidence - treat them like raw experimental data. For instance, look closely at timestamps, caching-related events (e.g., invalidation triggers), and any error messages related to stale reads. - Code History: Look for related changes in your source control, e.g. using Git bisect. In our example, we would look for changes to caching mechanisms or references to cache libraries in commits, which could pinpoint when the inconsistency was introduced. Sometimes, reverting a commit that altered cache settings helps confirm whether the bug originated there. 2. Corroborate with "Secondary Sources" (Documentation, Q&A Forums): - Documentation: Check official docs for known behavior or configuration details that might differ from your assumptions. - Community Knowledge: Similar issues reported on GitHub or StackOverflow may reveal known pitfalls in a library you're using. 3. Assess Data Quality and Relevance: - Look for Patterns: For instance, does stale data appear only after certain update frequencies or at specific times of day? - Check Environmental Factors: For instance, does the bug happen only with particular deployment setups, container configurations, or memory constraints? - Watch Out for Biases: Avoid seeking only the data that confirms your hypothesis. Look for contradictory logs or metrics that might point to other root causes. You keep your hypothesis grounded in real-world system behavior by treating logs, stack traces, and code history as primary data - akin to raw experimental results. This evidence-first approach reduces guesswork and guides more precise experiments. Designing and Running Experiments With a hypothesis in hand and evidence gathered, it's time to test it through controlled experiments - much like scientists isolate variables to verify or debunk an explanation. 1. Set Up a Reproducible Environment: - Testing Environments: Replicate production conditions as closely as possible. In our example, that would involve ensuring the same caching configuration, library versions, and relevant data sets are in place. - Version Control Branches: Use a dedicated branch to experiment with different settings or configuration, e.g., cache invalidation strategies. This streamlines reverting changes if needed. 2. Control Variables One at a Time: - For instance, if you suspect data inconsistency is tied to cache invalidation events, first adjust only the invalidation timeout and re-test. - Or, if concurrency could be a factor (e.g., multiple requests updating user data simultaneously), test different concurrency levels to see if stale data issues become more pronounced. 3. Measure and Record Outcomes: - Automated Tests: Tests provide a great way to formalize and verify your assumptions. For instance, you could develop tests that intentionally update user profiles and check if the displayed data matches the latest state. - Monitoring Tools: Monitor relevant metrics before, during, and after each experiment. In our example, we might want to track cache hit rates, TTL durations, and query times. - Repeat Trials: Consistency across multiple runs boosts confidence in your findings. 4. Validate Against a Baseline: - If baseline tests manifest normal behavior, but your experimental changes manifest the bug, you've isolated the variable causing the issue. E.g. if the baseline tests show that data is consistently fresh under normal caching conditions but your experimental changes cause stale data. - Conversely, if your change eliminates the buggy behavior, it supports your hypothesis - e.g. that the cache configuration was the root cause. Each experiment outcome is a data point supporting or contradicting your hypothesis. Over time, these data points guide you toward the true cause. Analyzing Results and Iterating In scientific debugging, an unexpected result isn't a failure - it's valuable feedback that brings you closer to the right explanation. 1. Compare Outcomes to the hypothesis. For instance: - Did user data stay consistent after you reduced the cache TTL or fixed invalidation logic? - Did logs show caching events firing as expected, or did they reveal unexpected errors? - Are there only partial improvements that suggest multiple overlapping issues? 2. Incorporate Unexpected Observations: - Sometimes, debugging uncovers side effects - e.g. performance bottlenecks exposed by more frequent cache invalidations. Note these for future work. - If your hypothesis is disproven, revise it. For example, the cache may only be part of the problem, and a separate load balancer setting also needs attention. 3. Avoid Confirmation Bias: - Don't dismiss contrary data. For instance, if you see evidence that updates are fresh in some modules but stale in others, you may have found a more nuanced root cause (e.g., partial cache invalidation). - Consider other credible explanations if your teammates propose them. Test those with the same rigor. 4. Decide If You Need More Data: - If results aren't conclusive, add deeper instrumentation or enable debug modes to capture more detailed logs. - For production-only issues, implement distributed tracing or sampling logs to diagnose real-world usage patterns. 