标签：#migration

Illinois prosecutors shared defendants’ personal data with federal immigration agents without criminal warrants, public disclosure, or legislative oversight.

I audit catalog migrations for a living. Every disaster I've seen was preventable — not by hiring better, but by agreeing in writing what "done" means before work starts. Copy this list. Send it to whoever is doing your migration. Ask them to commit to each line — and note the italics: every promise comes with a way you can check it yourself in about two minutes, no tools, no trust required. Every product made it across — none lost, none duplicated. Compare row counts in both files. Every variant made it across. Pick any product, count its rows in both files. No handle silently renamed ( -1 , -2 suffixes). Search the new file for -1 , -2 . SKUs unchanged and unique. Pick 5 SKUs from your export, find them in the new file. Prices and compare-at prices identical. Pick any product, compare both price fields. Inventory identical. Same spot-check. No missing titles, vendors, types, or prices. Sort each column, look for blanks at the top. Images attached to the right variant , not dumped at product level. Open a product with colors; each color shows its own image. Every image link loads. Click any 5 image URLs. Collections intact. Pick a collection, compare its product count. Custom fields (metafields) survived. Open a product that had them. Every old URL redirects. Try 5 URLs from your old sitemap. No garbled characters. Search the file for †. No description empty or cut short. Read 5 descriptions in both files. Description formatting survived (bullets, tables). Same 5 products. Option names still meaningful ("Size", not "Option1"). Open any product with options. Option values mean what they meant. Compare the value lists. Two more things worth writing down: What happens if a check fails — fix at no charge? partial refund? Agree now, not later. Anything already broken in your source data — list it upfront so nobody argues about whose fault it was. If your provider hesitates to commit to a list like this, that hesitation is information. (I keep a pre-filled version of t

Records obtained by WIRED detail hundreds of allegations of Customs and Border Protection workers misusing internal tools to look up romantic interests and track colleagues’ cell phones.

Nick DiStefano shares how Uber Eats migrated from traditional native app screens to a native-driven, single-page WebView architecture. He explains key strategies for engineering leaders and software architects looking to bypass native release cycles, manage cross-platform state, build generic native-web message bridges, and execute large-scale UI migrations without degrading metrics. By Nick DiStefano

A draft rule reviewed by WIRED would prevent the census from counting undocumented immigrants. To protect against “distortions,” it would also bar questions about race and sexual orientation.

A lawsuit accuses Homeland Security of violating protesters’ free-speech rights—but the agency is using it to try to get access to the plaintiffs’ encrypted communications.

Homeland Security told immigrants that leaving the US would wipe out fines it claims they owe. Now it wants private investigators to find them in their home countries and collect.

HubSpot has redesigned its Just-In-Time Access (JITA) authorization system using a rule engine architecture. The system evaluates access requests through independent rules organized as a directed acyclic graph, adding structured decision metadata, rule-level observability, and governance workflows to replace complex conditional authorization logic. By Leela Kumili

Databricks is expanding its Lakebridge toolkit by introducing an agentic code conversion feature designed to help organizations migrate from legacy data warehouses. This new capability uses Genie Code to rewrite complex SQL scripts, allowing customers to transition their workloads to the Databricks lakehouse environment with higher efficiency and less manual intervention. Advanced Automation for Complex Code Translation The core of this update is the agentic code converter, a system that utilizes AI subagents to manage the heavy lifting of migration projects. These agents perform a variety of tasks including deep analysis of source code and the parallel conversion of multiple files. They also validate translated SQL and can autonomously retry sections that fail during the initial pass. This iterative approach is a significant step forward from traditional methods that often require human developers to step in when software hits a wall. By allowing developers to set specific migration rules for unique enterprise SQL structures, the tool provides a level of customization that previous automated systems lacked. The Lakebridge suite already offers several transpilation engines, such as the pattern-based BladeBridge technology and the compiler-based Morpheus engine. However, the addition of agentic AI introduces a reasoning layer that these older technologies do not possess. This reasoning is vital for moving beyond simple syntax mapping and into the realm of complex logic. Traditional transpilers like Morpheus are excellent at handling standard syntax mapping. They easily manage date functions and basic join commands. Problems arise when these tools encounter control-flow reasoning, cursors, or dynamic SQL that is generated at runtime. These complex elements often differ significantly across platforms like Oracle or Teradata. Industry experts note that these difficult sections usually represent about 15 percent of a codebase but consume the vast majority of manual labor

