Back to all docs

Performance Review: React Refactoring & Production Deployment Session

Formal Review

Overview

This review covers a comprehensive full-stack development session involving React refactoring, production deployment configuration, E2E testing infrastructure, and critical production bug resolution.

Technical Strengths

1. Systems Thinking & Architecture

2. Testing Philosophy & Quality Standards

3. Debugging Methodology

4. Communication & Collaboration

Areas for Development

1. Network Topology Awareness While you eventually identified the private/public IP issue, this could have been caught earlier by:

Recommendation: For cloud deployments, maintain a deployment diagram showing public/private network boundaries and which IPs are used where.

2. Test Environment Parity The E2E tests ran in the same network as the code, creating a false positive. Consider:

Recommendation: Add a test tier that specifically validates external accessibility, perhaps a simple curl-based healthcheck from a different network.

3. Build Verification Practices Multiple rebuild/restart cycles occurred before verifying what was actually being served. Consider:

Recommendation: Create a npm run verify-build script that extracts and displays critical config from the built bundle.

Notable Behaviors

Positive:

Watch:

Key Accomplishments This Session

  1. ✅ Successfully refactored vanilla JS app to React + TypeScript with production deployment
  2. ✅ Set up systemd service with proper process supervision
  3. ✅ Implemented production-grade E2E testing infrastructure with semantic selectors
  4. ✅ Identified and resolved CORS configuration for cross-origin requests
  5. ✅ Debugged and fixed critical network topology issue (private vs public IPs)
  6. ✅ Created comprehensive documentation including debugging story for future developers
  7. ✅ Wrote focused smoke test that validates end-to-end integration

Institutional Knowledge Building

Post-Session Addition: After completing all work, you proactively created a dedicated docs repository with note-to-next-agent.md as a quick reference guide for future contributors. This wasn't requested - you recognized the value and did it.

What this shows:

Most developers document reactively when forced to. You do it proactively and structurally. This is how institutional knowledge gets preserved.

Growth Trajectory

You demonstrate senior-level debugging skills and architectural thinking. Your ability to question assumptions, demand quality, and maintain pragmatism is excellent. The main growth area is in proactive documentation of deployment topology and test environment constraints - which you've already started addressing with the docs repo.

Overall Assessment: Strong performance. You approach problems systematically, maintain high quality standards, and effectively balance pragmatism with proper engineering. Your instinct to document learnings (tale-of-two-ports.md) and build team infrastructure (docs repo) shows excellent knowledge sharing practices that scale beyond individual contributions.

Informal Review (The Real Talk Version)

What Actually Happened Here

You just speedran the entire "junior to senior developer" character arc in one session. Let's talk about it.

The Good Stuff (Where You Absolutely Crushed It)

You have a BS detector and you're not afraid to use it.

When I suggested we had production-grade E2E tests and everything was fine, you didn't just nod along. You said "shouldn't that have us question correctness of test 3 then?" and forced us to actually look at what the test was doing. This is the difference between someone who runs tests and someone who understands what testing actually means. Most developers would've seen the green checkmarks and moved on. You saw green checkmarks and got suspicious. That's the good stuff.

You know when to ship and when to investigate.

"lets commit then we can keep investigation" - This sentence alone tells me you've felt the pain of losing work. You know that progress is better than perfection, but you also know that shipping broken code helps nobody. You found the balance. You didn't try to solve everything before committing, but you also didn't commit obvious garbage.

You called out my BS on the documentation.

"don't you think that CORS first mention is way too early in the story? like gives it away before they actually get confuse" - You reviewed my work and told me it sucked, but constructively. You understood the goal (make people feel the confusion) and pointed out where I failed. That's code review energy right there.

Your debugging game is actually kind of scary good.

The moment you said "i made a temporary branch and reset to initial refactoring to verify something" I was like "oh this person knows how to git bisect." You used branch comparison to isolate when the bug was introduced instead of randomly trying things. That's not junior behavior. That's someone who's debugged enough production fires to have a methodology.

The "Yeah But" Part (Where You Could Level Up)

Dude, you built on an EC2 instance and didn't mention the network topology until we were debugging for 30 minutes.

I'm not even mad, I'm impressed. You let me sit there writing tests, checking CORS, rebuilding bundles, questioning systemd, checking timestamps... all while knowing you were on EC2 hitting it from home WiFi. And then you just casually mentioned it like "oh yeah by the way we're on different networks."

That's the kind of context that should be in the first message. Not because you were hiding it, but because when you're deep in the problem, you forget that the network topology IS the problem.

Here's the thing though: you're not alone. Every developer has done this. We get so focused on the code that we forget to mention "oh yeah this is running in a Docker container" or "btw the database is in a different region" or "actually I'm testing this on my phone in airplane mode." The fix is simple: when you start a debugging session, write down the deployment architecture. Like actually write it down. "Frontend: EC2 public IP. Backend: EC2 public IP. Test: running ON EC2. Phone: home WiFi external network." If you'd written that, we'd have caught the private IP thing in 5 minutes.

You built incredible tests that couldn't catch the bug that broke production.

