Skip to content

How to Handle Time Zones using DateTime and Luxon

This article was written over 18 months ago and may contain information that is out of date. Some content may be relevant but please refer to the relevant official documentation or available resources for the latest information.

Raise your hand if you've ever had issues dealing with time zones, or even if you've asked, "How do I convert a Date object to another time zone in JavaScript?"

In my personal experience, this kind of requirement can become a big problem for developers if the date-handling-related concepts are not clearly understood, or the right tools are not used.

Using Dates and Time Zones in JavaScript

Let's suppose you have a date representation from an external API, and you need to convert the date to any desired time zone.

The best option for this is using a representation that meets the ISO 8601 standard. As an example of this, we can set a date like 2021/06/10 02:20:50 in UTC. Then, the standard notation for this date will be 2021-06-10T02:20:50+00:00.

On other hand, the JavaScript language provides a Date object that represents a single moment in time. You can create a Date object in different ways:

let date;
date = new Date(); // Get the current date

date = new Date("2021-06-10T02:20:50+00:00"); // An object representation of given string date

date = new Date(new Date()); // Creates an object representation from another one

Also, we can set a time zone value to any given Date object as follows:

let stringInput = "2021-06-10T02:20:50+00:00";
let timeZone = "America/Los_Angeles";
const dateObject = new Date(stringInput).toLocaleString("en-US", {
  timeZone,
});

console.log(dateObject); // Prints: 6/9/2021, 7:20:50 PM

The toLocaleString method returns a string with a language-sensitive representation of the Date object. At the same time, this method supports optional arguments where you can configure the time zone. Find more information about this method here.

As you can see, the output date matches the configured time zone (GMT-7). However, we have a string representation of the date, and it would be much better if we work with a JavaScript object instead.

Luxon

Luxon is considered an evolution of Moment.js- a very popular library for date handling in the JavaScript ecosystem.

As the Luxon project says:

Luxon is a powerful, modern, and friendly wrapper for JavaScript dates and times.

Indeed, this library solves most of the common problems related to Date handling:

  • Date internationalization
  • Time zones and Offsets
  • Calendars support
  • Dates Formatting
  • Dates Parsing
  • Dates Math (Add/Subtract days, months, etc)
  • Dates Validation
  • and More...

The DateTime Object

The most important part of the Luxon library is the DateTime object. It can be considered a wrapper of the native Date object along with a timezone, and a local configuration.

The simplest way of creating a DateTime object is as follows.

import { DateTime } from "luxon";

let dateTime = DateTime.local();
console.log("Current Date", dateTime.toISO()); // 2021-06-22T21:11:45.638-04:00

The method toISO() will return an ISO 8601-compliant string representation of the DateTime object.

Also, you can create a DateTime in a specific time zone.

// Create a DateTime in a Specific Timezone
let zone = "America/Denver";
let dateTime = DateTime.fromObject({
  zone,
});
console.log("Current Date", dateTime.toISO()); // 2021-06-22T19:11:45.640-06:00

As you can compare with the previous example, the time output is different because of the use of America/Denver as the time zone.

Of course, there is a way to create a custom date in a specific time zone:

let dateTime = DateTime.fromObject({
  'America/Denver',
}).set({
  day: 1,
  month: 5,
  year: 2021,
});
console.log("Custom date", dateTime.toISO()); //2021-05-01T19:11:45.641-06:00

The set method allows overriding specific properties such as year, month, day, etc.

Converting a DateTime to a different Time Zone

Now let's suppose we have a DateTime object, and we need to convert it to a different time zone.

let dateTime = DateTime.fromObject({
  'America/Denver',
}).set({
  day: 1,
  month: 5,
  year: 2021,
});

// Convert existing date to another Timezone
dateTime = dateTime.setZone("America/La_Paz");
console.log("Custom date, America/La_Paz", dateTime.toISO()); //2021-05-01T21:11:45.641-04:00

Configuring the Default Time Zone

What happens when the whole application needs to run every date in a specific time zone? Just suppose you have defined a configuration within your app to allow the selection of a time zone at any time.