5. Document Each Iteration: - Record the results of each experiment, including any unexpected findings or new hypotheses that arise. - Through iterative experimentation and analysis, each cycle refines your understanding. By letting evidence shape your hypothesis, you ensure that your final conclusion aligns with reality. Implementing and Verifying the Fix Once you've identified the likely culprit - say, a misconfigured or missing cache invalidation policy - the next step is to implement a fix and verify its resilience. 1. Implementing the Change: - Scoped Changes: Adjust just the component pinpointed in your experiments. Avoid large-scale refactoring that might introduce other issues. - Code Reviews: Peer reviews can catch overlooked logic gaps or confirm that your changes align with best practices. 2. Regression Testing: - Re-run the same experiments that initially exposed the issue. In our stale data example, confirm that the data remains fresh under various conditions. - Conduct broader tests - like integration or end-to-end tests - to ensure no new bugs are introduced. 3. Monitoring in Production: - Even with positive test results, real-world scenarios can differ. Monitor logs and metrics (e.g. cache hit rates, user error reports) closely post-deployment. - If the buggy behavior reappears, revisit your hypothesis or consider additional factors, such as unpredicted user behavior. 4. Benchmarking and Performance Checks (If Relevant): - When making changes that affect the frequency of certain processes - such as how often a cache is refreshed - be sure to measure the performance impact. Verify you meet any latency or resource usage requirements. - Keep an eye on the trade-offs: For instance, more frequent cache invalidations might solve stale data but could also raise system load. By systematically verifying your fix - similar to confirming experimental results in research - you ensure that you've addressed the true cause and maintained overall software stability. Documenting the Debugging Process Good science relies on transparency, and so does effective debugging. Thorough documentation guarantees your findings are reproducible and valuable to future team members. 1. Record Your Hypothesis and Experiments: - Keep a concise log of your main hypothesis, the tests you performed, and the outcomes. - A simple markdown file within the repo can capture critical insights without being cumbersome. 2. Highlight Key Evidence and Observations: - Note the logs or metrics that were most instrumental - e.g., seeing repeated stale cache hits 10 minutes after updates. - Document any edge cases discovered along the way. 3. List Follow-Up Actions or Potential Risks: - If you discover additional issues - like memory spikes from more frequent invalidation - note them for future sprints. - Identify parts of the code that might need deeper testing or refactoring to prevent similar issues. 4. Share with Your Team: - Publish your debugging report on an internal wiki or ticket system. A well-documented troubleshooting narrative helps educate other developers. - Encouraging open discussion of the debugging process fosters a culture of continuous learning and collaboration. By paralleling scientific publication practices in your documentation, you establish a knowledge base to guide future debugging efforts and accelerate collective problem-solving. Conclusion Debugging can be as much a rigorous, methodical exercise as an art shaped by intuition and experience. By adopting the principles of scientific inquiry - forming hypotheses, designing controlled experiments, gathering evidence, and transparently documenting your process - you make your debugging approach both systematic and repeatable. The explicitness and structure of scientific debugging offer several benefits: - Better Root-Cause Discovery: Structured, hypothesis-driven debugging sheds light on the _true_ underlying factors causing defects rather than simply masking symptoms. - Informed Decisions: Data and evidence lead the way, minimizing guesswork and reducing the chance of reintroducing similar issues. - Knowledge Sharing: As in scientific research, detailed documentation of methods and outcomes helps others learn from your process and fosters a collaborative culture. Ultimately, whether you are diagnosing an intermittent crash or chasing elusive performance bottlenecks, scientific debugging brings clarity and objectivity to your workflow. By aligning your debugging practices with the scientific method, you build confidence in your solutions and empower your team to tackle complex software challenges with precision and reliability. But most importantly, do not get discouraged by the number of rigorous steps outlined above or by the fact you won't always manage to follow them all religiously. Debugging is a complex and often frustrating process, and it's okay to rely on your intuition and experience when needed. Feel free to adapt the debugging process to your needs and constraints, and as long as you keep the scientific mindset at heart, you'll be on the right track....