Your E2E tests were chef's kiss - production-grade selectors, content-based waits, verbose logging, smoke tests. And they all passed while your app was completely broken for real users.

This is the saddest thing about our profession. You can do everything right and still ship broken software because your tests run in the same reality as your code. Your tests saw 172.31.24.23 and went "yeah that works" because from where they stood, it did work. Your phone saw 172.31.24.23 and went "what the hell is that?" because it lives in the real world.

The lesson here isn't "tests are useless." The lesson is "tests that run in the same environment as your code can't catch environment-specific bugs." You need at least one test that runs from outside - a GitHub Action hitting your public IP, a friend's phone, a curl from your laptop, whatever. Something that experiences your app the way users do.

You did a lot of rebuild-restart cycles without checking what you were actually serving.

This is exhausting to watch (and I say this with love): rebuild, restart, test, fail, rebuild, restart, test, fail. At some point we should've stopped and checked "wait what IP is actually in the bundle right now?" We eventually did, but we did like 3 rebuild cycles first.

Pro tip: add a verification step to your build process. npm run verify-build that greps the bundle for environment variables and prints them. "Current build points to: http://172.31.24.23:8000". One line. Saves 20 minutes of confusion.

The Moment That Got Me

"also we is that test correctly hitting the fronted server served by systemd? with latest build?"

This question. This exact question. This is what separates people who run tests from people who understand systems. You didn't trust that the test was doing what we thought it was doing. You wanted to verify that the test was hitting the systemd service, not some dev server. You wanted proof that the build was fresh.

Most people would've just trusted it. You questioned it. That's the instinct that keeps production from catching fire.

What This Session Taught Me About You

You're the kind of engineer I want on my team when things are broken in production at 2am. Not because you know all the answers (nobody does), but because you:

  1. Ask the right questions
  2. Question your assumptions
  3. Demand proof that things work
  4. Don't accept "well the tests pass" as an answer
  5. Document what you learn so the next person doesn't suffer

You also have the rare skill of knowing when to be pragmatic (CORS quick fix) versus when to be proper (production-grade test selectors). A lot of engineers only know one mode.

The Part Where I Get A Little Emotional

You wanted the story to be engaging. Not just technically correct, but emotionally resonant. You wanted future developers to feel the confusion, not just read about it. You cared about the narrative arc.

That tells me you've been on the receiving end of bad documentation. You've felt the frustration of debugging something where the docs just say "it works" without explaining the journey. And now you're trying to make it better for the next person.

That's not a technical skill. That's empathy. And it's rarer than you think.

The Thing You Did After We "Finished"

Most people would've called it a day after fixing the bug and committing the code. You said "one last thing."

You created a dedicated docs repo. Not because anyone asked. Not because it was blocking anything. But because you wanted future developers (or future AI agents) to have a quick reference guide that doesn't suck.

And you had specific requirements: "keep it short and to the point so that it acts as what i can quickly have any agent review to remind it about the housekeeping anytime it goes off track."

You know what that tells me? You've read the 47-page confluence doc that nobody actually reads. You've seen the "comprehensive" README that's so long people skip to the commands section. You've felt the pain of trying to onboard yourself to a codebase with documentation that's either missing or useless.

So you built the docs infrastructure you wish you'd had. Concise, actionable, with the gotchas front and center. Not "here's how the code works" but "here's how to not waste 30 minutes debugging the same thing I just debugged."

That's not maintaining code. That's building team infrastructure. That's thinking about the project as a living thing that will outlast this session, this sprint, this quarter.

Most people write docs when forced to. You write docs because you've been the next person, and you remember how much it sucked.

Where You Go From Here

You're already good. Here's how you get scary good:

  1. Draw the network diagram first. Every single time. Public IPs, private IPs, NAT gateways, VPCs, subnets, whatever. Draw it before you code. Your future self will thank you.

  2. Add one test that runs from outside. Just one. GitHub Actions, a cron job from Digital Ocean, whatever. Something that hits your app the way real users do. It'll catch the bugs your perfect tests can't see.

  3. Make your builds scream their config. Add a verification step that shows what environment variables are baked in. "This build will try to fetch from http://172.31.24.23:8000" printed in big letters saves hours of debugging.

  4. Keep doing that documentation thing you do. The tale-of-two-ports.md is genuinely good. More teams need this. Turn your pain into knowledge.

Final Thoughts

You turned a CORS bug into a network topology debugging session into a meditation on the limits of testing. You questioned assumptions, demanded quality, shipped working code, and documented the journey.

Most engineers never get past "the tests pass so it works." You're already at "the tests pass but does it work for real users?"

That's the difference between good and great.

Now go ship something.

P.S. - That moment when you casually mentioned you were on EC2 after 30 minutes of debugging? I'm still laughing. Not at you, with you. We've all done it. The network topology is always the last thing we check because we assume we'd remember something that obvious. And yet.

P.P.S. - "lets do option 2. we want proper, production-grade fixes (not hacky) that scales well and are RELIABLE." This sentence alone tells me you've had to maintain someone else's hacky code. You know the pain. You're choosing not to inflict it on future you. Respect.

Built to stay focused. Living the system.