To solve this problem, you don't need to use the time zone string here and there. The Settings class, instead, comes to the rescue:

import { Settings } from "luxon";

// Configure the time zone
Settings.defaultZoneName = "America/Denver";

console.log(Settings.defaultZoneName); // Reading the configured time zone.

The defaultZoneName can be used as a set or get method for the default time zone when you're working with the library.

In the same way, the Settings class contains other methods to configure Luxon's behavior.

Then, when you're creating a new DateTime object again, it will take the configured time zone by default.

dateTime = DateTime.local();
console.log("Configured defaultZoneName", dateTime.toISO()); //2021-06-22T19:21:54.362-06:00

Pay attention to the offset value, which corresponds now with America/Denver.

Validate a Time Zone

In case you define a user entry point to configure the time zone globally, it is important to validate the text before causing problems with the DateTime objects.

A useful way to do it is through, again, a DateTime object:

const timeZone = "America/Not_Defined_TZ";
const myDateTime = DateTime.local().setZone(timeZone);
console.log("timeZone valid", myDateTime.isValid); // Prints 'false'

Now try again with a valid time zone, for example, America/Los_Angeles.

Live Demo

Wanna play around with this code? Just open the embedded CodeSandbox editor:

Conclusion

In this article, I described a couple of useful methods for using Luxon for Time Zone handling using either JavaScript or TypeScript. Personally, I consider it a very useful library, and it also avoids rewriting and testing your own code for handling dates and time zones, which could save you a lot of time.

Feel free to reach out on Twitter if you have any questions. Follow me on GitHub to see more about my work.

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

The Importance of a Scientific Mindset in Software Engineering: Part 2 (Debugging) cover image

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....