May 9, 2025
13 mins
Introduction to Vercel’s Flags SDK
Introduction to Vercel’s Flags SDK In this blog, we will dig into Vercel’s Flags SDK. We'll explore how it works, highlight its key capabilities, and discuss best practices to get the most out of it. You'll also understand why you might prefer this tool over other feature flag solutions out there. And, despite its strong integration with Next.js, this SDK isn't limited to just one framework—it's fully compatible with React and SvelteKit. We'll use Next.js for examples, but feel free to follow along with the framework of your choice. Why should I use it? You might wonder, "Why should I care about yet another feature flag library?" Unlike some other solutions, Vercel's Flags SDK offers unique, practical features. It offers simplicity, flexibility, and smart patterns to help you manage feature flags quickly and efficiently. It’s simple Let's start with a basic example: ` This might look simple — and it is! — but it showcases some important features. Notice how easily we can define and call our flag without repeatedly passing context or configuration. Many other SDKs require passing the flag's name and context every single time you check a flag, like this: ` This can become tedious and error-prone, as you might accidentally use different contexts throughout your app. With the Flags SDK, you define everything once upfront, keeping things consistent across your entire application. By "context", I mean the data needed to evaluate the flag, like user details or environment settings. We'll get into more detail shortly. It’s flexible Vercel’s Flags SDK is also flexible. You can integrate it with other popular feature flag providers like LaunchDarkly or Statsig using built-in adapters. And if the provider you want to use isn’t supported yet, you can easily create your own custom adapter. While we'll use Next.js for demonstration, remember that the SDK works just as well with React or SvelteKit. Latency solutions Feature flags require definitions and context evaluations to determine their values — imagine checking conditions like, "Is the user ID equal to 12?" Typically, these evaluations involve fetching necessary information from a server, which can introduce latency. These evaluations happen through two primary functions: identify and decide. The identify function gathers the context needed for evaluation, and this context is then passed as an argument named entities to the decide function. Let's revisit our earlier example to see this clearly: ` You could add a custom evaluation context when reading a feature flag, but it’s not the best practice, and it’s not usually recommended. Using Edge Config When loading our flags, normally, these definitions and evaluation contexts get bootstrapped by making a network request and then opening a web socket listening to changes on the server. The problem is that if you do this in Serverless Functions with a short lifespan, you would need to bootstrap the definitions not just once but multiple times, which could cause latency issues. To handle latency efficiently, especially in short-lived Serverless Functions, you can use Edge Config. Edge Config stores flag definitions at the Edge, allowing super-fast retrieval via Edge Middleware or Serverless Functions, significantly reducing latency. Cookies For more complex contexts requiring network requests, avoid doing these requests directly in Edge Middleware or CDNs, as this can drastically increase latency. Edge Middleware and CDNs are fast because they avoid making network requests to the origin server. Depending on the end user’s location, accessing a distant origin can introduce significant latency. For example, a user in Tokyo might need to connect to a server in the US before the page can load. Instead, a good pattern that the Flags SDK offers us to avoid this is cookies. You could use cookies to store context data. The browser automatically sends cookies with each request in a standard format, providing consistent (no matter if you are in Edge Middleware, App Router or Page Router), low-latency access to evaluation context data: ` You can also encrypt or sign cookies for additional security from the client side. Dedupe Dedupe helps you cache function results to prevent redundant evaluations. If multiple flags rely on a common context method, like checking a user's region, Dedupe ensures the method executes only once per runtime, regardless of how many times it's invoked. Additionally, similar to cookies, the Flags SDK standardizes headers, allowing easy access to them. Let's illustrate this with the following example: ` Server-side patterns for static pages You can use feature flags on the client side, but that will lead to unnecessary loaders/skeletons or layout shifts, which are never that great. Of course, it brings benefits, like static rendering. To maintain static rendering benefits while using server-side flags, the SDK provides a method called precompute. Precompute Precompute lets you decide which page version to display based on feature flags and then we can cache that page to statically render it. You can precompute flag combinations in Middleware or Route Handlers: ` Next, inside a middleware (or route handler), we will precompute these flags and create static pages per each combination of them. ` The user will never notice this because, as we use “rewrite”, they will only see the original URL. Now, on our page, we “invoke” our flags, sending the code from the params: ` By sending our code, we are not really invoking the flag again but getting the value right away. Our middleware is deciding which variation of our pages to display to the user. Finally, after rendering our page, we can enable Incremental Static Regeneration (ISR). ISR allows us to cache the page and serve it statically for subsequent user requests: ` Using precompute is particularly beneficial when enabling ISR for pages that depend on flags whose values cannot be determined at build time. Headers, geo, etc., we can’t know their value at build, so we use precompute() so the Edge can evaluate it on the fly. In these cases, we rely on Middleware to dynamically determine the flag values, generate the HTML content once, and then cache it. At build time, we simply create an initial HTML shell. Generate Permutations If we prefer to generate static pages at build-time instead of runtime, we can use the generatePermutations function from the Flags SDK. This method enables us to pre-generate static pages with different combinations of flags at build time. It's especially useful when the flag values are known beforehand. For example, scenarios involving A/B testing and a marketing site with a single on/off banner flag are ideal use cases. ` ` Conclusion Vercel’s Flags SDK stands out as a powerful yet straightforward solution for managing feature flags efficiently. With its ease of use, remarkable flexibility, and effective patterns for reducing latency, this SDK streamlines the development process and enhances your app’s performance. Whether you're building a Next.js, React, or SvelteKit application, the Flags SDK provides intuitive tools that keep your application consistent, responsive, and maintainable. Give it a try, and see firsthand how it can simplify your feature management workflow!...
May 23, 2025
5 mins
Let's innovate together!
We're ready to be your trusted technical partners in your digital innovation journey.
Whether it's modernization or custom software solutions, our team of experts can guide you through best practices and how to build scalable, performant software that lasts.