I want to use Rails engine to modularize my current app. I have read a number of articles about engines including TaskRabbit's and Pothibo's posts.
I have a Rails app where I want the parent app to contain all the user tables. The engines I want to mount in the app will be dependent on the parent app, which contains all the user models. While I have this working, I'm unsure as to whether this is bad practice, as my engine will be unable to run without the parent app. The main idea to do this was to modularize the code. While Pothibo's article suggests namespacing within the same app, I like the freedom of managing a separate codebase altogether. Would appreciate some advice as to best practices.
In my opinion there are two major use cases for Rails engines:
1) Reuse functionality in multiple applications. This is the most common use case.
2) Provide a migration path to split a monolithic application into smaller apps (micro services). You can for example start by splitting them out into an engine in the same git repository and mount them by using gem 'xxx', path: 'engines/xxx'. Then later split out further to separate code repositories and/or host as a separate application.
Generally I would advise against no 2, unless the application is big enough to allocate the different engines to different teams. Disadvantages would be things like complications when you have dependencies between different engine code bases or db tables. Advantages are things like less tests to run, less code to take ownership of, etc.
You might find these interesting:
https://github.com/EPI-USE-Labs/activesupport-decorators
http://pivotallabs.com/leave-your-migrations-in-your-rails-engines/
Related
I have a few questions on appropriate folder structure in cucumber:
I think I am going to organize my feature folders according to type_of_user/type_of_feature.feature, i.e. main_admin/add_a_customer.feature or franchisee/schedule_job.feature. The only slight issue with this is that of the user types I have: cleaners, customers, franchisees and main admin/franchisor, the latter two users share many features. For example, both franchisees and franchisor have the ability to add new customers and schedule jobs, the only difference being that the franchisor has the ability to schedule a job for anyone, anywhere - i.e. the only real difference is permissions, not functionality. Does it matter that I will be essentially duplicating tests for these two users, given the proposed folder structure? Or should I be looking to seperate folders by functionality only, then type of user?
For my mobile app, should I have these feature folders separate from the web app or should these go in the root as well: mobile/ios/cleaner_login.feature, mobile/android/cleaner_login.feature etc?
Regarding user types:
Organizing at the top level by user type has worked well for me. However, I would only consider user types separate if they actually used different features, not just if they differed in permissions with respect to specific objects as in the example you gave. You could consider both franchisees and franchisors "administrators", make a top-level folder for those, and just write scenarios for franchisees and franchisors for features that had different permissions for those roles.
If you're a developer and writing RSpec specs in addition to Cucumber features, you might even just write specs instead of features to cover the difference between franchisees and franchisors. (I would only do that if the differences between franchisee and franchisor were fairly trivial and not worth exposing in Cucumber.) If you're QA and testing only from the outside of course it'll all have to be in Cucumber.
I would certainly not systematically duplicate entire scenarios for the sake of any organization. The extra work required to maintain the duplication and the errors when you forgot would be far worse than the bit of extra work required to follow a slightly more complicated system that minimizes duplication!
Regarding web and mobile: How to handle different platforms depends on how different they are.
If you have a web app and a native (Android, iOS) mobile app the step implementations will be completely different and your tests will need to be in different projects altogether. That probably won't mean that much duplication, since the users and features in the web and mobile apps will probably be rather different.
If you have two web apps, one for desktop and one for mobile, there are no technology issues. But again it will depend on how similar the two apps are. If they're different, separate them at the top level (even before users). If they're very similar, separate them only when necessary and only at the scenario level.
I'm in the early stages of prototyping a Rails 3 application that will expose a public API. The site has three separate concerns which I am planning to split across three subdomains.
api.mysite.com
The publicly exposed API.
admin.mysite.com
The admin portal for creating blogs (using the public API).
x.mysite.com
The public blog site created at admin.mysite.com where x is the name of the blog. This too will make use of the public API.
All three will share domain objects. For example, you should be able to login to admin.mysite.com using an account you created on api.mysite.com or x.mysite.com.
Questions
Should I attempt to build one rails application to handle all three concerns or should I split this in multiple applications each handling a specific concern?
What are the Pros & Cons of each?
Does anyone have any insight into how some of the larger sites (basecamp, github, shopify) are organized?
Your question is fairly general so I'll try and answer in general terms. And the fact that you mention "larger sites" leads me to the conclusion that you're concerned about scaling.
In the beginning it is definitely going to be easier to build one application - especially since the domain is shared. You can do separate controllers for the various interfaces (api, html, etc) but with a shared back-end. This will reduce code duplication and the complexity of keeping 3 apps in sync. Also remember that you might change your mind about features based on user feedback and you want to be nimble enough to respond quickly.
The main benefit I can see of separating out three different deployables is that you can have an independent deploy schedule for each. For example, a bug fix in the api won't have to wait for admin to be ready to deploy. Or that you can have separate teams working in parallel.