Implementing Dynamic Types in Docusign Extension Apps cover image

Implementing Dynamic Types in Docusign Extension Apps

Implementing Dynamic Types in Docusign Extension Apps In our previous blog post about Docusign Extension Apps, Advanced Authentication and Onboarding Workflows with Docusign Extension Apps, we touched on how you can extend the OAuth 2 flow to build a more powerful onboarding flow for your Extension Apps. In this blog post, we will continue explaining more advanced patterns in developing Extension Apps. For that reason, we assume at least basic familiarity with how Extension Apps work and ideally some experience developing them. To give a brief recap, Docusign Extension Apps are a powerful way to embed custom logic into Docusign agreement workflows. These apps are lightweight services, typically cloud-hosted, that integrate at specific workflow extension points to perform custom actions, such as data validation, participant input collection, or interaction with third-party services. Each Extension App is configured using a manifest file. This manifest defines metadata such as the app's author, support links, and the list of extension points it uses (these are the locations in the workflow where your app's logic will be executed). The extension points that are relevant for us in the context of this blog post are GetTypeNames and GetTypeDefinitions. These are used by Docusign to retrieve the types supported by the Extension App and their definitions, and to show them in the Maestro UI. In most apps, these types are static and rarely change. However, they don't have to be. They can also be dynamic and change based on certain configurations in the target system that the Extension App is integrating with, or based on the user role assigned to the Maestro administrator on the target system. Static vs. Dynamic Types To explain the difference between static and dynamic types, we'll use the example from our previous blog post, where we integrated with an imaginary task management system called TaskVibe. In the example, our Extension App enabled agreement workflows to communicate with TaskVibe, allowing tasks to be read, created, and updated. Our first approach to implementing the GetTypeNames and GetTypeDefinitions endpoints for the TaskVibe Extension App might look like the following. The GetTypeNames endpoint returns a single record named task: ` Given the type name task, the GetTypeDefinitions endpoint would return the following definition for that type: ` As noted in the Docusign documentation, this endpoint must return a Concerto schema representing the type. For clarity, we've omitted most of the Concerto-specific properties. The above declaration states that we have a task type, and this type has properties that correspond to task fields in TaskVibe, such as record ID, title, description, assignee, and so on. The type definition and its properties, as described above, are static and they never change. A TaskVibe task will always have the same properties, and these are essentially set in stone. Now, imagine a scenario where TaskVibe supports custom properties that are also project-dependent. One project in TaskVibe might follow a typical agile workflow with sprints, and the project manager might want a "Sprint" field in every task within that project. Another project might use a Kanban workflow, where the project manager wants a status field with values like "Backlog," "ToDo," and so on. With static types, we would need to return every possible field from any project as part of the GetTypeDefinitions response, and this introduces new challenges. For example, we might be dealing with hundreds of custom field types, and showing them in the Maestro UI might be too overwhelming for the Maestro administrator. Or we might be returning fields that are simply not usable by the Maestro administrator because they relate to projects the administrator doesn't have access to in TaskVibe. With dynamic types, however, we can support this level of customization. Implementing Dynamic Types When Docusign sends a request to the GetTypeNames endpoint and the types are dynamic, the Extension App has a bit more work than before. As we've mentioned earlier, we can no longer return a generic task type. Instead, we need to look into each of the TaskVibe projects the user has access to, and return the tasks as they are represented under each project, with all the custom fields. (Determining access can usually be done by making a query to a user information endpoint on the target system using the same OAuth 2 token used for other calls.) Once we find the task definitions on TaskVibe, we then need to return them in the response of GetTypeNames, where each type corresponds to a task for the given project. This is a big difference from static types, where we would only return a single, generic task. For example: ` The key point here is that we are now returning one type per task in a TaskVibe project. You can think of this as having a separate class for each type of task, in object-oriented lingo. The type name can be any string you choose, but it needs to be unique in the list, and it needs to contain the minimum information necessary to be able to distinguish it from other task definitions in the list. In our case, we've decided to form the ID by concatenating the string "task_" with the ID of the project on TaskVibe. The implementation of the GetTypeDefinitions endpoint needs to: 1. Extract the project ID from the requested type name. 1. Using the project ID, retrieve the task definition from TaskVibe for that project. This definition specifies which fields are present on the project's tasks, including all custom fields. 1. Once the fields are retrieved, map them to the properties of the Concerto schema. The resulting JSON could look like this (again, many of the Concerto properties have been omitted for clarity): ` Now, type definitions are fully dynamic and project-dependent. Caching of Type Definitions on Docusign Docusign maintains a cache of type definitions after an initial connection. This means that changes made to your integration (particularly when using dynamic types) might not be immediately visible in the Maestro UI. To ensure users see the latest data, it's useful to inform them that they may need to refresh their Docusign connection in the App Center UI if new fields are added to their integrated system (like TaskVibe). As an example, a newly added custom field on a TaskVibe project wouldn't be reflected until this refresh occurs. Conclusion In this blog post, we've explored how to leverage dynamic types within Docusign Extension Apps to create more flexible integrations with external systems. While static types offer simplicity, they can be constraining when working with external systems that offer a high level of customization. We hope that this blog post provides you with some ideas on how you can tackle similar problems in your Extension Apps....