Introduction Transitioning from GitLab’s centralized CI/CD pipeline structure to GitHub Actions presents a unique challenge for developers accustomed to GitLab’s modular approach. In GitLab, a central 'pipelines' repository acts as a single source of truth, referenced by individual projects via the include keyword. This mechanism eliminates duplication of CI/CD configurations, ensuring consistency and reducing maintenance overhead. However, GitHub Actions operates under a different paradigm, where workflows are typically defined within the .github/workflows directory of each repository. This disparity forces users to rethink how to achieve centralization without GitLab’s native include functionality. The core issue lies in GitHub’s scoping rules for reusable workflows. While GitHub supports uses to reference workflows from a central repository, these workflows must reside in a publicly accessible repository or the same repository. This constraint introduces versioning challenges , as changes to the central workflow can inadvertently break dependent projects if not managed carefully. For instance, updating a reusable workflow without tagging a stable version can lead to inconsistent behavior across projects, as GitHub defaults to using the latest commit. Another friction point is the lack of direct equivalence between GitLab’s include and GitHub’s uses . GitLab’s include allows for seamless integration of CI configurations, treating the included file as part of the local context. In contrast, GitHub’s uses references an external workflow, which operates in its own scope . This means inputs and outputs must be explicitly defined, increasing the complexity of migration. For example, a GitLab CI job that references a shared script might fail in GitHub Actions if the script relies on environment variables not passed through the uses interface. To address these challenges, developers must adopt a hybrid approach . Composite actions , which bundle multiple steps into a sin

The Great Migration: Moving Beyond the SPA If you have been building in the React ecosystem recently, you've likely started with Vite. It’s fast, the Developer Experience (DX) is unparalleled, and it just works. However, as projects scale, the requirements often evolve. You suddenly need better SEO, faster First Contentful Paint (FCP), or sophisticated server-side logic without managing a separate backend. This is usually when the conversation turns to Next.js. While the migration seems straightforward on paper—it's all just React, right?—the reality involves a fundamental shift in how you think about routing, data fetching, and the browser lifecycle. Here is everything I wish I knew before I made the jump from Vite to Next.js. 1. Routing: From Configuration to Convention In a Vite project, you probably used react-router-dom . You defined a <Routes> component, listed your paths, and mapped them to components. It was explicit and centralized. Next.js (specifically the App Router) uses file-system routing. Every folder in your app directory represents a route segment. The Shift in Thinking Vite: You decide where files live; the router links them. Next.js: The folder structure is the URL structure. You will spend your first few hours moving About.tsx to about/page.tsx . It feels tedious at first, but it eliminates a massive category of "broken link" bugs and makes code-splitting automatic. 2. The "use client" Directive This is perhaps the biggest stumbling block for Vite developers. In Vite, every component is a client component—it runs in the browser. In Next.js, components are Server Components by default. If you try to use useState , useEffect , or browser APIs like window or localStorage in a default Next.js component, your build will crash. You must add the 'use client' directive at the top of the file. Pro-Tip: Don't just add 'use client' to everything. The goal is to keep as much logic as possible on the server to reduce the JavaScript bundle sent to the client.

The Architectural Shift: Client-Side vs Server-Side For years, the standard for building modern React applications was the Single Page Application (SPA). Vite revolutionized this space by providing an incredibly fast developer experience (DX) and an optimized build process. However, as applications grow, many teams find themselves hitting the performance ceiling of client-side rendering. When we talk about migrating from a Vite-based SPA to Next.js, we aren't just changing build tools; we are moving from a model where the browser does all the work to a model where the server shares the load. In this article, we'll look at the benchmarks of a mid-sized e-commerce dashboard before and after migration. Understanding the Core Metrics To measure the impact truly, we focus on three Core Web Vitals: LCP (Largest Contentful Paint): How quickly the main content is visible. FID (First Input Delay): How responsive the page is to the first interaction. CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift): How stable the visual elements are during loading. Vite SPA Performance (The Baseline) In a Vite SPA, the initial HTML request returns a nearly empty <body> tag with a <script> bundle. The browser must: Download the HTML. Download the JavaScript bundle. Parse and execute the React code. Fetch data from an API. Finally, render the UI. Benchmark Results: LCP: 2.4s (on 4G connection) FID: 45ms TBT (Total Blocking Time): 320ms While the DX is lightning fast, the user experience suffers from the "white screen of death" during the initial bundle download. Next.js SSR/ISR Performance (The Post-Migration Result) Next.js changes this via Server-Side Rendering (SSR) or Incremental Static Regeneration (ISR). The server fetches data and pre-renders the HTML. The browser receives a fully formed UI immediately. Benchmark Results: LCP: 0.8s (on 4G connection) FID: 55ms TBT: 180ms There is a slight increase in FID because the browser's main thread is busy "hydrating" the static HTML into an interactive React app, b

A newly renewed, $25 million-per-year contract with a subsidiary of Thompson Reuters further expands the power of ICE under the Trump administration.

