Graftcode lets React apps call TypeScript backends without writing API routes

·1 views

Graftcode is a developer tool that eliminates traditional API layers by exposing backend methods as installable packages that frontend applications can call directly like library functions. Instead of building REST endpoints, managing HTTP clients, and maintaining request-response models, developers simply install a generated package and invoke backend functions with full type safety. The article demonstrates this approach by walking through the construction of a simple task tracker using React and a TypeScript backend. Even basic to-do apps typically require multiple communication layers — routes, controllers, validation, and response handling — all of which Graftcode aims to remove. The tool includes a Gateway component for exposing backend capabilities and a Vision feature for discovering them, targeting developers who want to reduce integration overhead.

Read the full story at DEV Community

This is an AI-generated summary. ShortSingh links to the original source for the complete article.

Discussion (0)

Lumpcode Lets Developers Run AI Coding Campaigns Through Git PRs

Lumpcode is a command-line tool that manages long-running AI agent coding campaigns by treating Git as the sole source of truth, processing one pull request at a time. Each campaign, called a lump, is stored under a dedicated project directory and executed in isolated units tied to individual branches and PRs. The tool supports a dedicated-daemon setup where a secondary machine handles scheduling while the developer continues working on a primary laptop. When a lump is merged into the primary branch, the worker daemon automatically picks it up and processes it on its next scheduled tick, defaulting to every five minutes. The setup requires only Git, Node 22 or later, and a compatible AI coding agent CLI, with no additional services needed.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Byzantine Fault Testing Exposes Limits of Single-Authority Checkpoint Systems

A technical study examining distributed system security found that isolating a producer from an oracle's readable surface does not prevent a compromised authority from presenting conflicting checkpoint histories to different observers. Researchers tested a Byzantine witness model in which a tampered authority could show one job a signed checkpoint with a minimum version of 2 while showing another job a forked version still at version 1, with each view appearing locally valid. Experiments across six test cells demonstrated that per-view inclusion checks alone are insufficient to detect such equivocation, while cross-checkpoint consistency against a job-unwritable prior successfully rejected shrinking or swapped forks. However, the study also identified clear assumption boundaries: the consistency mechanism only catches named forks when the shared prior remains honest, unwritable, and is actually verified across jobs. Two isolated first-time jobs with no shared prior can still independently accept divergent histories, leaving the equivocation undetected.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

Why Infrastructure Security Audits Fail — and What Businesses Should Actually Check

Most organizations treat security audits as compliance formalities rather than genuine opportunities to identify vulnerabilities, resulting in little operational change. Experts argue that audits should begin with accurate, automated asset discovery, since documented inventories frequently diverge from actual running infrastructure. Access control reviews must verify real-time permissions — not just documented policies — including often-overlooked service accounts that can carry broad, unmonitored privileges. Internal network segmentation deserves as much scrutiny as perimeter defenses, since it determines how far an attacker can move once inside. Reframing audits as proactive threat-finding exercises, rather than box-ticking obligations, significantly improves their effectiveness.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community

ProgrammingDEV Community ·

How to Give AI Read-Only Database Access and Block Destructive Queries

Connecting AI assistants to production databases carries a serious risk: a misunderstood prompt or model hallucination could trigger DELETE, DROP, or UPDATE operations with real consequences. Developers are advised to enforce read-only access through multiple independent layers rather than relying on prompt-level instructions alone. The recommended approach starts with creating a database role granted only SELECT privileges, so the engine itself rejects any write attempt regardless of what SQL the model generates. Additional layers include routing queries through read replicas and using a query parser or allowlist to block non-SELECT statements before they reach the database. Together, these structural safeguards ensure that no amount of clever or malformed AI output can bypass the restrictions protecting live data.

0 comments Read more at DEV Community