ReactJS

Transitioning from React class components to function components with hooks

Published Mar 10, 2020

Updated Feb 14, 2023

5 min read

This article was written over 18 months ago and may contain information that is out of date.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.

It has been approximately one year since React v16.8 was released, marking the introduction of Hooks. Yet, there are still people used to React class components who still haven't experienced the full potential of this new feature, along with functional components, including myself. The aim of this article is to summarize and encompass the most distinguishable features of the class components, and respectively show their alternatives when using React hooks.

Functional components

Before we start with Hooks examples, we will shortly discuss functional components in case you aren't familiar. They provide an easy way to create new units without the need of creating a new class and extending React.Component.

Note: Keep in mind that functional components have been part of React since it's creation.

Here is a very simple example of a functional component:

const Element = () => (
  <div className="element">
    My Element
  </div>
);

And just like class components, we can access the properties. They are provided as the first argument of the function.

const Element = ({ text }) => (
  <div className="element">
    {text}
  </div>
);

However, these type of components--while very convenient for simple UI elements--used to be very limited in terms of life cycle control, and usage of state. This is the main reason they had been neglected until React v16.8.

Component state

Let's take a look at the familiar way of how we add state to our object-oriented components. The example will represent a component which renders a space scene with stars; they have the same color. We are going to use few utility functions for both functional and class components.

createStars(width: number): Star[] - Creates an array with the star objects that are ready for rendering. The number of stars depends on the window width.
renderStars(stars: Star[], color: string): JSX.Element - Builds and returns the actual stars markup.
logColorChange(color: string) - Logs when the color of the space has been changed.

and some less important like calculateDistancesAmongStars(stars: Star[]): Object.

We won't implement these. Consider them as black boxes. The names should be sufficient enough to understand their purpose.

Note: You may find a lot of demonstrated things unnecesary. The main reason I included this is to showcase the hooks in a single component.

And the example:

Class components

class Space extends React.Component {
  constructor(props) {
    super(props);

    this.state = {
      stars: createStars(window.innerWidth)
    };
  }

  render() {
    return (
      <div className="space">
        {renderStars(this.state.stars, this.props.color)}
      </div>
    );
  }
}

Functional components

The same can be achieved with the help of the first React Hook that we are going to introduce--useState. The usage is as follows: const [name, setName] = useState(INITIAL_VALUE). As you can see, it uses array destructuring in order to provide the value and the set function:

const Space = ({ color }) => {
  const [stars, setStars] = useState(createStars(window.innerWidth));

  return (
    <div className="space">
      {renderStars(stars, color)}
    </div>
  );
};

The usage of the property is trivial, while setStars(stars) will be equivalent to this.setState({ stars }).

Component initialization

Another prominent limitation of functional components was the inability to hook to lifecycle events. Unlike class components, where you could simply define the componentDidMount method, if you want to execute code on component creation, you can't hook to lifecycle events. Let's extend our demo by adding a resize listener to window which will change the number of rendered stars in our space when the user changes the width of the browser:

Class components

class Space extends React.Component {
  constructor(props) { ... }

  componentDidMount() {
    window.addEventListener('resize', () => {
      const stars = createStars(window.innerWidth, this.props.color);
      this.setState({ stars });
    });
  }

  render() { ... }
}

Functional components

You may say: "We can attach the listener right above the return statement", and you will be partially correct. However, think about the functional component as the render method of a class component. Would you attach the event listener there? No. Just like render, the function of a functional component could be executed multiple times throughout the the lifecycle of the instance. This is why we are going to use the useEffect hook.

It is a bit different from componentDidMount though--it incorporates componentDidUpdate, and componentDidUnmount as well. In other words, the provided callback to useEffect is executed on every update. Anyhow, you can have certain control with the second argument of useState - it represents an array with the values/dependencies which are monitored for change. If they do, the hook is executed. In case the array is empty, the hook will be executed only once, during initialization, since after that there won't be any values to be observed for change.

const Space = ({ color }) => {
  const [stars, setStars] = useState(createStars(window.innerWidth));

  useEffect(() => {
    window.addEventListener('resize', () => {
      const stars = createStars(window.innerWidth, color);
      setStars(stars);
    });
  }, []); // <-- Note the empty array

  return (
    ...
  );
};

Component destruction

We added an event listener to window, so we will have to remove it on component unmount in order to save us from memory leaks. Respectively, that'll require keeping a reference to the callback:

Class components

class Space extends React.Component {
  constructor(props) { ... }

  componentDidMount() {
    window.addEventListener('resize', this.__resizeListenerCb = () => {
      const stars = createStars(window.innerWidth, this.props.color);
      this.setState({ stars });
    });
  }

  componentDidUnmount() {
    window.removeEventListener('resize', this.__resizeListenerCb);
  }

  render() { ... }
}

Functional component

For the equivalent version of the class component, the useEffect hook will execute the returned function from the provided callback when the component is about to be destroyed. Here's the code:

const Space = ({ color }) => {
  const [stars, setStars] = useState(createStars(window.innerWidth));

  useEffect(() => {
    let resizeListenerCb;

    window.addEventListener('resize', resizeListenerCb = () => {
      const stars = createStars(window.innerWidth, color);
      setStars(stars);
    });

    return () => window.removeEventListener('resize', resizeListenerCb);
  }, []); // <-- Note the empty array

  return (
    ...
  );
};

An important remark

It is worth mentioning that, when you work with event listeners or any other methods that defer the execution in the future of a callback/function, you should take into account that the state provided to them is not mutable.

Taking the window listener we use in our demo as an example; if we used thestars state inside the callback, we would get the exact value at the moment of the definition (callback), which means that, when the callback is executed, we risk having a stale state.

There are various ways to handle that, one of which is to re-register the listener every time the stars are changed, by providing the stars value to the observed dependency array of useEffect.

Changed properties

We already went through useEffect in the sections above. Now, we will briefly show an example of componentDidUpdate. Let's say that we want to log the occurances of color change to the console:

Class components

class Space extends React.Component {
  ...

  componentDidUpdate(prevProps) {
    if (this.props.color !== prevProps.color) {
      logColorChange(this.props.color);
    }
  }

  ...
}

Functional components

We'll introduce another useEffect hook:

const Space = ({ color }) => {
  ...

  useEffect(() => {
    logColorChange(color);
  }, [color]); // <-- Note that this time we add `color` as observed dependency

  ...
};

Simple as that!

Changed properties and memoization

Just as an addition to the example above, we will quickly showcase useMemo; it provides an easy way to optimize your component when you have to perform a heavy calculation only when certain dependencies change:

const result = useMemo(() => expensiveCalculation(), [color]);

References

Due to the nature of functional components, it becomes hard to keep a reference to an object between renders. With class components, we can simply save one with a class property, like:

class Space extends React.Component {
  ...

  methodThatIsCalledOnceInALifetime() {
    this.__distRef = calculateDistancesAmongStars(this.state.stars);
  }

  ...
}

However, here is an example with a functional component that might look correct but it isn't:

const Space = ({ color }) => {
  ...

  let distRef; // Declared on every render.

  function thatIsCalledOnceInALifetime() {
    distRef = caclulateDistancesAmongStars(stars);
  }

  ...
};

As you can see, we won't be able to preserve the output object with a simple variable. In order to do that, we will take a look at yet another hook named useRef, which will solve our problem:

const Space = ({ color }) => {
  ...
  const distRef = useRef();

  function thatIsCalledOnceInALifetime() {
    // `current` keeps the same reference
    // throughout the lifetime of the component instance
    distRef.current = caclulateDistancesAmongStars(stars);
  }

  ...
}

The same hook is used when we want to keep a reference to a DOM element.

Conclusion

Hopefully this should give you a starting point when it comes to using React Hooks for the things that you are already used to doing with class components. Obviously, there are more hooks to explore, including the definition of custom ones. For all of that, you can head to the official docs. Give them a try and experience the potential of functional React!

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.