If you're careful about what you keep in your session you'll be able to deploy multiple instances of your application on multiple servers, pointing at the same database (a.k.a. horizontal scaling). Each of these instances are identical to the others and a load balancer (either dedicated hardware or virtual) directs traffic between them. Eventually this approach runs out of steam when your database can't handle the load. At that point you can look at more caching, sharding, no-sql and all sorts of clever scaling techniques.
Most (but not all) larger sites end up doing some sort of horizontal scaling with some sharding of data.
All told, focus on getting a useful application to your users. If things take off you can worry about scaling. More applications fail because the user experience is awful rather than not being able to scale.
I am currently working on a Rails 3 project that is divided up into four parts:
The public facing website
The administration website/backend
The models
The API for third party data access
As the models are shared between the three key components I want to keep them away from being in one main project, however each part needs access to the models, but I don't want to repeat the code and have different versions everywhere.
Currently I have the model code in a gem, and in each project's Gemfile I am referencing them with the following line:
gem "my_models", :path => "../my_models/"
However when I deploy to our test servers for my co-workers to evaluate the system on I need to pull the models from an external repository, so I swap out the above line with the following:
gem "my_models", :git => "git#private.repository.com:username/my_models.git"
This in its self works well, but its quite clunky in terms of 'versions' (i.e. I need to bump the version every time I wish to deploy the changes to the test servers), switch the line over to use git instead of local, and make sure that I'm pushing the files properly.
Previously I was using a shared git submodule, but this was just as awkward.
I would rather not build everything into one mega-project, as these tend to become monstrous and difficult to maintain, and I would also like to separate concerns if possible, so any changes I make to the administration site doesn't have much of a chance to impact the other components - obviously the models have the potential to cause issues, but that is a risk I have considered and understand.
What would people out there suggest when it comes to something like this? Or, am I going about it completely the wrong way?
Some additional background:
This app is a rewrite of an existing website which followed the model of 'lump everything into the one project' - unfortunately there are two issues here:
The app was badly developed - I inherited this project and when I first picked it up the load times were ~2 minutes per page with a single user - this has since been reduced but still has issues throughout
We are currently at our capacity limit of the current site and we anticipate that we will need to take on more load in the next 6 months - however scaling out with an 'all in one' app means we'll be wasting resources on scaling out the back end of the site which doesn't need it.
Essentially there are two things I want to separate - the Front end (being the public website and the API) and the back end - everything I know about software development tells me that combining all this together is not an ideal solution (and past history shows me that splitting these two is a good move in terms of ensuring front end performance).
Perhaps I need to look at this from another angle - keep the models in each project, and instead of sharing them between projects have a cut-down subset of functionality for each functional area (i.e. the backend needs to know who created a post, but the front end doesn't really care about that, so omit that logic when reading in the model).
drop the models project(put models into one of other parts, i'd suggest whatever you consider "more important"), put all projects into single repository(separate project folders) and make symlinks to models/libs/apis/whatever
your code is highly coupled together and you often need to make changes to few projects at once(like updating models and updating APIs that use them, etc)
one nice thing about single-repo-symlink setup is that your commits will be less fragmented and will usually represent full feature implementation - easier to track bugs, read history and maintain codebase
also when you deploy you don't need to read from many repositories - one less point of failure right there
release process is also simpler with such model as branch will now hold the scope of all projects
there are some drawbacks like symlinks dont work that well on windows and whatnot but for me it works perfectly
You can create a mountable engine that contains the shared models and create a gem out of it. This will handle the name spacing issues elegantly. Other nice aspect here is you get to share your assets also.
Watch this railscast for more details.
You'll still have to manage the 'versions' by pushing changes that need to be tested to a remote repo, but you can use the new local config of Bundler 1.2
http://gembundler.com/man/bundle-config.1.html#LOCAL-GIT-REPOS
This way it will pick up your local commits and you won't have to keep change your Gemfile upon deployment.
I know that this is not an solution for your particular problem. But I really suggest you to merge all projects into one. It is very usual to have all this parts in one application and there is no overhead. I think there is no not-awkward solution for this problem.
Take look at Git subtree.
This may work for you..
http://igor-alexandrov.github.io/blog/2013/03/28/using-git-subtree-to-share-code-between-rails-applications/
OR
You can write Rake task..
Example:-
namespace :sync do
desc 'Copy common models and tests from Master'
task :copy do
source_path = '/home/project/src-path'
dest_path = '/home/project/dest-path'
# Copy all models & tests
%x{cp #{source_path}/app/models/*.rb #{dest_path}/app/models/}
%x{cp #{source_path}/spec/models/*_spec.rb #{dest_path}/spec/models/}
# Database YML
%x{cp #{source_path}/config/database.yml #{dest_path}/config/database.yml}
end
See the below link.
http://hiltmon.com/blog/2013/10/14/rails-tricks-sharing-the-model/
Does your project have enough code coverage? If it does, I would try to separate the logic where it makes sense, and if a model is used in different projects, just pick one that fits best and write an API on top of that.
Then you could use that API to access those models (preferably using something like ActiveModel) on the other project. You would still have a simple CRUD, but all the core model logic would be handled externally.
