Add explicit server state and server actions

[mickmister]

No description provided.

[claude]

Claude finished @mickmister's task —— View job

---

PR Review: Add explicit server state and server actions

Reviewing the PR for code quality, potential issues, performance, security, and test coverage.

Todo List:

• Read repository guidelines (CLAUDE.md)
• Analyze core API changes in module_api.ts
• Review shared state service changes
• Examine new test applications
• Check for breaking changes across modules
• Assess security implications of state management
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Review test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

Review Summary

This PR introduces explicit server-side state and action APIs to the Springboard framework. The implementation adds new createServerState, createServerStates, createServerAction, and createServerActions methods that are designed to keep sensitive server-only data secure while maintaining a clean API.

Positive Aspects ✅

1. Security Design

• Server state isolation: Server states (ServerStateSupervisor) never sync to clients via RPC, ensuring sensitive data stays on the server
• Build-time stripping: The esbuild plugin correctly removes server states and action bodies from browser builds
• Backwards compatibility: Regular createAction and createState APIs remain unchanged

2. API Design

• Consistent patterns: New APIs follow existing conventions (createServerStates mirrors createStates)
• Type safety: Strong TypeScript typing throughout with proper generics
• Clear separation: Explicit distinction between client-synced and server-only state

3. Test Coverage

• Comprehensive testing: Good test coverage including edge cases and compilation verification
• Real-world examples: Test apps demonstrate practical usage patterns
• Build verification: Tests confirm code stripping works correctly in different build targets

Issues & Recommendations 🔍

1. Code Quality Issues

Minor Type Safety Issue (module_api.ts:120, 140, 160, 390):

(result[key] as StateSupervisor<States[keyof States]>) = supervisors.find(s => s.key === key as any)!.state;

The ! assertion assumes find() will always succeed, but if supervisors is missing a key, this will throw at runtime.

Recommendation:

const supervisor = supervisors.find(s => s.key === key);
if (!supervisor) {
  throw new Error(`Failed to create state supervisor for key: ${key}`);
}
result[key] = supervisor.state;

Dead Code (shared_state_service.ts:64-87):
Large commented block should be removed if it's truly unused, as indicated by the TODO comment.

2. Performance Considerations

Potential Memory Leaks (shared_state_service.ts:211-246):
ServerStateSupervisor creates RxJS subjects but doesn't provide explicit cleanup methods. While the API has onDestroy, it's unclear if all subscriptions are properly cleaned up.

Async State Creation Overhead:
Each createServerState call is async and loads from storage. For modules creating many states, this could impact startup time.

3. Security Concerns

Variable Reference Exposure (esbuild_plugin_platform_inject.test.ts:120):
The test shows that variable function declarations (like myHandler) remain in browser builds as "dead code." While not executable, this could potentially expose server logic patterns.

Recommendation: Consider more aggressive dead code elimination for server action variables.

4. Missing Features

No Bulk Operations: Unlike shared states, server states lack efficient bulk update operations.

Limited Error Handling: Server state operations don't have specialized error handling for server-only scenarios.

Minor Issues 🔧

1. Typo in PR Title: "expllicit" should be "explicit"
2. Type Annotation Inconsistency: Some places use explicit typing while others rely on inference
3. Missing JSDoc: ServerStateSupervisor could benefit from more detailed documentation

Breaking Changes Assessment 📋

No breaking changes detected. The PR adds new APIs while maintaining full backwards compatibility:

• All existing createState, createStates, createAction, createActions continue working
• Existing modules in jamtools package show only minor import/typing updates
• Build processes remain compatible

Performance Impact 📊

Minimal performance impact:

• Server states add negligible overhead (similar to shared states but without RPC)
• Build-time stripping may slightly increase compile time but improves runtime security
• Storage operations are already async, so no blocking concerns

Test Coverage Assessment 🧪

Excellent test coverage:

• ✅ Core functionality tested in new test apps
• ✅ Build-time transformation verified
• ✅ Browser/server build differences confirmed
• ✅ Edge cases covered (various function patterns, bulk operations)

Final Recommendation 🎯

Approve with minor fixes. This is a well-designed feature that adds important security capabilities to the framework. The implementation is solid, tests are comprehensive, and the API design is clean.

Priority fixes before merge:

1. Fix the ! assertion issue in state creation methods
2. Remove commented dead code in shared_state_service.ts

Nice-to-have improvements:

1. Add more aggressive dead code elimination for server action variables
2. Consider adding bulk update operations for server states
3. Fix typo in PR title

The security benefits and clean API design make this a valuable addition to the framework.

---

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying jamtools-docs-new with    Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	525ba18
Status:	✅  Deploy successful!
Preview URL:	https://8577568a.jamtools-docs-new.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL:	https://server-state.jamtools-docs-new.pages.dev

View logs