diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/development')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/development/README.md | 6 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/development/gotchas.md | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/development/module_with_instance_variables.md | 242 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/development/performance.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/development/testing_guide/best_practices.md | 14 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/development/testing_guide/index.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/development/writing_documentation.md | 169 |
7 files changed, 345 insertions, 94 deletions
diff --git a/doc/development/README.md b/doc/development/README.md index 7e4c767692a..b624aa37c70 100644 --- a/doc/development/README.md +++ b/doc/development/README.md @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ comments: false - [`Gemfile` guidelines](gemfile.md) - [Sidekiq debugging](sidekiq_debugging.md) - [Gotchas](gotchas.md) to avoid +- [Avoid modules with instance variables](module_with_instance_variables.md) if possible - [Issue and merge requests state models](object_state_models.md) - [How to dump production data to staging](db_dump.md) - [Working with the GitHub importer](github_importer.md) @@ -81,10 +82,9 @@ comments: false ## Documentation guides -- [Documentation styleguide](doc_styleguide.md): Use this styleguide if you are - contributing to the documentation. - [Writing documentation](writing_documentation.md) - - [Distinction between general documentation and technical articles](writing_documentation.md#distinction-between-general-documentation-and-technical-articles) +- [Documentation styleguide](doc_styleguide.md) +- [Markdown](../user/markdown.md) ## Internationalization (i18n) guides diff --git a/doc/development/gotchas.md b/doc/development/gotchas.md index c2ca8966a3f..5786287d00c 100644 --- a/doc/development/gotchas.md +++ b/doc/development/gotchas.md @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ might encounter or should avoid during development of GitLab CE and EE. Consider the following factory: ```ruby -FactoryGirl.define do +FactoryBot.define do factory :label do sequence(:title) { |n| "label#{n}" } end @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ When run, this spec doesn't do what we might expect: (compared using ==) ``` -That's because FactoryGirl sequences are not reseted for each example. +That's because FactoryBot sequences are not reseted for each example. Please remember that sequence-generated values exist only to avoid having to explicitly set attributes that have a uniqueness constraint when using a factory. diff --git a/doc/development/module_with_instance_variables.md b/doc/development/module_with_instance_variables.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..48a1b7f847e --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/development/module_with_instance_variables.md @@ -0,0 +1,242 @@ +## Modules with instance variables could be considered harmful + +### Background + +Rails somehow encourages people using modules and instance variables +everywhere. For example, using instance variables in the controllers, +helpers, and views. They're also encouraging the use of +`ActiveSupport::Concern`, which further strengthens the idea of +saving everything in a giant, single object, and people could access +everything in that one giant object. + +### The problems + +Of course this is convenient to develop, because we just have everything +within reach. However this has a number of downsides when that chosen object +is growing, it would later become out of control for the same reason. + +There are just too many things in the same context, and we don't know if +those things are tightly coupled or not, depending on each others or not. +It's very hard to tell when the complexity grows to a point, and it makes +tracking the code also extremely hard. For example, a class could be using +3 different instance variables, and all of them could be initialized and +manipulated from 3 different modules. It's hard to track when those variables +start giving us troubles. We don't know which module would suddenly change +one of the variables. Everything could touch anything. + +### Similar concerns + +People are saying multiple inheritance is bad. Mixing multiple modules with +multiple instance variables scattering everywhere suffer from the same issue. +The same applies to `ActiveSupport::Concern`. See: +[Consider replacing concerns with dedicated classes & composition]( +https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/23786) + +There's also a similar idea: +[Use decorators and interface segregation to solve overgrowing models