Update Map of Pi Repo with Changes Introduced on PCT-managed repo

[tate1650]

No description provided.

[tate1650]

@swoocn Feel free to review, raise concerns, and/or approve/merge when you can.

[swoocn]

Overall, your changes LGTM, @tate1650! 👍
As long as the app is stable and works for you in the containerized environment, I'm good with it too. That said, it would be helpful if we could run the container ourselves in a local environment to validate your changes. Perhaps we could also consider building a CI/CD setup to automate the workflow, similar to what we have in our Map of Pi repos..?

In the meantime, please address the minor PR comments when you have a chance, and I'll be happy to give you my full approval.
Thanks for all your hard work!

[tate1650]

Hey Danny,

Went ahead and introduced the changes you suggested (minus the FE logger rewrites, mostly because I'm short on time). Lemme know what you think.

Re: the CI/CD workflow for a local environment, that probably could be done, but feels a little like overkill to me. Ultimately you'd just need the containers running and communicating with each other on a local machine, so I think all that would really need to be done is set up the app to plug into a sandbox SDK environment (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is already done), and then expose ports via the docker-compose file so that when you're running the containers all together, they can 1. communicate with each other and 2. easily be reached from the host machine (i.e. the one connecting to sandbox.minepi.com).

If you felt so inclined, I don't think you'd even need the reverse-proxy service to accomplish this. This is basically what I'm doing locally (mostly because I was having issues getting the reverse-proxy service to work at the beginning of working on this project and was looking for a method I was more familiar with in the interest of time). If this isn't very clear, or you need my help getting this setup, just lemme know.

[swoocn]

LGTM @tate1650!
May potentially run into merge conflicts w/ #14, in which case we will need to address. For this reason, and just in case, I would be more comfortable if we merge this PR last.

[tate1650]

Alright, works for me!

[tate1650]

Looks like we're conflict-free! Merging this one too now.