[WARNING] I like contexts.

Phew… I just wanted to admit that up front. Now that I got that out of the way, I am going to share my journey about using Phoenix 1.3.0 and contexts.

I worked on a greenfield project and had an opportunity to use Phoenix 1.3.0-rc2. With Phoenix 1.3.0 just released, I thought it might be timely to inform other developers what it’s like to work with contexts, and some recommendations I have after working on a project using contexts for several months.

If you don’t know what a context is:

A context is a module that defines the interface between a set of inter-related models/schemas to the rest of the application (like other contexts). A context is an internal API that provides opportunity to name things better and organize code.

A practical example: instead of your controller talking to the database, your controller will talk to the context, and the context will interface with necessary functions and schemas and modules to accomplish the task.

NOTE: I did not use 1.3.0-rc3 which changes the Web namespace, so I will skip that part. I think that’s a good change, but I have no real experience with those tweaks yet.

With Phoenix 1.3, I only recommend using the phx generators ONCE in a greenfield project. After that, ditch them. Ditch them because once you’ve adjusted the code to your liking (and you’ll definitely need to edit the generated code), using the generators again may inject generated code into your existing files, which likely don’t follow your patterns anymore.

Since I’m recommending against something, let’s jump into examples and find out why.

Here’s what I had to do with the generated files:

Rewrite the tests because they setup a fixture for the schema.

This isn’t a bad idea in itself, but I wanted to use ex_machina for setting up test scenarios. At first, I thought the generated fixture was a great idea. I’m providing an interface for creating widgets, so I should use it in my tests, right?

Here’s the problem:

Imagine if someone introduced a bug in create_widget() – now all your tests that involve inserting a widget breaks. That’s unreasonable, because I’m not testing getting to that state most of the time, I’m testing the unit of functionality or integration between functions. Instead, I want the tests for create_widget() to fail (and any reliant integration tests), as opposed to the WHOLE TEST SUITE breaking and thus freaking me out. When the whole test suite breaks, it’s harder to discern where the problem is.

Separate the schema-specific tests into their own test file.

The new context organization only generates a test file for the context, and not a schema. As I kept building the application, it became evident that the context file and context test file were getting too large. I felt compelled to isolate and organize this big bag-o’-functions into smaller bags-o’-functions. I decided to start splitting the tests into different schema-related files, like {context}/{schema}_test.exs . Since I split the test files, it became clearer where I should place tests for custom changeset functions as well.

I also want to be more careful about how I use describe and test blocks, since ExUnit doesn’t support nested describe or context blocks. The generated test names were also a bit long for my taste, so I moved the function name to the describe block, and then used the test title to describe the context and the expected result.

Lastly, the generated style was … different.

I don’t like aliasing modules in the middle of the file. I feel they belong at the top of the file.

I keep module attributes near the top of the file.

I avoid the function parenthesis unless I need them.

Here is an example of how I changed things:

# BEFORE # test/my_app/things_test.exs defmodule MyApp . ThingsTest do use MyApp . DataCase alias MyApp . Things describe "widgets" do alias MyApp . Things . Widget @valid_attrs %{} @update_attrs %{} @invalid_attrs %{} def widget_fixture ( attrs \\ %{}) do { :ok , widget } = attrs |> Enum . into ( @valid_attrs ) |> Things . create_widget () widget end test "list_widgets/0 returns all widgets" do widget_one = widget_fixture () widget_two = widget_fixture () assert Things . list_widgets () == [ widget_one , widget_two ] end # I added this, just to go along with their style and to show # what a typical new developer would do with this existing pattern test "list_widgets/1 returns all widgets limited by list of id" do widget_one = widget_fixture () _widget_two = widget_fixture () assert Things . list_widgets ([ widget_one . id ]) == [ widget_one ] end #... end end # AFTER # test/my_app/things/widget_test.exs defmodule MyApp . Things . WidgetTest do use MyApp . DataCase import MyApp . Factory alias MyApp . Things alias MyApp . Things . Widget describe "list_widgets" do test "returns all widgets" do [ widget_one , widget_two ] = insert_pair ( :widget ) assert Things . list_widgets == [ widget_one , widget_two ] end test "when given list of ids, returns all widgets in ids" do [ widget_one , _widget_two ] = insert_pair ( :widget ) assert Things . list_widgets ([ widget_one . id ]) == [ widget_one ] end end #... end

I like this so much better, and I’m afraid that just going with the generated pattern will lead newer developers down a path of bloated files.

It’s more apparent to me in Phoenix 1.3.0 that the generators are much more a teaching tool for new developers than meant to be used in an ongoing fashion throughout a project’s lifetime. If you’ve formed your opinion, or your organization has a coding style within Phoenix, then you might appreciate knowing you can customize the templates that the generators will use. You can do this by copying them out of deps/phoenix/priv/templates and into your project’s priv/templates folder. That’s pretty awesome.

Recap: for new developers, Phoenix’s new generators are a great learning tool, but I don’t recommend using them after the first use.

I realized that my understanding of contexts at the time was flawed, and that many of the examples out in the blog-o-sphere were not helpful for me when I was in the trenches myself.

I imagine that most (all?) projects have their own domain AND vocabulary, and to be readable for folks in that domain it is helpful to share that vocabulary.

This coming example may not apply to you, but this is the beauty of contexts: your needs WILL differ and your domain vocabulary will help determine how to organize your code.

The project I was working on had different terms for their warehouse workers:

Operators

Supervisors

Admins

SalesAssociate

This roughly corresponds with a typical User schema that belongs_to a Role schema. I placed both schemas into a new context called Accounts , and all user-related functions are in that context file. I hesitated with the domain vocabulary thinking that generic terms were going to be more flexible later.

As the project evolved, that decision turned out to be a mistake

Instead of something like this (using a generic term Accounts as the context):

defmodule MyApp . Accounts do alias MyApp . Accounts . User @operator_role_id 2 @supervisor_role_id 1 def list_operators ( queryable \\ User ) do queryable |> where ([ u ], u . role_id == ^ @operator_role ) end def list_supervisors ( queryable \\ User ) do queryable |> where ([ u ], u . role_id == ^ @supervisor_role ) end # ... end

I could have done this (using domain vocabulary as context boundaries):

defmodule MyApp . Operators do alias MyApp . Accounts . User @role_id 2 def list ( queryable \\ User ) do queryable |> where ([ u ], u . role_id == ^ @role_id ) end # ... end # notice the namespace difference defmodule MyApp . Supervisors do alias MyApp . Accounts . User @role_id 1 def list ( queryable \\ User ) do queryable |> where ([ u ], u . role_id == ^ @role_id ) end # ... end

This example is really simple, but it starts to show its strength later when you have other conditionals and need to ask your data more questions.

With the example above, I’d actually argue that having one combined context is preferable because it’s all we need–but, knowing how the application will grow, and how a lot of questions are asked against the user’s role, then it’ll be more apparent having the separated context will be helpful.

defmodule MyApp . Operators do alias MyApp . Activities . Event def update_event ( event , params ) do event |> prepare_event ( params ) |> Repo . update end def prepare_event ( event , params ) do event |> Event . operator_changeset ( params ) end # ... end defmodule MyApp . Supervisors do alias MyApp . Activities . Event def update_event ( event , params ) do event |> prepare_event ( params ) |> Repo . update end # Notice that we're calling a different changeset def prepare_event ( event , params ) do event |> Event . supervisor_changeset ( params ) end # ... end

Above we’re adding another function that has different permissions regarding what the user may update on an event. The supervisor_changeset will cast all params, whereas the operator_changeset will cast only a subset of params. This would also be reflected for preparing any forms in templates.