problem]( +https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13484) + +Note that `included` doesn't solve the whole issue. They define the +dependencies, but they still allow each modules to talk implicitly via the +instance variables in the final giant object, and that's where the problem is. + +### Solutions + +We should split the giant object into multiple objects, and they communicate +with each other with the API, i.e. public methods. In short, composition over +inheritance. This way, each smaller objects would have their own respective +limited states, i.e. instance variables. If one instance variable goes wrong, +we would be very clear that it's from that single small object, because +no one else could be touching it. + +With clearly defined API, this would make things less coupled and much easier +to debug and track, and much more extensible for other objects to use, because +they communicate in a clear way, rather than implicit dependencies. + +### Acceptable use + +However, it's not always bad to use instance variables in a module, +as long as it's contained in the same module; that is, no other modules or +objects are touching them, then it would be an acceptable use. + +We especially allow the case where a single instance variable is used with +`||=` to setup the value. This would look like: + +``` ruby +module M + def f + @f ||= true + end +end +``` + +Unfortunately it's not easy to code more complex rules into the cop, so +we rely on people's best judgement. If we could find another good pattern +we could easily add to the cop, we should do it. + +### How to rewrite and avoid disabling this cop + +Even if we could just disable the cop, we should avoid doing so. Some code +could be easily rewritten in simple form. Consider this acceptable method: + +``` ruby +module Gitlab + module Emoji + def emoji_unicode_version(name) + @emoji_unicode_versions_by_name ||= + JSON.parse(File.read(Rails.root.join('fixtures', 'emojis', 'emoji-unicode-version-map.json'))) + @emoji_unicode_versions_by_name[name] + end + end +end +``` + +This method is totally fine because it's already self-contained. No other +methods should be using `@emoji_unicode_versions_by_name` and we're good. +However it's still offending the cop because it's not just `||=`, and the +cop is not smart enough to judge that this is fine. + +On the other hand, we could split this method into two: + +``` ruby +module Gitlab + module Emoji + def emoji_unicode_version(name) + emoji_unicode_versions_by_name[name] + end + + private + + def emoji_unicode_versions_by_name + @emoji_unicode_versions_by_name ||= + JSON.parse(File.read(Rails.root.join('fixtures', 'emojis', 'emoji-unicode-version-map.json'))) + end + end +end +``` + +Now the cop won't complain. Here's a bad example which we could rewrite: + +``` ruby +module SpamCheckService + def filter_spam_check_params + @request = params.delete(:request) + @api = params.delete(:api) + @recaptcha_verified = params.delete(:recaptcha_verified) + @spam_log_id = params.delete(:spam_log_id) + end + + def spam_check(spammable, user) + spam_service = SpamService.new(spammable, @request) + + spam_service.when_recaptcha_verified(@recaptcha_verified, @api) do + user.spam_logs.find_by(id: @spam_log_id)&.update!(recaptcha_verified: true) + end + end +end +``` + +There are several implicit dependencies here. First, `params` should be +defined before use. Second, `filter_spam_check_params` should be called +before `spam_check`. These are all implicit and the includer could be using +those instance variables without awareness. + +This should be rewritten like: + +``` ruby +class SpamCheckService + def initialize(request:, api:, recaptcha_verified:, spam_log_id:) + @request = request + @api = api + @recaptcha_verified = recaptcha_verified + @spam_log_id = spam_log_id + end + + def spam_check(spammable, user) + spam_service = SpamService.new(spammable, @request) + + spam_service.when_recaptcha_verified(@recaptcha_verified, @api) do + user.spam_logs.find_by(id: @spam_log_id)&.update!(recaptcha_verified: true) + end + end +end +``` + +And use it like: + +``` ruby +class UpdateSnippetService < BaseService + def execute + # ... + spam = SpamCheckService.new(params.slice!