1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
|
---
type: reference, dev
stage: none
group: Development
info: To determine the technical writer assigned to the Stage/Group associated with this page, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/ux/technical-writing/#assignments
---
# Ruby style guide
This is a GitLab-specific style guide for Ruby code. Everything documented in this page can be [reopened for discussion](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/values/#disagree-commit-and-disagree).
We use [RuboCop](../rubocop_development_guide.md) to enforce Ruby style guide rules.
Where a RuboCop rule is absent, refer to the following style guides as general guidelines to write idiomatic Ruby:
- [Ruby Style Guide](https://github.com/rubocop/ruby-style-guide).
- [Rails Style Guide](https://github.com/rubocop/rails-style-guide).
- [RSpec Style Guide](https://github.com/rubocop/rspec-style-guide).
Generally, if a style is not covered by existing RuboCop rules or the above style guides, it shouldn't be a blocker.
Some styles we have decided [no one should not have a strong opinion on](#styles-we-have-no-opinion-on).
See also:
- [Guidelines for reusing abstractions](../reusing_abstractions.md).
- [Test-specific style guides and best practices](../testing_guide/index.md).
## Styles we have no rule for
These styles are not backed by a RuboCop rule.
For every style added to this section, link the discussion from the section's [version history note](../documentation/versions.md#add-a-version-history-item) to provide context and serve as a reference.
### Instance variable access using `attr_reader`
> [Introduced](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/52351) in GitLab 14.1.
Instance variables can be accessed in a variety of ways in a class:
```ruby
# public
class Foo
attr_reader :my_var
def initialize(my_var)
@my_var = my_var
end
def do_stuff
puts my_var
end
end
# private
class Foo
def initialize(my_var)
@my_var = my_var
end
private
attr_reader :my_var
def do_stuff
puts my_var
end
end
# direct
class Foo
def initialize(my_var)
@my_var = my_var
end
private
def do_stuff
puts @my_var
end
end
```
Public attributes should only be used if they are accessed outside of the class.
There is not a strong opinion on what strategy is used when attributes are only
accessed internally, as long as there is consistency in related code.
### Newlines style guide
In addition to the RuboCops `Layout/EmptyLinesAroundMethodBody` and `Cop/LineBreakAroundConditionalBlock` that enforce some newline styles, we have the following guidelines that are not backed by RuboCop.
#### Rule: separate code with newlines only to group together related logic
```ruby
# bad
def method
issue = Issue.new
issue.save
render json: issue
end
```
```ruby
# good
def method
issue = Issue.new
issue.save
render json: issue
end
```
#### Rule: newline before block
```ruby
# bad
def method
issue = Issue.new
if issue.save
render json: issue
end
end
```
```ruby
# good
def method
issue = Issue.new
if issue.save
render json: issue
end
end
```
##### Exception: no need for a newline when code block starts or ends right inside another code block
```ruby
# bad
def method
if issue
if issue.valid?
issue.save
end
end
end
```
```ruby
# good
def method
if issue
if issue.valid?
issue.save
end
end
end
```
## Avoid ActiveRecord callbacks
[ActiveRecord callbacks](https://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_callbacks.html) allow
you to "trigger logic before or after an alteration of an object's state."
Use callbacks when no superior alternative exists, but employ them only if you
thoroughly understand the reasons for doing so.
When adding new lifecycle events for ActiveRecord objects, it is preferable to
add the logic to a service class instead of a callback.
## Why callbacks should be avoided
In general, callbacks should be avoided because:
- Callbacks are hard to reason about because invocation order is not obvious and
they break code narrative.
- Callbacks are harder to locate and navigate because they rely on reflection to
trigger rather than being ordinary method calls.
- Callbacks make it difficult to apply changes selectively to an object's state
because changes always trigger the entire callback chain.
- Callbacks trap logic in the ActiveRecord class. This tight coupling encourages
fat models that contain too much business logic, which could instead live in
service objects that are more reusable, composable, and are easier to test.
- Illegal state transitions of an object can be better enforced through
attribute validations.
