Ruby style guide
This is a GitLab-specific style guide for Ruby code. Everything documented in this page can be reopened for discussion.
We use RuboCop 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:
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.
See also:
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 history note to provide context and serve as a reference.
attr_reader
Instance variable access using Instance variables can be accessed in a variety of ways in a class:
# 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 RuboCop's 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
# bad
def method
issue = Issue.new
issue.save
render json: issue
end
# good
def method
issue = Issue.new
issue.save
render json: issue
end
Rule: newline before block
# bad
def method
issue = Issue.new
if issue.save
render json: issue
end
end
# 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
# bad
def method
if issue
if issue.valid?
issue.save
end
end
end
# good
def method
if issue
if issue.valid?
issue.save
end
end
end
Avoid ActiveRecord callbacks
ActiveRecord callbacks 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.
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:
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:
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:
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 fromProject
creation logic. Code no longer violates law of demeter (Repository
class doesn't need to knowproject.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
andRepository
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.
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 or RBS. However, we might consider these tools in the future as well.
For more information, see Type safety in the remote_development
domain README.
Functional patterns
Although Ruby and especially Rails are primarily based on object-oriented programming patterns, Ruby is a very flexible language and supports 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 is a likely example.
For more information, see: