Refactor MongoDB connection to use async/await

[rupcode1794]

Title

Refactor MongoDB connection to use async/await

Description

This PR refactors the MongoDB connection in server.js to use async/await for cleaner asynchronous handling. The change improves error handling and aligns with recommended best practices.

Changes Made

• Converted mongoose.connect(MONGODB_URI) to an async function with try/catch
• Removed the previous .then().catch() approach
• No changes were made to other routes or logic

Testing

• ✅ Server runs successfully on http://localhost:3000
• ✅ MongoDB connection established successfully (🟢 MongoDB connected successfully)
• ✅ Landing page loads correctly
• ✅ /api/streams endpoint returns expected JSON data

Screenshots / Logs / Pastebin

• Terminal log: Pastebin link (expires in 7 days)
• Landing page screenshot:
  
• /api/streams endpoint response screenshot:
  

Code Changes

// Before
mongoose.connect(MONGODB_URI)
    .then(() => console.log('🟢 MongoDB connected successfully.'))
    .catch(err => console.error('🔴 MongoDB connection error:', err));

// After
try {
    await mongoose.connect(MONGODB_URI);
    console.log('🟢 MongoDB connected successfully.');
} catch (err) {
    console.error('🔴 MongoDB connection error:', err);
}

[gbowne1]

@rupcode1794

I checked out this change locally for testing and review for merge

I started the server and it appears to work properly now with an async await

It also now works as expected per the issue and the PR descriptions.

Approving this PR for merge pending further review by collaborators and other maintainers.

Thanks for the opportunity to review your PR and for your contribution to this project.

Please feel free to work on this projects other issues and or any of the other issues in my other projects in my GitHub https://github.com/gbowne1/ especially since you do MERN https://github.com/gbowne1/reactsocialnetwork https://github.com/gbowne1/codebooker https://github.com/gbowne1/SavvyBudget https://github.com/gbowne1/fashion-marketplace/ and theres a few others

Thanks

[gbowne1]

@rupcode1794

I already reviewed and approved this PR. Am now waiting on other collaborators to review this PR for some measure of safety while we wait for unit tests and ci to be built for this

I'll merge this after at least one or two other collaborators and maintainers approved this PR.

Feel free to checkout rebase and review other PRs for approval

Thanks

[gbowne1]

This has already been reviewed by myself and accepted for merge now awaiting further review by other collaborators and maintainers and contributors to this project

Will merge this after it's been reviewed and accepted by a minimum of one or two others

This looks great.

Approving this PR for merge pending further review

[shishir-21]

@gbowne1

One small suggestion (optional)

• If the project grows, the DB connection logic could be moved into a separate utility/module for better structure and reuse.

[shishir-21]

@rupcode1794

Thanks for the PR

This PR resolves Issue #47 by switching the MongoDB connection to async/await.
The code is cleaner and easier to read, with no functional changes.

Overall, this PR looks good to me and is ready to merge 🚀

[gbowne1]

Well, now this has minor conflicts. Should be okay. Rebase then apply? Or..

[rupcode1794]

@gbowne1 Noted! I'll resolve the conflicts and update the PR. Need some time to rebase and test. Will update soon. ✅

[gbowne1]

@rupcode1794

Several incoming merges so be sure your PR will merge after each

[gbowne1]

@glenjaysondmello @Ved178 could you please review this.

I'll merge. I am inclined to keep both changes for all of the server js merge conflicts it has now using the merge conflict resolve button her on GitHub.

[glenjaysondmello]

✅ Reviewed and tested locally.

The async/await MongoDB connection works correctly and error handling behaves as expected. No functional regressions observed.

Looks good to merge. 👍

[gbowne1]

@glenjaysondmello

This has merge conflict's with server.js it might cause issues with #87

I want to merge 87 ahead of this then just accept both changes in the merge conflict UI on here (tad easier than doing the workaround)

Thoughts?

[gbowne1]

Merging this as is after successful approval of reviews post merge of #87