How to test React custom hooks and components with Vitest

Introduction In this guide, we'll navigate through the process of testing React hooks and components using Vitest—a powerful JavaScript unit testing framework. Discover how Vitest simplifies testing setups, providing an optimal solution for both Vite-powered projects and beyond. Vitest is a javascript unit testing framework that aims to position itself as the Test Runner of choice for Vite projects and as a solid alternative even for projects not using Vite. Vitest was built primarily for Vite-powered projects, to help reduce the complexity of setting up testing with other testing frameworks like Jest. Vitest uses the same configuration of your App (through vite.config.js), sharing a common transformation pipeline during dev, build, and test time. Prerequisites This article assumes a solid understanding of React and frontend unit testing. Familiarity with tools like React Testing Library and JSDOM will enhance your grasp of the testing process with Vitest. Installation and configuration Let’s see how we can use Vitest for testing React custom hooks and components. But first, we will need to create a new project with Vite! If you already have an existing project, you can skip this step. ` Follow the prompts to create a new React project successfully. For testing, we need the following dependencies installed: Vitest as the unit testing framework JSDOM as the DOM environment for running our tests React Testing Library as the React testing utilities. To do so, we run the following command: ` Once we have those packages installed, we need to configure the vite.config.js file to run tests. By default, some of the extra configs we need to set up Vitest are not available in the Vite config types, so we will need the vite.config.ts file to reference Vitest types by adding /// reference types=”vitest” /> at the top of the file. Add the following code to the vite.config.ts ` We set globals to true because, by default, Vitest does not provide global APIs for explicitness. So with this set to true, we can use keywords like describe, test and it without needing to import them. To get TypeScript working with the global APIs, add vitest/globals to the types field in your tsconfig.json. ` The environment property tells Vitest which environment to run the test. We are using jsdom as the environment. The root property tells Vitest the root folder from where it should start looking for test files. We should add a script for running the test in package.json ` With all that configured, we can now start writing unit tests for customs hooks and React components. Writing test for custom hooks Let’s write a test for a simple useCounter hook that takes an initial value and returns the value, an increment function and a decrement function. ` We can write a test to check the default return values of the hook for value as below: ` To test if the hook works when we increment the value, we can use the act() method from @testing-library/react to simulate the increment function, as shown in the below test case: ` Kindly Note that you can't destructure the reactive properties of the result.current instance, or they will lose their reactivity. Testing hooks with asynchronous logic Now let’s test a more complex logic that contains asynchronous logic. Let’s write a useProducts hook that fetches data from an external api and return that value ` Now, let’s see what the test looks like: ` In the above example, we had to spy on the global fetch API, so that we can mock its return value. We wrapped that inside a beforeAll so that this runs before any test in this file. Then we added an afterAll method and called the mockRestore() to run after all test cases have been completed and return all mock implementations to their original function. We can also use the mockClear() method to clear all the mock's information, such as the number of calls and the mock's results. This method is handy when mocking the same function with different return values for different tests. We usually use mockClear() in beforeEach() or afterEach() methods to ensure our test is isolated completely. Then in our test case, we used a waitFor(), to wait for the return value to be resolved. Writing test for components Like Jest, Vitest provides assertion methods (matchers) to use with the expect methods for asserting values, but to test DOM elements easily, we will need to make use of custom matchers such as toBeInTheDocument() or toHaveTextContent(). Luckily the Vitest API is mostly compatible with the Jest API, making it possible to reuse many tools originally built for Jest. For such methods, we can install the @testing-library/jest-dom package and extend the expect method from Vitest to include the assertion methods in matchers from this package. ` After installing the jest-dom testing library package, create a file named vitest-setup.ts on the root of the project and import the following into the project to extend js-dom custom matchers: ` Since we are using typescript, we also need to include our setup file in our tsconfig.json: ` In vite.config.ts, we need to add the vitest-setup.ts file to the test.setupFiles field: ` Now let’s test the Products.tsx component: ` We start by spying and mocking the useProducts hook with vi.spyOn() method from Vitest: ` Now, we render the Products component using the render method from @testing-library/react and assert that the component renders the list of products as expected and also the product has the title as follows: ` In the above code, we use the render method from @testing-library/react to render the component and this returns some useful methods we can use to extract information from the component like getByTestId and getByText. The getByTestId method will retrieve the element whose data-testid attribute value equals product-list, and we can then assert its children to equal the length of our mocked items array. Using data-testid attribute values is a good practice for identifying a DOM element for testing purposes and avoiding affecting the component's implementation in production and tests. We also used the getByText method to find a text in the rendered component. We were able to call the toBeInTheDocument() because we extended the matchers to work with Vitest earlier. Here is what the full test looks like: ` Conclusion In this article, we delved into the world of testing React hooks and components using Vitest, a versatile JavaScript unit testing framework. We walked through the installation and configuration process, ensuring compatibility with React, JSDOM, and React Testing Library. The comprehensive guide covered writing tests for custom hooks, including handling asynchronous logic, and testing React components, leveraging custom matchers for DOM assertions. By adopting Vitest, developers can streamline the testing process for their React applications, whether powered by Vite or not. The framework's seamless integration with Vite projects simplifies the setup, reducing the complexities associated with other testing tools like Jest....