Luca Mezzalira shares proven learnings from guiding hundreds of teams through the migration from monolithic web applications to distributed frontend architectures. He explains the core architectural difference between components and micro-frontends, outlines a 6-step decision framework spanning client vs. server rendering, and discusses how to utilize edge compute for safe, iterative rollouts. By Luca Mezzalira

The Architecture Shift: SPA vs. Framework Internationalization (i18n) is one of those features that feels straightforward in a Single Page Application (SPA). You install react-i18next , wrap your app in a provider, and you're good to go. However, when you decide to migrate that Vite-based React app to Next.js for better SEO and performance, the strategy for i18n changes fundamentally. In a Vite SPA, i18n is typically client-side. In Next.js, i18n happens at the routing and server level. If you don't plan the migration carefully, you'll end up with hydration mismatches, flashing text, or broken search engine indexing. Here is how to navigate the transition. 1. Defining the Routing Strategy In Vite, your translations often live in the same bundle, and you swap them out using a state hook. Next.js, particularly with the App Router, prefers sub-path routing (e.g., /en/about or /es/about ). This is crucial for SEO because it allows search engines to crawl localized versions of your pages individually. Instead of relying on localStorage to remember a user's language, you should now rely on the URL. Most teams moving from Vite use a middleware approach to detect the user's preferred locale and redirect them to the correct sub-path. 2. Choosing the Right Library If you were using react-i18next in your Vite project, you have two main paths in Next.js: next-i18next (Pages Router): The traditional choice for the Pages Router. next-intl or i18next + i18next-resources-to-backend (App Router): These are modern solutions that leverage Server Components. When handling complex migrations involving many components, using a specialized tool like ViteToNext.AI can help automate the transformation of your Vite project structure into a Next.js-ready architecture, saving you hours of manual refactoring. 3. Handling Server Components vs. Client Components one of the biggest hurdles is that useTranslation() hooks from standard i18n libraries are "Client hooks." In the App Router, you'll wan

For a full quarter, our feature velocity significantly dropped after we re-implemented a Go service using Rust. The performance improvements actually happened. Why we did it in the first place We are a small startup. Each engineer is important, and each week is even more important. Our backend was built using Go, which was performing well. It was fast, reliable, and we could easily find resources to hire. However, we became infected with that fever. The phrase "Rewrite it in Rust" was being used in all kinds of situations, and it sounded very appealing with its promises of memory safety, no garbage collector pauses, and blazing speed. We told ourselves it was an investment in the future. What we actually bought was a quarter of silence. The numbers nobody warns you about I may not have the exact metrics we use internally, but I can direct you to an individual who shared accurate calculations transparently. In a retrospective from November 2025, engineering manager Noah Byteforge wrote that a Node.js-to-Rust backend rewrite "dropped API response times from 340ms to 28ms. That's 12.1x faster." And the other metric. A 65% decrease in sprint velocity. They didn't deliver a single story point for three weeks. The time it took to send out new features increased by 185%. The time it took for pull requests to be processed increased by 320%. Additionally, scores from the "I feel productive" survey dropped from 8.2 to 4.1. Most importantly, the kicker is what he says in his own words: "We'd won the technical battle and lost the war that actually mattered." He also admits that if he had been forthright about the 6-12 month per engineer ramp, "the business case would've fallen apart immediately." That retrospective was so relatable, it read like our own diary. The battles with the borrow checker and the compile times just snuck entire weeks away from us. The wins were real. That's the trap. I must give credit to Rust because the safety benefits are not exaggerated. The rewrite

The status of the controller As of March 2026, the Kubernetes SIG Network stopped maintaining ingress-nginx. That is the controller a lot of clusters have been running for years. A CNCF blog post published July 9 walks operators through the state of play. The headline for anyone still on it is short: unpatched CVEs, and no more feature work. The post names two operational risks explicitly. New security issues will not receive upstream fixes. Feature updates and community support have stopped. If your ingress plane is a piece of infrastructure you have not touched in a while, this is the reason to pull it up in this quarter's planning doc. What it means at 3am An ingress controller sits between the internet and your services. When it drops a request, you find out from your users. When it takes a CVE and no one is patching, you find out from a scanner or from a report. Neither is a good discovery path. The controller also carries the exact set of annotations, TLS defaults and rewrite rules your workloads rely on. Nothing about a retirement changes the version you have in production today, so the immediate blast radius is zero. The risk is on the calendar, not on the pager. That is the kind of risk teams reliably defer until a scanner flags an unpatched CVE. The two paths CNCF lays out The post frames the choice as a fork. Path A is a lateral swap to another Ingress controller. The example named is Contour, described in the post as Envoy-based. This keeps you on the Ingress API and mostly moves the problem of who is patching. Path B is modernization to the Gateway API, described in the post as the upstream-backed successor to Ingress. The CNCF post points at ingress2gateway to automate the translation, and recommends an incremental rollout: run the new plane in parallel and move non-critical workloads first. The stopgap version is a mix. Adopt Contour to buy time on maintained code, then schedule the Gateway API move on your own calendar rather than under duress. What

