Adam Keys is Thinking

To some, Rails is getting big. It brings a lot of functionality to the table. This makes apps easier to get off the ground, especially if you aren’t an expert. But, as apps grow, it can lead to the pain; there’s so much machinery in Rails, it’s likely you’re abusing something. It’s easy to look at other, smaller tools and think there’s green grass over there.

Rails 4 might have answers to this temptation.

On the controller side of things, it seems likely that some form of Strobe’s Rails extensions will find their way into Rails, making it easier to create apps (or sub-apps) that are focused on providing an API and eschew the parts of ActionPack that aren’t necessary for services. The thing I like a lot about this idea is it covers a gap between Sinatra and Rails. You can prototype your app with all the conveniences of Rails and then strip out the parts you don’t need as you grow the app and strip it down to provide quick services. You could certainly still rewrite services in Sinatra, Grape, or Goliath, but it’s nice to have an option.

On the model side of things, people are, well, modeling. Simpler ways to use use ActiveModel with ActionPack in Rails will appear in Rails 4. The components the DataMapper team is working on, in the form of Virtus seem really interesting too. If you want to get started now, you can check out ActiveAttr right now, sort of the bonus track version of ActiveModel. Chris Griego’s put a lot of solid thought into this; you definitely want to check out his slides on models everywhere; they’re lurking in your controllers, your requests, your responses, your API clients, everywhere.

In short, my best guess on Rails 4, right now, is that it will continue to give developers a curated set of choices and frameworks to get their application off the ground. It will add options to grow your application’s codebase sensably once it’s proven out.

What I know, for sure, is that the notion of Rails 4 seems really strange to me. How fast time flies. Uphill, both ways.

Every program, library, framework, and application needs documentation of some sort; this much is uncontroversial. How much documentation, what kinds of documentation, and where to put that documentation are the questions that often elicit endless prognostication.

When it comes to documentation aimed at developers, there’s a spectrum. On one end, there’s zero documentation, only code. On the other end of the spectrum, are literate programs; the code is intertwined with the documentation and the language is equally geared towards marking up a document and translating ideas into machine executable code.

Somewhere along this spectrum exists a happy ideal for most programmers. Inline API docs ala JavaDoc, RDoc, and YARD have been popular for a while. Lately, tools like docco and rocco have raised enthusiasm for “semi-literate programming”. There’s also a lot of potential in projects exhaustively documenting themselves in their Cucumber features as vcr does.

All of these tools couple code with documentation, per the notion that putting them right next to each other makes it more likely documentation gets updated in sync with the code. The downside to this approach is that code gets ‘noised up’ with comments. Often this is a fair trade, but it occasionally makes navigating a file cumbersome.

It happens that Unix, in its age-old sage ways, has been storing its docs out-of-line with the relevant code for years. They’re called manpages, and they mostly don’t suck. Every C API on a modern Unix has a corresponding manpage that describes the relevant functions and structures, how to use it, and any bugs that may exist. They’re actually a pretty good source of info.

Scene change.

It so happens that Ryan Tomayko is a Unix afficionado and wrote a tool that is even better for writing manpages than the original Unix tooling. It’s called ronn, and it’s pretty rad; you write Markdown, and you get bonafide UNIX manpages plus manpage-styled HTML.

Perhaps this is a useful way to write programmer-focused docs. Keep docs out of the code, put it in manpages instead, push it to GitHub pages. Code stays focused, docs still look great.

I took John Nunemaker’s scam gem and put this idea to the test. Here’s what the manpage looks like, with the default styling provided by ronn:

Here’s the raw ronn document:

No Ruby files were harmed in the making of this documentation.

It took me about ninety minutes to put this together. Probably 33-50% of that time was simply tinkering with ronn and making sure I was writing in the style that is typical of manpages. So we’re talking about forty-five minutes to document a mixin with seven methods. For pretty good looking output and simple tooling, that’s a very modest investment.

The potential drawbacks are the same as any kind of documentation; it could fall out-of-sync with the production code. Really, I think this is more of a workflow issue. Ideally, every commit or merged branch is reviewed to make sure that relevant docs are updated. As a baseline, the release workflow for a project should include a step to make sure docs are up-to-date.

In short, I have one datapoint that tells me that ronn is a pretty great way to generate programmer-oriented documentation. I’ll keep tinkering with it and encourage other developers to do the same.