Mar 15, 2024

5 mins

ViteReactTesting

Communication Between Client Components in Next.js

Communication Between Client Components in Next.js In recent years, Next.js has become one of the most popular React frameworks for building server-rendered applications. With the introduction of the App Router in Next.js 13, the framework has taken a major leap forward by embracing a new approach to building web applications: the concept of server components and client components. This separation of concerns allows developers to strategically decide which parts of their application should be rendered on the server and which are then hydrated in the browser for interactivity. The Challenge: Communicating Between Client Components While server components offer numerous benefits, they also introduce a new challenge: how can client components within different boundaries communicate with each other? For instance, let's consider a scenario where you have a button (a client component) and a separate client component that displays the number of times the button has been clicked. In a regular React application, this would typically be accomplished by lifting the state to a common ancestor component, allowing the button to update the state, which is then passed down to the counter display component. However, the traditional approach may not be as straightforward in a Next.js application that heavily relies on server components, with client components scattered across the page. This blog post will explore three ways to facilitate communication between client components in Next.js, depending on where you want to store the state. Lifting State to a Common Client Component One approach to communicating between client components is to lift the state to a common client component. This could be a React context provider, a state management system like Zustand, or any other solution that allows you to share state across components. The key aspect is that this wrapper component should be higher up in the tree (perhaps even in the layout) and accept server components as children. Next.js allows you to interleave client and server components as much as you want, as long as server components are passed to client components as props or as component children. Here's how this approach might look in practice. First of all, we'd create a wrapper client component that holds the state: ` This wrapper component can be included in the layout: ` Any server components can be rendered within the layout, potentially nesting them several levels deep. Finally, we'd create two client components, one for the button and one for the counter display: ` ` The entire client and server component tree is rendered on the server, and the client components are then hydrated in the browser and initialized. From then on, the communication between the client components works just like in any regular React application. Check out the page using this pattern in the embedded Stackblitz window below: Using Query Params for State Management Another approach is to use query params instead of a wrapper client component and store the state in the URL. In this scenario, you have two client components: the button and the counter display. The counter value (the state) is stored in a query param, such as counterValue. The client components can read the current counter value using the useSearchParams hook. Once read, the useRouter hook can update the query param, effectively updating the counter value. However, there's one gotcha to this approach. If a route is statically rendered, calling useSearchParams will cause the client component tree up to the closest Suspense boundary to be client-side rendered. Next.js recommends wrapping the client component that uses useSearchParams in a boundary. Here's an example of how this approach might look. The button reads the current counter value and updates it on click by using the router's replace function: ` The counter display component is relatively simple, only reading the counter value: ` And here is the page that is a server component, hosting both of the above client components: ` Feel free to check out the above page in the embedded Stackblitz below: Storing State on the Server The third approach is to store the state on the server. In this case, the counter display component accepts the counter value as a prop, where the counter value is passed by a parent server component that reads the counter value from the database. The button component, when clicked, calls a server action that updates the counter value and calls revalidatePath() so that the counter value is refreshed, and consequently, the counter display component is re-rendered. It's worth noting that in this approach, unless you need some interactivity in the counter display component, it doesn't need to be a client component – it can be purely server-rendered. However, if both components need to be client components, here's an example of how this approach might look. First, we'll implement a server action that updates the counter value. We won't get into the mechanics of updating it, which in a real app would require a call to the database or an external API - so we're only commenting that part. After that, we revalidate the path so that the Next.js caches are purged, and the counter value is retrieved again in server components that read it. ` The button is a simple client component that calls the above server action when clicked. ` The counter display component reads the counter value from the parent: ` While the parent is a server component that reads the counter value from the database or an external API. ` This pattern can be seen in the embedded Stackblitz below: Conclusion Next.js is a powerful framework that offers various choices for implementing communication patterns between client components. Whether you lift state to a common client component, use query params for state management, or store the state on the server, Next.js provides all the tools you need to add a communication path between two separate client component boundaries. We hope this blog post has been useful in demonstrating how to facilitate communication between client components in Next.js. Check out other Next.js blog posts we've written for more insights and best practices. You can also view the entire codebase for the above snippets on StackBlitz....