Introduction If you have been building applications using Vite, you are likely used to a specific workflow: write React components, bundle them with esbuild/Rollup, and serve a single HTML file that fetches a large JavaScript bundle. In this world, everything is a "Client Component." However, as the React ecosystem shifts toward the App Router and React Server Components (RSC), the architecture is fundamentally changing. For developers moving from a Vite-centric mindset to a Next.js framework, the biggest hurdle isn't the syntax—it's the mental model. In this guide, we will break down the core differences between Server and Client components and how to adapt your Vite-based habits to this new reality. The Vite World: Single-Page Application (SPA) Default In a standard Vite + React project, your entire application lifecycle happens in the browser. The browser requests the page. The server sends a nearly empty index.html . The browser downloads the JS bundle. React hydrates the app, fetches data from an API via useEffect , and renders the UI. While this is excellent for developer experience (DX) and highly interactive dashboards, it often leads to "Layout Shift" and slower "Time to Interactive" for content-heavy pages because the client has to do all the heavy lifting. The Shift: Thinking in "Environment Splits" With React Server Components, the paradigm shifts from "Everything happens on the client" to "Compute where it makes sense." 1. What are Server Components? By default, in the Next.js App Router, every component is a Server Component. These components execute only on the server . They never send their code to the client-side bundle. This allows you to: Access backend resources directly: You can query your database or file system inside the component. Keep secrets safe: API keys and sensitive logic stay on the server. Reduce bundle size: Large dependencies (like a markdown parser or date library) stay on the server and only the resulting HTML is sent to the user

DDL lock: vì sao một ALTER TABLE 50ms vẫn đủ làm sập cả API trong giờ cao điểm DDL trong Postgres không phải "vài lệnh schema chạy nhanh". Hầu hết các form của ALTER TABLE , toàn bộ DROP TABLE , TRUNCATE , REINDEX , CLUSTER , VACUUM FULL , và cả REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW (không có CONCURRENTLY ) đều yêu cầu ACCESS EXCLUSIVE — lock mode mạnh nhất, xung đột với mọi mode khác kể cả ACCESS SHARE mà một SELECT thuần đọc cũng cần. Một DDL chạy 50ms vẫn có thể chôn cả service vài phút vì hai thứ Postgres làm theo design: lock được giữ tới hết transaction (không nhả sớm), và lock queue là FIFO — bên đến sau dù mode tương thích vẫn phải đứng sau bên đang đợi. "Migration chạy lúc giờ cao điểm, toàn bộ API treo 5 phút" gần như luôn là class incident này. Cơ chế hoạt động Mỗi lệnh DDL acquire một relation-level lock trên các object nó chạm, theo bảng mode cố định trong Postgres docs mục Explicit Locking . Có ba nhóm cần thuộc: ACCESS EXCLUSIVE — xung đột với mọi mode. Cấp bởi: phần lớn ALTER TABLE (kể cả những form không rewrite data), DROP TABLE , TRUNCATE , REINDEX (non-concurrently), CLUSTER , VACUUM FULL , REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW (non-concurrently), LOCK TABLE không kèm mode. Đây là lock "đông cứng" object. SHARE — xung đột với mọi mode ghi ( ROW EXCLUSIVE , SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE , SHARE ROW EXCLUSIVE , EXCLUSIVE , ACCESS EXCLUSIVE ). Cấp bởi: CREATE INDEX (non-concurrently). Cho đọc đi qua, nhưng chặn mọi INSERT / UPDATE / DELETE — trên bảng OLTP nóng đó là downtime ghi. SHARE UPDATE EXCLUSIVE — xung đột với chính nó và các mode mạnh hơn, nhưng không xung đột với ROW EXCLUSIVE . Cấp bởi: CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY , REINDEX CONCURRENTLY , VACUUM (không FULL), ANALYZE , ALTER TABLE ... VALIDATE CONSTRAINT , ALTER TABLE ... SET STATISTICS , ALTER INDEX ... RENAME . Đây là mode "online maintenance": cho cả đọc lẫn ghi đi qua, chỉ tự khoá lẫn nhau. Quan trọng: lock giữ tới hết transaction , không có cách nhả sớm. BEGIN; ALTER TABLE ...; <30 phút làm việc khác>; COMMIT; giữ A

The Office of Professional Responsibility has opened more than 100 cases over what ICE officials call “incidents of doxing and threats” against ICE employees.