- Heavy use of callbacks affects factory creation speed. With some classes
having hundreds of callbacks, creating an instance of that object for
an automated test can be a very slow operation, resulting in slow specs.
Some of these examples are discussed in this [video from thoughtbot](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLBMfB8N1G8).
The GitLab codebase relies heavily on callbacks and it is hard to refactor them
once added due to invisible dependencies. As a result, this guideline does not
call for removing all existing callbacks.
### When to use callbacks
Callbacks can be used in special cases. Some examples of cases where adding a
callback makes sense:
- A dependency uses callbacks and we would like to override the callback
behavior.
- Incrementing cache counts.
- Data normalization that only relates to data on the current model.
### Example of moving from a callback to a service
There is a project with the following basic data model:
```ruby
class Project
has_one :repository
end
class Repository
belongs_to :project
end
```
Say we want to create a repository after a project is created and use the
project name as the repository name. A developer familiar with Rails might
immediately think: sounds like a job for an ActiveRecord callback! And add this
code:
```ruby
class Project
has_one :repository
after_initialize :create_random_name
after_create :create_repository
def create_random_name
SecureRandom.alphanumeric
end
def create_repository
Repository.create!(project: self)
end
end
class Repository
after_initialize :set_name
def set_name
name = project.name
end
end
class ProjectsController
def create
Project.create! # also creates a repository and names it
end
end
```
While this seems pretty harmless for a baby Rails app, adding this type of logic
via callbacks has many downsides once your Rails app becomes large and complex
(all of which are listed in this documentation). Instead, we can add this
logic to a service class:
```ruby
class Project
has_one :repository
end
class Repository
belongs_to :project
end
class ProjectCreator
def self.execute
ApplicationRecord.transaction do
name = SecureRandom.alphanumeric
project = Project.create!(name: name)
Repository.create!(project: project, name: name)
end
end
end
class ProjectsController
def create
ProjectCreator.execute
end
end
```
With an application this simple, it can be hard to see the benefits of the second
approach. But we already some benefits:
- Can test `Repository` creation logic separate from `Project` creation logic. Code
no longer violates law of demeter (`Repository` class doesn't need to know
`project.name`).
- Clarity of invocation order.
- Open to change: if we decide there are some scenarios where we do not want a
repository created for a project, we can create a new service class rather
than needing to refactor to `Project` and `Repository` classes.
- Each instance of a `Project` factory does not create a second (`Repository`) object.
## Styles we have no opinion on
If a RuboCop rule is proposed and we choose not to add it, we should document that decision in this guide so it is more discoverable and link the relevant discussion as a reference.
### Quoting string literals
Due to the sheer amount of work to rectify, we do not care whether string
literals are single or double-quoted.
Previous discussions include:
- <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/44234>
- <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/36076>
- <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/198046>
### Type safety
Now that we've upgraded to Ruby 3, we have more options available
to enforce [type safety](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_safety).
Some of these options are supported as part of the Ruby syntax and do not require the use of specific type safety tools like [Sorbet](https://sorbet.org/) or [RBS](https://github.com/ruby/rbs). However, we might consider these tools in the future as well.
For more information, see [Type safety](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/tree/master/ee/lib/remote_development#type-safety) in the `remote_development` domain README.
### Functional patterns
Although Ruby and especially Rails are primarily based on [object-oriented programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/object-oriented_programming) patterns, Ruby is a very flexible language and supports [functional programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming) patterns as well.
Functional programming patterns, especially in domain logic, can often result in more readable, maintainable, and bug-resistant code while still using idiomatic and familiar Ruby patterns.
However, functional programming patterns should be used carefully because some patterns would cause confusion and should be avoided even if they're directly supported by Ruby. The [`curry` method](https://www.rubydoc.info/stdlib/core/Method:curry) is a likely example.
For more information, see:
- [Functional patterns](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/tree/master/ee/lib/remote_development#functional-patterns)
- [Railway-oriented programming and the `Result` class](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/tree/master/ee/lib/remote_development#railway-oriented-programming-and-the-result-class)
|