Be sure to think well before splitting them up, though. You want to keep your domain tight on each app you create out of the Behemoth you want to torn apart.
Regarding engines:
I have used Engines for the same issue and it does help, but I also had to change my Gemfile to either point to a local path when developing, pushing the gem, then pulling it on the current project, which is the behavior you're not fond of.
I am working on one big project. Now we need to add new functionality: scheduler managment.
It's not a main task of application, but it is quite complicated part of it.
Is it good idea to extract it as a separate application?
It will share some data (users and some other personalities) and it will use the same database.
The main reason I want to do it is to simplify main application.
I understand, that it is mayby too wide question. But maybe you can share your expirience of developing this kind of applications and maybe there are any articles I can read and world-wide best practices.
While others have mentioned some of the benefits of separating the applications, I'll touch on a couple of reasons why you might NOT want to separate the code.
You're going to need to maintain a single set of tests, especially if both applications are sharing the same database. If you don't do this, it's hard to predict when changing one application would break the other, especially if the applications start to need different things out of the database.
The two applications are obviously going to have a lot of overlap (users, for example). Separating into two applications could potentially force you to duplicate code, since rails by default has some pretty specific ideas about how a rails application should be structured. If your applications are sharing certain views, for example, what will you do to coordinate change in both applications when one application wants to modify the view?
Neither of these is insurmountable, but rails is easiest to develop when you follow rails conventions. As you begin to deviate, you end up having to do more work. Also, don't take either of these points as invalidating the other answers here, but merely counterpoints that you need to think about.
When you can use the functionality in other projects too, then I would separate it.
Maybe you can create a rails engine to share it easily between projects.
Consider asking yourself "What about re-usability?" Is the new scheduling functionality likely to be re-usable in another context with another application? If the answer is "yes," then perhaps making the scheduling management more modular in design will save you time in the future. If the answer is "no," then I would think you have more leeway in how tightly you integrate scheduling management with your existing app.
The practical difference here would be writing generalized scheduling management functionality that has assignable tables and methods upon which to act versus more 'hard coding' it with the data/code scheme of your 'onebig project.'
hth -
Perry
Adding management-tools into a web-app often complicate deployment, is my experience. Especially when the use of your application grows, and you need to performance-tune it, dragging along a huge "backend" may be problematic.
For sake of deploy-, scale- and test-ability, I prefer my applications to be small and focused. Sometimes it even pays off to have the entire admin-enviroment over REST-XML-services.
But as other answers point out: this is more a "it depends" solution. These are my €0.02.
We have a very lage Rails app that has two distinct sections: the front end and the CMS/Admin. We would like to break up the app into two pieces (for maintenance, as we have distinct teams that work on the front end vs. back end and they could have different release cycles).
One thought was to start a new Admin 2.0 app that has access to the models/schema from the original application, but has its own controllers/views and its own models that extend the original models until it is safe to fully decouple. Is this advisable? If not, what would be an appropriate plan to migrate away from one monolithic codebase?
warning, this is a bit ranty, and does not go anywhere.
Having worked on a very large app that operates in the manor you describe (for scalability reasons), I still have mixed opinions (an no conclusive answers).
Currently we operate 3 major apps (+ one or two smaller ones that use a fragment of the schema).
RVW (our admin app): This is the only app that writes, runs on a single server, and is responsible for maintaining the schema.
reevoo.com: ecommerce, price comparison, stuff like that. This (for historic reasons runs on a slightly different schema, run on a read only slave of RVW, with database views to map the schemas. All writes are done by sticking things on queues that RVW picks up and acts on. This works very well, although the number of random db related issues (mostly related to the views) is an issue. The main problem with this app is the difficulty sharing code (gems work well, I've often dreamed of bringing the schemas into line and sharing the core models in a gem!). We share code between apps using ruby gems. And test using lots of integration tests that cross app boundaries (using drunit (presentation on this available)).
reevoomark: very high load b2b app. This has many servers each with a full stack (db server, app server one per node). These have their databases populated with a db export - import batch job. This works very well in the short term, the shear flexibility of it is just ace, but integration testing between apps is very hard.
My advice would be to avoid splitting the apps at all costs, keeping things DRY quickly becomes a major challenge. My advice would be to stick with one app, two sets of routes (selected at startup by environment variables).
This gives you all the advantages of the other solutions, while making code sharing implicit. Splitting your test packs out would make your test cycles shorter and make things more manageable for the two teams. I would avoid working on different code bases, as doing this promotes the apps drifting apart and making code sharing tricky (as in .com).
If you decide do split, have a good set of high level cross app tests. Custom (per app) extensions to a core set of models sounds like a good plan, although with distinct code bases and teams you may still end up with duplicate code. Rails engines should be a good way of sharing the models, but be prepared for model reloading to become a little schizophrenic.
Good luck!
Have you namespaced your admin controllers? That would be a relatively easy point of subdivision and also avoid many of the negative side effects of forking your code into two apps.
Have you considered looking at Rails Engines? Added to Rails in 2.3.