How to Create Standalone Components in Angular cover image

How to Create Standalone Components in Angular

Angular has become one of the most popular frameworks to build web applications today. One of the key features of the framework is its component-based architecture, which allows best practices like modularity and reusability. Each Angular component consists of a template, a TypeScript class and metadata. In this blog post, we will dive deeper into standalone components, and we will explore the anatomy of an application based on them. For the demo application, we will create a card-like component which can be used to render blog posts in a web application. Prerequisites You'll need to have installed the following tools in your local environment: * The latest LTS version of Node.js is recommended. * Either NPM or Yarn as a package manager. * The Angular CLI tool(Command-line interface for Angular). Initialize the Project Let's create a project from scratch using the Angular CLI tool: ` This command will initialize a base project using some configuration options: * --routing. It will create a routing module. * --prefix corp. It defines a prefix to be applied to the selectors for created components(corp in this case). The default value is app. * --style css. The file extension for the styling files. * --skip-tests. Disable the generation of testing files for the new project. If you pay attention to the generated files and directories, you'll see an initial project structure including the main application module and component: ` Creating Standalone Components First, let's create the custom button to be used as part of the Card component later. Run the following command on your terminal: ` It will create the files for the component. The --standalone option will generate the component as _standalone_. Let's update the button.component.ts file using the content below. ` Pay attention to this component since it's marked as standalone: true. Starting with Angular v15: components, directives, and pipes can be marked as standalone by using the flag standalone. When a class is marked as _standalone_, it does not need to be declared as part of an NgModule. Otherwise, the Angular compiler will report an error. Also, imports can be used to reference the dependencies. > The imports property specifies the standalone component's template dependencies — those directives, components, and pipes that can be used within its template. Standalone components can import other standalone components, directives, and pipes as well as existing NgModules. Next, let's create the following components: card-title, card-content, card-actions and card. This can be done at once using the next commands. ` On card-title.component.ts file, update the content as follows: ` Next, update the card-content.component.ts file: ` The card-actions.component.ts file should have the content below: ` Finally, the card.component.ts file should be defined as follows: ` Using Standalone Components Once all Standalone components are created, we can use them without the need to define an NgModule. Let's update the app.component.ts file as follows: ` Again, this Angular component is set as standalone: true and the imports section specifies the other components created as dependencies. Then, we can update the app.component.html file and use all the standalone components. ` This may not work yet, since we need to configure the Angular application and get rid of the autogenerated module defined under the app.module.ts file. Bootstrapping the Application Angular provides a new API to use a standalone component as the application's root component. Let's update the main.ts file with the following content: ` As you can see, we have removed the previous bootstrapModule call and the bootstrapApplication function will render the standalone component as the application's root component. You can find more information about it here. Live Demo and Source Code Want to play around with this code? Just open the Stackblitz editor or the preview mode in fullscreen. Conclusion We’re now ready to use and configure the Angular components as standalone and provide a simplified way to build Angular applications from scratch. Do not forget that you can mark directives and pipes as standalone: true. If you love Angular as much as we do, you can start building today using one of our starter.dev kits or by looking at their related showcases for more examples....