Jun 21, 2024

5 mins

NextJSReact

Docusign Momentum 2025 From A Developer’s Perspective

*What if your contract details stuck in PDFs could ultimately become the secret sauce of your business automation workflows?* In a world drowning in PDFs and paperwork, I never thought I’d get goosebumps about agreements – until I attended Docusign Momentum 2025. I went in expecting talks about e-signatures; I left realizing the big push and emphasis with many enterprise-level organizations will be around Intelligent Agreement Management (IAM). It is positioned to transform how we build business software, so let’s talk about it. As Director of Technology at This Dot Labs, I had a front-row seat to all the exciting announcements at Docusign Momentum. Our team also had a booth there showing off the 6 Docusign extension apps This Dot Labs has released this year. We met 1-on-1 with a lot of companies and leaders to discuss the exciting promise of IAM. What can your company accomplish with IAM? Is it really worth it for you to start adopting IAM?? Let’s dive in and find out. After his keynote, I met up with Robert Chatwani, President of Docusign and he said this > “At Docusign, we truly believe that the power of a great platform is that you won’t be able to exactly predict what can be built on top of it,and builders and developers are at the heart of driving this type of innovation. Now with AI, we have entered what I believe is a renaissance era for new ideas and business models, all powered by developers.” Docusign’s annual conference in NYC was an eye-opener: agreements are no longer just documents to sign and shelve, but dynamic data hubs driving key processes. Here’s my take on what I learned, why it matters, and why developers should pay attention. From E-Signatures to Intelligent Agreements – A New Era Walking into Momentum 2025, you could feel the excitement. Docusign’s CEO and product team set the tone in the keynote: “Agreements make the world go round, but for too long they’ve been stuck in inboxes and PDFs, creating drag on your business.” Their message was clear – Docusign is moving from a product to a platform. In other words, the company that pioneered e-signatures now aims to turn static contracts into live, integrated assets that propel your business forward. I saw this vision click when I chatted with an attendee from a major financial services firm. His team manages millions of forms a year – loan applications, account forms, you name it. He admitted they were still “just scanning and storing PDFs” and struggled to imagine how IAM could help. We discussed how much value was trapped in those documents (what Docusign calls the “Agreement Trap” of disconnected processes). By the end of our coffee, the lightbulb was on: with the right platform, those forms could be automatically routed, data-extracted, and trigger workflows in other systems – no more black hole of PDFs. His problem wasn’t unique; many organizations have critical data buried in agreements, and they’re waking up to the idea that it doesn’t have to be this way. What Exactly is Intelligent Agreement Management (IAM)? So what is Docusign’s Intelligent Agreement Management? In essence, IAM is an AI-powered platform that connects every part of the agreement lifecycle. It’s not a single product, but a collection of services and tools working in concert. Docusign IAM helps transform agreement data into insights and actions, accelerate contract cycles, and boost productivity across departments. The goal is to address the inefficiencies in how agreements are created, signed, and managed – those inefficiencies that cost businesses time and money. At Momentum, Docusign showcased the core components of IAM: - Docusign Navigator link: A smart repository to centrally store, search, and analyze agreements. It uses AI to convert your signed documents (which are basically large chunks of text) into structured, queryable data. Instead of manually digging through contracts for a specific clause, you can search across all agreements in seconds. Navigator gives you a clear picture of your organization’s contractual relationships and obligations (think of it as Google for your contracts). Bonus: it comes with out-of-the-box dashboards for things like renewal dates, so you can spot risks and opportunities at a glance. - Docusign Maestro link: A no-code workflow engine to automate agreement workflows from start to finish. Maestro lets you design customizable workflows that orchestrate Docusign tasks and integrate with third-party apps – all without writing code. For example, you could have a workflow for new vendor onboarding: once a vendor contract is signed, Maestro could automatically notify your procurement team, create a task in your project tracker, and update a record in your ERP system. At the conference, they demoed how Maestro can streamline processes like employee onboarding and compliance checks through simple drag-and-drop steps or archiving PDFs of signed agreements into Google Drive or Dropbox. - Docusign Iris (AI Engine) link: The brains of the operation. Iris is the new AI engine powering all of IAM’s “smarts” – from reading documents to extracting data and making recommendations. It’s behind features like automatic field extraction, AI-assisted contract review, intelligent search, and even document summarization. In the keynote, we saw examples of Iris in action: identify key terms (e.g. payment terms or renewal clauses) across a stack of contracts, or instantly