A few nights ago, I added Xavier Shay’s cane to Sifter. It was super simple, and cane runs surprisingly fast. Cane is designed to run as part of CI, but Sifter doesn’t really an actual CI box. Instead, I’ve added it to our preflight script that tells us whether deploying is a good idea or not, based on our spec suite. Now that preflight can tell us if we’ve regressed on code complexity or style as well. I’m pretty pumped about this setup.

Next step: add glib comments on failure. I’m thinking of something like “Yo, imma let you finish but the code you’re about to deploy is not that great.”

In response to Why metaprogram when you can program?, an astute reader asked for an example of when you would want to use Class.new in Ruby. It’s a rarely needed method, but really fun when faced with a tasteful application. Herein, a couple ways I’ve used it and an example from the wild.

Dead-simple doubles

In my opinion, the most “wholly legitimate” frequent application of Class.new is in test code. It’s a great tool for creating test doubles, fakes, stubs, and mocks without the weight of pulling in a framework. To wit:

TinyFake = Class.new do

  def slow_operation
    "SO FAST"
  end

  def critical_operation
    @critical = true
  end

  def critical_called?
    @critical
  end

end

tiny_fake = TinyFake.new
tiny_fake.slow_operation
tiny_fake.critical_operation
tiny_fake.critical_called? == true

TinyFake functions as a fake and as a mock. We can call a dummy implementation of slow_operation without worrying about the snappiness of our suite. We can verify that a method was called in the verification section of our test method. Normally you would only do one of these things at a time, but this shows how easy it is to roll your own doubles, fakes, stubs, or mocks.

The thing I like about this approach over defining classes inside a test file or class is that it’s all scoped inside the method. We can assign the class to a local and keep the context for each test method small. This approach is also really great for testing mixins and parent classes; define a new class, add the desired functionality, and test to suit.

DSL internals

Rack and Resque are two examples of libraries that expose an API based largely on writing a class with a specific entry point. Rack middlewares are objects with a call method that generates a response based on an environment hash and any other middlewares that are contained within the middleware. Resque expects the classes that work through enqueued jobs define a perform method.

In practice, putting these methods in a class is the way to go. But, hypothetically, we are way too lazy to type class/end, or perhaps we want to wrap a bunch of standard instrumentation and logging around a simple chunk of code. In that case, we can write ourself a little shortcut:

module TinyDSL

  def self.performer(&block)
    c = Class.new
    c.class_eval { define_method(:perform, block) }
    c
  end

end

Thingy = TinyDSL.performer { |*args| p args }
Thingy.new.perform("one", 2, :three)

This little DSL gives us a shortcut for defining classes that implement whatever contract is expected of performer objects. From this humble beginning, we could mix in modules to add functionality around the performer, or we could pass a parent class to Class.new to make the generated class inherit from another class.

That leads us to the sort-of shortcoming of this particular application of Class.new: if the unique function of performer is to wrap a class around a method (for instance, as part of an API exported by another library), why not just subclass or mixin that functionality in the client application? This is the question you have to ask yourself when using Class.new in this way and decide if the metaprogramming is pulling its weight.

How Class.new is used in Sinatra

Sinatra is a little language for writing web applications. The language specifies how HTTP requests are mapped to blocks of Ruby. Originally, you wrote your Sinatra applications like so:

get '/'  { [200, {"Content-Type" => "text/plain"}, "Hello, world!"] }

Right before Sinatra 1.0, the team added a cleaner way to to build and compose applications as Ruby classes. It looks the same, except it happens inside the scope of a class instead of the global scope:

class SomeApp < Sinatra::Base

    get '/'  { [200, {"Content-Type" => "text/plain"}, "Hello, world!"] }

end

It turns out that the former is implemented in terms of the latter. When you use the old, global-level DSL, it creates a new class via Class.new(Sinatra::Base) and then class_evals a block into it to define the routes. Short, clever, effective: the best sort of Class.new.

So that’s how you might see Class.new used in the wild. As with any metaprogramming or construct labeled “Advanced (!)”, the main thing to keep in mind, when you use it or when you set upon refactoring an existing usage, is whether it is pulling its conceptual weight. If there’s a simpler way to use it, do that instead.

But sometimes a nail is, in fact, a nail.