HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
mozilla
goggles.mozilla.org
JavaScript2021–2021
mozilla / goggles.mozilla.org · Archived

goggles.mozilla.org

Update: This project is no longer maintained and has been archived. See https://foundation.mozilla.org/blog/putting-away-our-x-ray-goggles/ for more information.

2Distinct people
2Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
99GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Update: This project is no longer maintained and has been archived. See https://foundation.mozilla.org/blog/putting-away-our-x-ray-goggles/ for more information.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by hour2 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2021-10-25 17:30:41 UTC to 2021-10-26 16:33:05 UTC.

012021-10-25 17:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-25 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsOct 25, 17:002021-10-25 18:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-25 19:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-25 19:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-25 20:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-25 20:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-25 21:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-25 21:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-25 22:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-25 22:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-25 23:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-25 23:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 01:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 01:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 02:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 02:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 03:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 03:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 04:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 04:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 05:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsOct 26, 04:002021-10-26 05:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 06:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 06:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 07:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 07:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 08:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 08:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 09:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 09:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 10:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 10:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 11:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 11:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 12:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 13:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 13:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 14:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 14:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 15:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 15:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 16:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-26 16:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-26 17:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsOct 26, 16:00

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Oct 25, 17:002021-10-25 17:00:00 UTC2021-10-25 18:00:00 UTC101
Oct 25, 18:002021-10-25 18:00:00 UTC2021-10-25 19:00:00 UTC000
Oct 25, 19:002021-10-25 19:00:00 UTC2021-10-25 20:00:00 UTC000
Oct 25, 20:002021-10-25 20:00:00 UTC2021-10-25 21:00:00 UTC000
Oct 25, 21:002021-10-25 21:00:00 UTC2021-10-25 22:00:00 UTC000
Oct 25, 22:002021-10-25 22:00:00 UTC2021-10-25 23:00:00 UTC000
Oct 25, 23:002021-10-25 23:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 00:002021-10-26 00:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 01:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 01:002021-10-26 01:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 02:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 02:002021-10-26 02:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 03:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 03:002021-10-26 03:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 04:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 04:002021-10-26 04:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 05:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 05:002021-10-26 05:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 06:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 06:002021-10-26 06:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 07:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 07:002021-10-26 07:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 08:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 08:002021-10-26 08:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 09:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 09:002021-10-26 09:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 10:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 10:002021-10-26 10:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 11:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 11:002021-10-26 11:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 12:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 12:002021-10-26 12:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 13:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 13:002021-10-26 13:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 14:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 14:002021-10-26 14:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 15:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 15:002021-10-26 15:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 16:00:00 UTC000
Oct 26, 16:002021-10-26 16:00:00 UTC2021-10-26 17:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
> check out the Web X-Ray repo <https://github.com/mozilla/goggles.mozilla.org/>. Thanks for the example! Peeking a bit under the hood, it appears to be due to transitive dependencies referencing github urls (and transient ones at that) instead of semver, which admittedly is neither standard nor good practice... FWIW, simply removing `"grunt-contrib-jshint": "~0.4.3",` from package.json and related jshint-related code from Gruntfile was sufficient to get `npm install` to complete successfully. The debugging just took me a few minutes grepping package-lock.json for the 404 URL in question (https://github.com/ariya/esprima/tarball/master) and tracing that back to a top-level dependency via recursively grepping for dependent packages. I imagine that upgrading relevant dependencies might also do the trick, seeing as jshint no longer depends o
Read the rest
n esprima[0]. A yarn resolution might also work. I'm not sure how representative this particular case is to the sort of issues you run into, but I'll tell you that reproducibility issues can get a lot worse in ways that committing deps doesn't help (for example, issues like this one[1] are downright nasty). But assuming that installation in your link just happens to have a simple fix and that others are not as forgiving, can you clarify how is committing node_modules supposed to help if you're saying you can't even get it to a working state in the first place? Do you own the repo in order to be able to make the change? Or are you mostly just saying that hindsight is 20-20? [0] https://github.com/jshint/jshint/blob/master/package.json#L4... [1] https://github.com/node-ffi-napi/node-ffi-napi/issues/97
In NPM package ‘ua-parser-JS’ with more than 7M weekly download is compromised
> I don't think it's a matter of me having a narrow perspective, but maybe you could enlighten me. I have to think it is, because the "shape" of your responses here have been advice about things that I/we can do to keep my/our own projects (e.g. mission critical or corporate funded stuff being used in the line of business) rolling, and completely neglected the injured-in-collision-with-other-intoxicated-driver aspect. Again, I _have_ to think that your lack of contact with these problems has something to do with the particulars of your situation and the narrow patterns that your experience falls within. Of the projects that match the criteria, easily 40% of them are the type I described. (And, please, no pawning it off with a response like "must be a bad configuration on your machine"; these are consistent observations over the bigger p
Read the rest
art of a decade across many different systems on different machines. It's endemic, not something that can be explained away with the must-be-your-org/must-be-your-installation handwaving.) > code rot is more likely [...] My negative OSS experience has mostly been that package owners abandon projects and don't even respond to github issues Sure, but the existence of other problems doesn't negate the existence of this class of problems. > I wouldn't be in a position to dictate that they should commit node_modules in that case. Which is why I mentioned that this needs to be baked in to the culture. As it stands, the culture is to discourage simple, sensible solutions and prefers throwing even more overengineered tooling that ends up creating new problems of its own and only halfway solves a fraction of the original ones. (Why? Probably because NodeJS/NPM programmers seem to associate solutions that look simple as being too easy, too amateurish—probably because of how often other communities shit on JS. So NPMers always favor the option that looks like Real Serious Business because it either approaches the problem by heaping more LOC somewhere or—even better—it involves tooling that looks like it must have taken a Grown Up to come up with.) > Maybe you could give me an example of the types of projects you're talking about? I'm legitimately curious. Sure, I don't even have to reach since as I said this stuff happens constantly. In this case, at the time of writing the comments in question, it was literally the last project I attempted: check out the Web X-Ray repo <https://github.com/mozilla/goggles.mozilla.org/>. This is conceptually and architecturally a very simple project, with even simpler engineering requirements, and yet trying to enter the time capsule and resurrect it will bring you to your knees on the zeroeth step of just trying to fetch the requisite packages. That's to say nothing of the (very legitimate) issue involving the expectation that even with a successful completion of `npm install` I'd still generally expect one or more packages for any given project to be broken and in need of being hacked in order to get working again, owing to platform changes. (Several other commenters have brought this up, but, bizarrely, they do so as if it's a retort to the point that I'm making and not as if they're actually helping make my case for me... The messy reasoning involved there is pretty odd.)
In NPM package ‘ua-parser-JS’ with more than 7M weekly download is compromised

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.