generate a summary of a lengthy agreement. These capabilities aren’t just gimmicks; as one Docusign executive put it, they’re “signals of a new way of working with agreements”. Iris essentially gives your agreement workflow a brain – it can understand the content of agreements and help you act on it. - Docusign App Center link: A hub to connect the tools of your trade into Docusign. App Center is like an app store for integrations – it lets you plug in other software (project management, CRM, HR systems, etc.) directly into your Maestro workflows. This is huge for developers (and frankly, anyone tired of building one-off integrations). Instead of treating Docusign as an isolated e-signature tool, App Center makes it a platform you can extend. I’ll dive more into this in the next section, since it’s close to my heart – my team helped build some of these integrations! In short, IAM ties together the stages of an agreement (create → sign → store → manage) and supercharges each with automation and AI. It’s modular, too – you can adopt the pieces you need. Docusign essentially unbundled the agreement process into building blocks that developers and admins can mix-and-match. The future of agreements, as Docusign envisions it, is a world where organizations *“seamlessly add, subtract, and rearrange modular solutions to meet ever-changing needs”* on a single trusted platform. The App Center and Real-World Integrations (Yes, We Built Those!) One of the most exciting parts of Momentum 2025 for me was seeing the Docusign App Center come alive. As someone who works on integrations, I was practically grinning during the App Center demos. Docusign highlighted several partner-built apps that snap into IAM, and I’m proud to say This Dot Labs built six of them – including integrations for Monday.com, Slack, Jira, Asana, Airtable, and Mailchimp. Why are these integrations a big deal? Because developers often spend countless hours wiring up systems that need to talk to each other. With App Center, a lot of that heavy lifting is already done. You can install an app with a few clicks and configure data flows in minutes instead of coding for months. In fact, a study found it takes the average org 12 months to develop a custom workflow via APIs, whereas with Docusign’s platform you can do it via configuration almost immediately. That’s a game-changer for time-to-value. At our This Dot Labs booth, I spoke with many developers who were intrigued by these possibilities. For example, we showed how our Docusign Slack Extension lets teams send Slack messages and notifications when agreements are sent and signed.. If a sales contract gets signed, the Slack app can automatically post a notification in your channel and even attach the signed PDF – no more emailing attachments around. People loved seeing how easily Docusign and Slack now talk to each other using this extension. Another popular one was our Monday.com app. With it, as soon as an agreement is signed, you can trigger actions in Monday – like assigning onboarding tasks for a new client or employee. Essentially, signing the document kicks off the next steps automatically. These integrations showcase why IAM is not just about Docusign’s own features, but about an ecosystem. App Center already includes connectors for popular platforms like Salesforce, HubSpot, Workday, ServiceNow, and more. The apps we built for Monday, Slack, Jira, etc., extend that ecosystem. Each app means one less custom integration a developer has to build from scratch. And if an app you need doesn’t exist yet – well, that’s an opportunity. (Shameless plug: we’re happy to help build it!) The key takeaway here is that Docusign is positioning itself as a foundational layer in the enterprise software stack. Your agreement workflow can now natively include things like project management updates, CRM entries, notifications, and data syncs. As a developer, I find that pretty powerful. It’s a shift from thinking of Docusign as a single SaaS tool to thinking of it as a platform that glues processes together. Not Just Another Contract Tool – Why IAM Matters for Business After absorbing all the Momentum keynotes and sessions, one thing is clear: IAM is not “just another contract management tool.” It’s aiming to be the platform that automates critical business processes which happen to revolve around agreements. The use cases discussed were not theoretical – they were tangible scenarios every developer or IT lead will recognize: - Procurement Automation: We heard how companies are using IAM to streamline procurement. Imagine a purchase order process where a procurement request triggers an agreement that goes out for e-signature, and once signed, all relevant systems update instantly. One speaker described connecting Docusign with their ERP so that vendor contracts and purchase orders are generated and tracked automatically. This reduces the back-and-forth with legal and ensures nothing falls through the cracks. It’s easy to see the developer opportunity: instead of coding a complex procurement approval system from scratch, you can leverage Docusign’s workflow + integration hooks to handle it. Docusign IAM is designed to connect to systems like CRM, HR, and ERP so that agreements flow into the same stream of data. For developers, that means using pre-built connectors and APIs rather than reinventing them. - Faster Employee Onboarding: Onboarding a new hire or client typically involves a flurry of forms and tasks – offer letters or contracts