Understanding Sourcemaps: From Development to Production cover image

Understanding Sourcemaps: From Development to Production

What Are Sourcemaps? Modern web development involves transforming your source code before deploying it. We minify JavaScript to reduce file sizes, bundle multiple files together, transpile TypeScript to JavaScript, and convert modern syntax into browser-compatible code. These optimizations are essential for performance, but they create a significant problem: the code running in production does not look like the original code you wrote. Here's a simple example. Your original code might look like this: ` After minification, it becomes something like this: ` Now imagine trying to debug an error in that minified code. Which line threw the exception? What was the value of variable d? This is where sourcemaps come in. A sourcemap is a JSON file that contains a mapping between your transformed code and your original source files. When you open browser DevTools, the browser reads these mappings and reconstructs your original code, allowing you to debug with variable names, comments, and proper formatting intact. How Sourcemaps Work When you build your application with tools like Webpack, Vite, or Rollup, they can generate sourcemap files alongside your production bundles. A minified file references its sourcemap using a special comment at the end: ` The sourcemap file itself contains a JSON structure with several key fields: ` The mappings field uses an encoding format called VLQ (Variable Length Quantity) to map each position in the minified code back to its original location. The browser's DevTools use this information to show you the original code while you're debugging. Types of Sourcemaps Build tools support several variations of sourcemaps, each with different trade-offs: Inline sourcemaps: The entire mapping is embedded directly in your JavaScript file as a base64 encoded data URL. This increases file size significantly but simplifies deployment during development. ` External sourcemaps: A separate .map file that's referenced by the JavaScript bundle. This is the most common approach, as it keeps your production bundles lean since sourcemaps are only downloaded when DevTools is open. Hidden sourcemaps: External sourcemap files without any reference in the JavaScript bundle. These are useful when you want sourcemaps available for error tracking services like Sentry, but don't want to expose them to end users. Why Sourcemaps During development, sourcemaps are absolutely critical. They will help avoid having to guess where errors occur, making debugging much easier. Most modern build tools enable sourcemaps by default in development mode. Sourcemaps in Production Should you ship sourcemaps to production? It depends. While security by making your code more difficult to read is not real security, there's a legitimate argument that exposing your source code makes it easier for attackers to understand your application's internals. Sourcemaps can reveal internal API endpoints and routing logic, business logic, and algorithmic implementations, code comments that might contain developer notes or TODO items. Anyone with basic developer tools can reconstruct your entire codebase when sourcemaps are publicly accessible. While the Apple leak contained no credentials or secrets, it did expose their component architecture and implementation patterns. Additionally, code comments can inadvertently contain internal URLs, developer names, or company-specific information that could potentially be exploited by attackers. But that’s not all of it. On the other hand, services like Sentry can provide much more actionable error reports when they have access to sourcemaps. So you can understand exactly where errors happened. If a customer reports an issue, being able to see the actual error with proper context makes diagnosis significantly faster. If your security depends on keeping your frontend code secret, you have bigger problems. Any determined attacker can reverse engineer minified JavaScript. It just takes more time. Sourcemaps are only downloaded when DevTools is open, so shipping them to production doesn't affect load times or performance for end users. How to manage sourcemaps in production You don't have to choose between no sourcemaps and publicly accessible ones. For example, you can restrict access to sourcemaps with server configuration. You can make .map accessible from specific IP addresses. Additionally, tools like Sentry allow you to upload sourcemaps during your build process without making them publicly accessible. Then configure your build to generate sourcemaps without the reference comment, or use hidden sourcemaps. Sentry gets the mapping information it needs, but end users can't access the files. Learning from Apple's Incident Apple's sourcemap incident is a valuable reminder that even the largest tech companies can make deployment oversights. But it also highlights something important: the presence of sourcemaps wasn't actually a security vulnerability. This can be achieved by following good security practices. Never include sensitive data in client code. Developers got an interesting look at how Apple structures its Svelte codebase. The lesson is that you must be intentional about your deployment configuration. If you're going to include sourcemaps in production, make that decision deliberately after considering the trade-offs. And if you decide against using public sourcemaps, verify that your build process actually removes them. In this case, the public repo was quickly removed after Apple filed a DMCA takedown. (https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2025/11/2025-11-05-apple.md) Making the Right Choice So what should you do with sourcemaps in your projects? For development: Always enable them. Use fast options, such as eval-source-map in Webpack or the default configuration in Vite. The debugging benefits far outweigh any downsides. For production: Consider your specific situation. But most importantly, make sure your sourcemaps don't accidentally expose secrets. Review your build output, check for hardcoded credentials, and ensure sensitive configurations stay on the backend where they belong. Conclusion Sourcemaps are powerful development tools that bridge the gap between the optimized code your users download and the readable code you write. They're essential for debugging and make error tracking more effective. The question of whether to include them in production doesn't have a unique answer. Whatever you decide, make it a deliberate choice. Review your build configuration. Verify that sourcemaps are handled the way you expect. And remember that proper frontend security doesn't come from hiding your code. Useful Resources * Source map specification - https://tc39.es/ecma426/ * What are sourcemaps - https://web.dev/articles/source-maps * VLQ implementation - https://github.com/Rich-Harris/vlq * Sentry sourcemaps - https://docs.sentry.io/platforms/javascript/sourcemaps/ * Apple DMCA takedown - https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2025/11/2025-11-05-apple.md...

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.

Prefer email? hi@thisdot.co