(:request, :api, :recaptcha_verified, :spam_log_id)) + + spam.check(snippet, current_user) + # ... + end +end +``` + +This way, all those instance variables are isolated in `SpamCheckService` +rather than whatever includes the module, and those modules which were also +included, making it much easier to track down any issues, +and reducing the chance of having name conflicts. + +### How to disable this cop + +Put the disabling comment right after your code in the same line: + +``` ruby +module M + def violating_method + @f + @g # rubocop:disable Gitlab/ModuleWithInstanceVariables + end +end +``` + +If there are multiple lines, you could also enable and disable for a section: + +``` ruby +module M + # rubocop:disable Gitlab/ModuleWithInstanceVariables + def violating_method + @f = 0 + @g = 1 + @h = 2 + end + # rubocop:enable Gitlab/ModuleWithInstanceVariables +end +``` + +Note that you need to enable it at some point, otherwise everything below +won't be checked. + +### Things we might need to ignore right now + +Because of the way Rails helpers and mailers work, we might not be able to +avoid the use of instance variables there. For those cases, we could ignore +them at the moment. At least we're not going to share those modules with +other random objects, so they're still somewhat isolated. + +### Instance variables in views + +They're bad because we can't easily tell who's using the instance variables +(from controller's point of view) and where we set them up (from partials' +point of view), making it extremely hard to track data dependency. + +We're trying to use something like this instead: + +``` haml += render 'projects/commits/commit', commit: commit, ref: ref, project: project +``` + +And in the partial: + +``` haml +- ref = local_assigns.fetch(:ref) +- commit = local_assigns.fetch(:commit) +- project = local_assigns.fetch(:project) +``` + +This way it's clearer where those values were coming from, and we gain the +benefit to have typo check over using instance variables. In the future, +we should also forbid the use of instance variables in partials. diff --git a/doc/development/performance.md b/doc/development/performance.md index 04419650b12..e7c5a6ca07a 100644 --- a/doc/development/performance.md +++ b/doc/development/performance.md @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ graphs/dashboards. GitLab provides built-in tools to aid the process of improving performance: * [Sherlock](profiling.md#sherlock) -* [GitLab Performance Monitoring](../administration/monitoring/performance/introduction.md) +* [GitLab Performance Monitoring](../administration/monitoring/performance/index.md) * [Request Profiling](../administration/monitoring/performance/request_profiling.md) * [QueryRecoder](query_recorder.md) for preventing `N+1` regressions diff --git a/doc/development/testing_guide/best_practices.md b/doc/development/testing_guide/best_practices.md index 8b7b015427f..edb8f372ea3 100644 --- a/doc/development/testing_guide/best_practices.md +++ b/doc/development/testing_guide/best_practices.md @@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ and effective _as well as_ fast. Here are some things to keep in mind regarding test performance: -- `double` and `spy` are faster than `FactoryGirl.build(...)` -- `FactoryGirl.build(...)` and `.build_stubbed` are faster than `.create`. +- `double` and `spy` are faster than `FactoryBot.build(...)` +- `FactoryBot.build(...)` and `.build_stubbed` are faster than `.create`. - Don't `create` an object when `build`, `build_stubbed`, `attributes_for`, `spy`, or `double` will do. Database persistence is slow! - Don't mark a feature as requiring JavaScript (through `@javascript` in @@ -254,13 +254,13 @@ end ### Factories -GitLab uses [factory_girl] as a test fixture replacement. +GitLab uses [factory_bot] as a test fixture replacement. - Factory definitions live in `spec/factories/`, named using the pluralization of their corresponding model (`User` factories are defined in `users.rb`). - There should be only one top-level factory definition per file. -- FactoryGirl methods are mixed in to all RSpec groups. This means you can (and - should) call `create(...)` instead of `FactoryGirl.create(...)`. +- FactoryBot methods are mixed in to all RSpec groups. This means you can (and + should) call `create(...)` instead of `FactoryBot.create(...)`. - Make use of [traits] to clean up definitions and usages. - When defining a factory, don't define attributes that are not required for the resulting record to pass validation. @@ -269,8 +269,8 @@ GitLab uses [factory_girl] as a test fixture replacement. - Factories don't have to be limited to `ActiveRecord` objects. [See example](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/commit/0b8cefd3b2385a21cfed779bd659978c0402766d). -[factory_girl]: https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_girl -[traits]: http://www.rubydoc.info/gems/factory_girl/file/GETTING_STARTED.md#Traits +[factory_bot]: https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_bot +[traits]: http://www.rubydoc.info/gems/factory_bot/file/GETTING_STARTED.md#Traits ### Fixtures diff --git a/doc/development/testing_guide/index.md b/doc/development/testing_guide/index.md index 8045bbad7ba..65386f231a0 100644 --- a/doc/development/testing_guide/index.md +++ b/doc/development/testing_guide/index.md @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ changes