All the above requires you to understand the vocabulary before building, which is the critique I usually hear about contexts: “It requires more up-front cognitive thought before I can be productive.” Prior to 1.3, not knowing domain up front might not hurt so much because it’s not built into the structure, but with 1.3 and presumably later, it may hurt more. Despite that, it’s totally worth it.

Above, I glossed-over what contexts help us achieve: making interfaces between your abstractions. A context (aka domain interface) will help organize actions. I love this.

I decided in this experiment to really give contexts a go and roll with the philosophy. At the same time, I hated the bloated context that it had become after needing to interact with several schemas in the same context. At some point, I had several hundred lines in a context file; it was easy to let the context file grow. RESIST. Use domain-related vocabulary to keep contexts small. I had to determine how to organize the code better.

A technique that helped keep contexts small was to limit them a set of action verbs, like list prepare create update and delete (some semblance to CRUD actions). Outside of those verbs, I put them into supporting modules. For example, def list actually hits the database and returns the list of things– it did not return an Ecto query that I could further modify. I saved those query-building functions for a Context.Query module. This helped keep my list function simple, and helped me make composable queries.

My controllers and other services then only call functions in context modules.

For example:

defmodule MyApp . Operators do # MyApp.Accounts is now a namespace for schemas, not a context alias MyApp . Accounts . User alias MyApp . Accounts . Role alias MyApp . Operators . Query def list ( queryable \\ User ) do queryable |> Query . where_operator |> Repo . all end def list_by_latest_event ( queryable \\ User ) do queryable |> Query . order_by_event_date |> list end def list_currently_assigned ( queryable \\ User ) do queryable |> Query . where_assigned |> list end def list_currently_assigned_for_activity ( queryable \\ User , activity ) do queryable |> Query . where_activity ( activity . id ) |> list_currently_assigned end # ... end defmodule MyApp . Operators . Query do import Ecto . Query @role_id 1 def where_operator ( queryable ) do queryable |> where ([ q ], q . role_id == ^ @role_id ) end def order_by_event_date ( queryable ) do queryable |> join ( :left , [ q ], event in assoc ( q , :event )) |> order_by ([ _ , event ], [ desc: event . inserted_at ]) end def where_assigned ( queryable ) do queryable |> where ([ q ], is_nil ( q . unassigned_at )) end def where_activity ( queryable , activity ) do queryable |> join ( :inner , [ q ], assignment in assoc ( q , :assignments )) |> where ([ _ , assignment ], assignment . activity_id == ^ activity_id ) end end

This has been my preferred way of organizing code so far. It encourages less god-modules that I’ve learned to dislike so much. I believe that Phoenix will need to be more careful about their generators accidentally encouraging god-modules, lest they start to look like monolith Rails applications with models that know too much about the application, except now in a context.

Elixir allows applications to live in umbrellas, which is an awesome concept. If you’re not familiar with umbrellas, read up about it. What I love about umbrellas is that it allows me to draw boundaries between related applications. This is difficult to do in other frameworks and languages, so the fact that mix gives this tool for free is incredible. Before I heard about Phoenix contexts, I was drawn to organize my application via umbrellas because I didn’t see other tools that made it easy.

Umbrellas, in a sense, help accomplish the same thing as contexts: it helps you draw boundaries. The difference is that umbrella applications are about separating applications instead of APIs.

A lot of typical web applications don’t need separated sub-applications. If you’re considering one, determine if having separately-deployable applications fixes or avoids problems, or if the boundaries need to be large enough to deserve a separation. Avoid jumping to umbrellas like I did earlier if you only need to organize yourself.

Chris gives some good examples of when umbrellas could be a good option

At thoughtbot, we pride ourselves in the practices of designing experiences, and then developing; that’s what makes us different. That process also helps establish where these boundaries are up front, and it’s up to the artist to determine whether it’s a new context, just a new schema, maybe a new application altogether, maybe a support module, or none of the above. Regardless, I believe Phoenix 1.3 teaches great ideas that will win in the long run and make developers think before doing.