Discofork
Repository brief

typicode/json-server

Read the upstream summary on the left, browse the cached forks below it, and load each fork comparison into the right-hand panel.

Cached analysis
cached 2026-03-30T12:50:35.662Z
3mo ago

typicode/json-server

typicode/json-server is a heavily used Node/TypeScript project for spinning up a fake REST API from a JSON or JSON5 file with minimal setup. The upstream is active, unarchived, and currently on the v1 beta line, with recent commits in March 2026 and a README warning that v1 docs may still change.

GitHub
Loading tags...
Stars75,670
Forks7,275
Default branchmain
Last pushed2026-03-23T19:40:00Z
Recommended shortcuts

Jump straight into Discofork's strongest cached fork picks, or open a compare view in one click.

Forks

Choose a fork to inspect

10 of 10 fork briefs
Selected

Prefer upstream for almost all use cases. Choose this fork only if you explicitly need an old, frozen snapshot and do not want current json-server behavior or fixes.

Choose upstream unless you specifically need this fork’s legacy/custom behavior. This fork looks like a frozen, significantly diverged variant, so it is best treated as a compatibility holdover rather than a forward-moving base.

Prefer upstream unless you explicitly need this older snapshot; this fork adds no visible capabilities and is materially behind active json-server development.

Prefer upstream unless you explicitly need this exact old snapshot. This fork shows no added functionality, is far behind current upstream, and appears stale enough that adopters should expect missing fixes and ongoing maintenance risk.

Prefer upstream for almost everyone. This fork is only attractive if you specifically want an old, frozen baseline and are willing to own maintenance.

Choose upstream unless you specifically need an old frozen copy. This fork adds no visible product value and is too stale for most adopters.

Prefer upstream unless you specifically need this fork’s older, customized behavior and are prepared to own maintenance. This fork looks materially outdated and diverged, so it is only a good choice for legacy compatibility or a very narrow workflow match.

Prefer this fork only if you specifically need its legacy behavior or custom routing. For most adopters, upstream is the better choice because it is active, much newer, and includes recent correctness fixes and modern tooling.

Prefer upstream unless you are locked to this fork's legacy behavior. This fork looks useful only for maintaining an old integration; for new work, upstream is much safer and more capable.

Prefer upstream unless you specifically need this fork's older routing/CLI behavior or are locked into it; the fork looks materially behind and operationally risky for new adoption.