should be tested. ## [Testing best practices](best_practices.md) -Everything you should know about how to write good tests: RSpec, FactoryGirl, +Everything you should know about how to write good tests: RSpec, FactoryBot, system tests, parameterized tests etc. --- diff --git a/doc/development/writing_documentation.md b/doc/development/writing_documentation.md index 48e04a40050..43a79ffcaa5 100644 --- a/doc/development/writing_documentation.md +++ b/doc/development/writing_documentation.md @@ -1,75 +1,14 @@ # Writing documentation - **General Documentation**: written by the [developers responsible by creating features](#contributing-to-docs). Should be submitted in the same merge request containing code. Feature proposals (by GitLab contributors) should also be accompanied by its respective documentation. They can be later improved by PMs and Technical Writers. - - **Technical Articles**: written by any [GitLab Team](https://about.gitlab.com/team/) member, GitLab contributors, or [Community Writers](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/technical-writing/community-writers/). + - **[Technical Articles](#technical-articles)**: written by any [GitLab Team](https://about.gitlab.com/team/) member, GitLab contributors, or [Community Writers](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/technical-writing/community-writers/). - **Indexes per topic**: initially prepared by the Technical Writing Team, and kept up-to-date by developers and PMs in the same merge request containing code. They gather all resources for that topic in a single page (user and admin documentation, articles, and third-party docs). -## Distinction between General Documentation and Technical Articles - -### General documentation - -General documentation is categorized by _User_, _Admin_, and _Contributor_, and describe what that feature is, what it does, and its available settings. - -### Technical Articles - -Technical articles replace technical content that once lived in the [GitLab Blog](https://about.gitlab.com/blog/), where they got out-of-date and weren't easily found. - -They are topic-related documentation, written with an user-friendly approach and language, aiming to provide the community with guidance on specific processes to achieve certain objectives. - -A technical article guides users and/or admins to achieve certain objectives (within guides and tutorials), or provide an overview of that particular topic or feature (within technical overviews). It can also describe the use, implementation, or integration of third-party tools with GitLab. - -They live under `doc/articles/article-title/index.md`, and their images should be placed under `doc/articles/article-title/img/`. Find a list of existing [technical articles](../articles/index.md) here. - -#### Types of Technical Articles - -- **User guides**: technical content to guide regular users from point A to point B -- **Admin guides**: technical content to guide administrators of GitLab instances from point A to point B -- **Technical Overviews**: technical content describing features, solutions, and third-party integrations -- **Tutorials**: technical content provided step-by-step on how to do things, or how to reach very specific objectives - -#### Understanding guides, tutorials, and technical overviews - -Suppose there's a process to go from point A to point B in 5 steps: `(A) 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 (B)`. - -A **guide** can be understood as a description of certain processes to achieve a particular objective. A guide brings you from A to B describing the characteristics of that process, but not necessarily going over each step. It can mention, for example, steps 2 and 3, but does not necessarily explain how to accomplish them. - -- Live example: "GitLab Pages from A to Z - [Part 1](../user/project/pages/getting_started_part_one.md) to [Part 4](../user/project/pages/getting_started_part_four.md)" - -A **tutorial** requires a clear **step-by-step** guidance to achieve a singular objective. It brings you from A to B, describing precisely all the necessary steps involved in that process, showing each of the 5 steps to go from A to B. -It does not only describes steps 2 and 3, but also shows you how to accomplish them. - -- Live example (on the blog): [Hosting on GitLab.com with GitLab Pages](https://about.gitlab.com/2016/04/07/gitlab-pages-setup/) - -A **technical overview** is a description of what a certain feature is, and what it does, but does not walk -through the process of how to use it systematically. - -- Live example (on the blog): [GitLab Workflow, an overview](https://about.gitlab.com/2016/10/25/gitlab-workflow-an-overview/) - -#### Special format - -Every **Technical Article** contains, in the very beginning, a blockquote with the following