to sign, NDAs, setup of accounts, etc. We saw how IAM can accelerate onboarding by combining e-signature with automated task generation. For instance, the moment a new hire signs their offer letter, Maestro could trigger an onboarding workflow: provisioning the employee in systems, scheduling orientation, and creating tasks in tools like Asana or Monday. All those steps get kicked off by the signed agreement. Docusign Maestro’s integration capabilities shine here – it can tie into HR systems or project management apps to carry the baton forward. The result is a smoother day-one experience for the new hire and less manual coordination for IT and HR. As developers, we can appreciate how this modular approach saves us from writing yet another “onboarding script”; we configure the workflow, and IAM handles the rest. - Reducing Contract Auto-Renewal Risk: If your company manages a lot of recurring contracts (think vendor services, subscriptions, leases), missing a renewal deadline can be costly. One real-world story shared at Momentum was about using IAM to prevent unwanted auto-renewals. With traditional tracking (spreadsheets or calendar reminders), it’s easy to forget a termination notice and end up locked into a contract for another year. Docusign’s solution: let the AI engine (Iris) handle it. It can scan your repository, surface any renewal or termination dates, and proactively remind stakeholders – or even kick off a non-renewal workflow if desired. As the Bringing Intelligence to Obligation Management session highlighted, “Missed renewal windows lead to unwanted auto-renewals or lost revenue… A forgotten termination deadline locks a company into an unneeded service for another costly term.” With IAM, those pitfalls are avoidable. The system can automatically flag and assign tasks well before a deadline hits. For developers, this means we can deliver risk-reduction features without building a custom date-tracking system – the platform’s AI and notification framework has us covered. These examples all connect to a bigger point: agreements are often the linchpin of larger business processes (buying something, hiring someone, renewing a service). By making agreements “intelligent,” Docusign IAM is essentially automating chunks of those processes. This translates to real outcomes – faster cycle times, fewer errors, and less risk. From a technical perspective, it means we developers have a powerful ally: we can offload a lot of workflow logic to the IAM platform. Why code it from scratch if a combination of Docusign + a few integration apps can do it? Why Developers Should Care about IAM (Big Time) If you’re a software developer or architect building solutions for business teams, you might be thinking: This sounds cool, but is it relevant to me? Let me put it this way – after Momentum 2025, I’m convinced that ignoring IAM would be a mistake for anyone in enterprise software. Here’s why: - Faster time-to-value for your clients or stakeholders: Business teams are always pressuring IT to deliver solutions faster. With IAM, you have ready-made components to accelerate projects. Need to implement a contract approval workflow? Use Maestro, not months of coding. Need to integrate Docusign with an internal system? Check App Center for an app or use their APIs with far less glue code. Docusign’s own research shows that connecting systems via App Center and Maestro can cut development time dramatically (from ~12 months of custom dev to mere weeks or less). For us developers, that means we can deliver results sooner, which definitely wins points with the business. - Fewer custom builds (and less maintenance): Let’s face it – maintaining custom scripts or one-off integrations is not fun. Every time a SaaS API changes or a new requirement comes in, you’re back in the code. IAM’s approach offers more reuse and configuration instead of raw code. The platform is doing the hard work of staying updated (for example, when Slack or Salesforce change something in their API, Docusign’s connector app will handle it). By leveraging these pre-built connectors and templates, you write less custom code, which means fewer bugs and lower maintenance overhead. You can focus your coding effort on the unique parts of your product, not the boilerplate integration logic. - Reusable and modular workflows: I love designing systems as Lego blocks – and IAM encourages that. You can build a workflow once and reuse it across multiple projects or clients with slight tweaks. For instance, an approval workflow for sales contracts might be 90% similar to one for procurement contracts – with IAM, you can reuse that blueprint. The fact that everything is on one platform also means these workflows can talk to each other or be combined. This modularity is a developer’s dream because it leads to cleaner architecture. Docusign explicitly touts this modular approach, noting that organizations can easily rearrange solutions on the fly to meet new needs. It’s like having a library of proven patterns to draw from. - AI enhancements with minimal effort: Adding AI into your apps can be daunting if you have to build or train models yourself. IAM essentially gives you AI-as-a-service for agreements. Need to extract key data from 1,000 contracts? Iris can do that out-of-the-box. Want to implement a risk scoring for contracts? The AI can flag unusual terms or deviations. As a developer, being able to call an API or trigger a function that returns “these are the 5 clauses to look at” is incredibly powerful – you’re injecting intelligence without needing a data science team. It means you can offer more value in your applications (and impress those end-users!) by simply tapping into IAM’s AI features. Ultimately, Docusign IAM empowers developers to build more with less code. It’s about higher-level building blocks. This doesn’t replace our jobs – it makes our jobs more focused on the interesting problems. I’d rather spend time designing a great user experience or tackling a complex business rule than coding yet another Docusign-to-Slack integration. IAM is taking care of the plumbing and adding a layer of smarts on top. Don’t Underestimate Agreement Intelligence – Your Call to Action Momentum 2025 left me with a clear call to action: embrace agreement intelligence. If you’re a developer or tech leader, it’s time to explore what Docusign IAM can do for your projects. This isn’t just hype from a conference – it’s a real shift in how we can deliver solutions. Here are a few ways to get started: - Browse the IAM App Center – Take a look at the growing list of apps in the Docusign App Center. You might find that integration you’ve been meaning to build is already available (or one very close to it). Installing an app is trivial, and you can configure it to fit your workflow. This is the low-hanging fruit to immediately add value to your existing Docusign processes. If you have Docusign eSignature or CLM in your stack, App Center is where you extend it. - Think about integrations that could unlock value – Consider the systems in your organization that aren’t talking to each other. Is there a manual step where someone re-enters data from a contract into another system? Maybe an approval that’s done via email and could be automated? Those are prime candidates for an IAM solution. For example, if Legal and Sales use different tools, an integration through IAM can bridge them, ensuring no agreement data falls through the cracks. Map out your agreement process end-to-end and identify gaps – chances are, IAM has a feature to fill them. - Experiment with Maestro and the API – If you’re technical, spin up a trial of Docusign IAM. Try creating a Maestro workflow for a simple use case, or use the Docusign API/SDKs to trigger some AI analysis on a document. Seeing it in action will spark ideas. I was amazed how quickly I could set up a workflow with conditions and parallel steps – things that would take significant coding time if I did them manually. The barrier to entry for adding complex logic has gotten a lot lower. - Stay informed and involved – Docusign’s developer community and IAM documentation are growing. Momentum may be over, but the “agreement intelligence” movement is just getting started. Keep an eye on upcoming features (they hinted at even more AI-assisted tools coming soon). Engage with the community forums or join Docusign’s IAM webinars. And if you’re building something cool with IAM, consider sharing your story – the community benefits from hearing real use cases. My final thought: don’t underestimate the impact that agreement intelligence can have in modern workflows. We spend so much effort optimizing various parts of our business, yet often overlook the humble agreement – the contracts, forms, and documents that initiate or seal every deal. Docusign IAM is shining a spotlight on these and saying, “Here is untapped gold. Let’s mine it.” As developers, we have an opportunity (and now the tools) to lead that charge. I’m incredibly excited about this new chapter. After seeing what Docusign has built, I’m convinced that intelligent agreements can be a foundational layer for digital transformation. It’s not just about getting documents signed faster; it’s about connecting dots and automating workflows in ways we couldn’t before. As I reflect on Momentum 2025, I’m inspired and already coding with new ideas in mind. I encourage you to do the same – check out IAM, play with the App Center, and imagine what you could build when your agreements start working intelligently for you. The future of agreements is here, and it’s time for us developers to take full advantage of it. Ready to explore? Head to the Docusign App Center and IAM documentation and see how you can turn your agreements into engines of growth. Trust me – the next time you attend Momentum, you might just have your own success story to share. Happy building!...

Apr 29, 2025

14 mins

Software Engineering

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

JavaScript

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.

Transitioning from React class components to function components with hooks

Functional components

Component state

Class components

Functional components

Component initialization

Class components

Functional components

Component destruction

Class components

Functional component

An important remark

Changed properties

Class components

Functional components

Changed properties and memoization

References

Conclusion

You might also like

How to test React custom hooks and components with Vitest

Communication Between Client Components in Next.js

Docusign Momentum 2025 From A Developer’s Perspective

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

Let's innovate together!

You might also like

How to test React custom hooks and components with Vitest

Communication Between Client Components in Next.js

Docusign Momentum 2025 From A Developer’s Perspective

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