information: - -- A reference to the **type of article** (user guide, admin guide, tech overview, tutorial) -- A reference to the **knowledge level** expected from the reader to be able to follow through (beginner, intermediate, advanced) -- A reference to the **author's name** and **GitLab.com handle** -- A reference of the **publication date** - -```md -> **Article [Type](../../development/writing_documentation.html#types-of-technical-articles):** tutorial || -> **Level:** intermediary || -> **Author:** [Name Surname](https://gitlab.com/username) || -> **Publication date:** AAAA/MM/DD -``` - -#### Technical Articles - Writing Method - -Use the [writing method](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/technical-writing/#writing-method) defined by the Technical Writing team. - ## Documentation style guidelines All the docs follow the same [styleguide](doc_styleguide.md). -### Contributing to docs +## Contributing to docs Whenever a feature is changed, updated, introduced, or deprecated, the merge request introducing these changes must be accompanied by the documentation @@ -118,13 +57,31 @@ and for every **major** feature present in Community Edition. Currently GitLab docs use Redcarpet as [markdown](../user/markdown.md) engine, but there's an [open discussion](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gitlab-docs/issues/50) for implementing Kramdown in the near future. -## Testing +### Previewing locally -We try to treat documentation as code, thus have implemented some testing. +To preview your changes to documentation locally, please follow +this [development guide](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gitlab-docs/blob/master/README.md#development). + +### Testing + +We treat documentation as code, thus have implemented some testing. Currently, the following tests are in place: 1. `docs lint`: Check that all internal (relative) links work correctly and - that all cURL examples in API docs use the full switches. + that all cURL examples in API docs use the full switches. It's recommended + to [check locally](#previewing-locally) before pushing to GitLab by executing the command + `bundle exec nanoc check internal_links` on your local + [`gitlab-docs`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gitlab-docs) directory. +1. [`ee_compat_check`](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/automatic_ce_ee_merge.html#avoiding-ce-gt-ee-merge-conflicts-beforehand) (runs on CE only): + When you submit a merge request to GitLab Community Edition (CE), + there is this additional job that runs against Enterprise Edition (EE) + and checks if your changes can apply cleanly to the EE codebase. + If that job fails, read the instructions in the job log for what to do next. + As CE is merged into EE once a day, it's important to avoid merge conflicts. + Submitting an EE-equivalent merge request cherry-picking all commits from CE to EE is + essential to avoid them. + +### Branch naming If your contribution contains **only** documentation changes, you can speed up the CI process by following some branch naming conventions. You have three @@ -139,17 +96,7 @@ choices: If your branch name matches any of the above, it will run only the docs tests. If it doesn't, the whole test suite will run (including docs). ---- - -When you submit a merge request to GitLab Community Edition (CE), there is an -additional job called `ee_compat_check` that runs against Enterprise -Edition (EE) and checks if your changes can apply cleanly to the EE codebase. -If that job fails, read the instructions in the job log for what to do next. -Contributors do not need to submit their changes to EE, GitLab Inc. employees -on the other hand need to make sure that their changes apply cleanly to both -CE and EE. - -## Previewing the changes live +### Previewing the changes live If you want to preview the doc changes of your merge request live, you can use the manual `review-docs-deploy` job in your merge request. You will need at @@ -164,7 +111,7 @@ You will need to push a branch to those repositories, it doesn't work for forks. TIP: **Tip:** If your branch contains only documentation changes, you can use -[special branch names](#testing) to avoid long running pipelines. +[special branch names](#branch-naming) to avoid long running pipelines. In the mini pipeline graph, you should see an `>>` icon. Clicking on it will reveal the `review-docs-deploy` job. Hit the play button for the job to start. @@ -209,12 +156,12 @@ working on. If you don't, the remote docs branch won't be removed either, and the server where the Review Apps are hosted will eventually be out of disk space. -### Behind the scenes +#### Technical aspects If you want to know the hot details, here's what's really happening: 1. You manually run the `review-docs-deploy` job in a CE/EE merge request. -1. The job runs the [`scirpts/trigger-build-docs`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/scripts/trigger-build-docs) +1. The job runs the [`scripts/trigger-build-docs`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/scripts/trigger-build-docs) script with the `deploy` flag, which in turn: 1. Takes your branch name and applies the following: - The slug of the branch name is used to avoid special characters since @@ -243,3 +190,65 @@ The following GitLab features are used among others: - [Review Apps](../ci/review_apps/index.md) - [Artifacts](../ci/yaml/README.md#artifacts) - [Specific Runner](../ci/runners/README.md#locking-a-specific-runner-from-being-enabled-for-other-projects) + +## General Documentation vs Technical Articles + +### General documentation + +General documentation is categorized by _User_, _Admin_, and _Contributor_, and describe what that feature is, what it does, and its available settings. + +### Technical Articles + +Technical articles replace technical content that once lived in the [GitLab Blog](https://about.gitlab.com/blog/), where they got out-of-date and weren't easily found. + +They are topic-related documentation, written with an user-friendly approach and language, aiming to provide the community with guidance on specific processes to achieve certain objectives. + +A technical article guides users and/or admins to achieve certain objectives (within guides and tutorials), or provide an overview of that particular topic or feature (within technical overviews). It can also describe the use, implementation, or integration of third-party tools with GitLab. + +They should be placed in a new directory named `/article-title/index.md` under a topic-related folder, and their images should be placed in `/article-title/img/`. For example, a new article on GitLab Pages should be placed in `doc/user/project/pages/article-title/` and a new article on GitLab CI/CD should be placed in `doc/ci/article-title/`. + +#### Types of Technical Articles + +- **User guides**: technical content to guide regular users from point A to point B +- **Admin guides**: technical content to guide administrators of GitLab instances from point A to point B +- **Technical Overviews**: technical content describing features, solutions, and third-party integrations +- **Tutorials**: technical content provided step-by-step on how to do things, or how to reach very specific objectives + +#### Understanding guides, tutorials, and technical overviews + +Suppose there's a process to go from point A to point B in 5 steps: `(A) 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 (B)`. + +A **guide** can be understood as a description of certain processes to achieve a particular objective. A guide brings you from A to B describing the characteristics of that process, but not necessarily going over each step. It can mention, for example, steps 2 and 3, but does not necessarily explain how to accomplish them. + +- Live example: "GitLab Pages from A to Z - [Part 1](../user/project/pages/getting_started_part_one.md) to [Part 4](../user/project/pages/getting_started_part_four.md)" + +A **tutorial** requires a clear **step-by-step** guidance to achieve a singular objective. It brings you from A to B, describing precisely all the necessary steps involved in that process, showing each of the 5 steps to go from A to B. +It does not only describes steps 2 and 3, but also shows you how to accomplish them. + +- Live example (on the blog): [Hosting on GitLab.com with GitLab Pages](https://about.gitlab.com/2016/04/07/gitlab-pages-setup/) + +A **technical overview** is a description of what a certain feature is, and what it does, but does not walk +through the process of how to use it systematically. + +- Live example (on the blog): [GitLab Workflow, an overview](https://about.gitlab.com/2016/10/25/gitlab-workflow-an-overview/) + +#### Special format + +Every **Technical Article** contains, in the very beginning, a blockquote with the following information: + +- A reference to the **type of article** (user guide, admin guide, tech overview, tutorial) +- A reference to the **knowledge level** expected from the reader to be able to follow through (beginner, intermediate, advanced) +- A reference to the **author's name** and **GitLab.com handle** +- A reference of the **publication date** + +```md +> **[Article Type](../../development/writing_documentation.html#types-of-technical-articles):** tutorial || +> **Level:** intermediary || +> **Author:** [Name Surname](https://gitlab.com/username) || +> **Publication date:** AAAA-MM-DD +``` + +#### Technical Articles - Writing Method + +Use the [writing method](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/technical-writing/#writing-method) defined by the Technical Writing team. + |