328: Terrible Simplicity

Episode 328 · March 1st, 2022 · 52 mins 36 secs

About this Episode

Chris is helping with efforts to introduce security, practices, and policies at Sagewell. Right now, they are refining the usage of 1Password to standardize passwords and secure information. He also shares (what he believes) is a terrible idea around fixing inconsistencies around symbols and strings.

Steph shares an update around factories.

Also, at Sagewell, Chris is helping to build mobile apps, one for iOS and one for Android, and is considering pursuing having them be all native. Good idea? Terrible idea? Chris and Steph riff on that a bit.

This episode is brought to you by ScoutAPM. Give Scout a try for free today and Scout will donate $5 to the open source project of your choice when you deploy.

Services down? New Relic offers full stack visibility with 16 different monitoring products in a single platform.

Become a Sponsor of The Bike Shed!


CHRIS: Weird stuff happens when we sing, Steph.

STEPH: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Steph Viccari.

CHRIS: And I'm Chris Toomey.

STEPH: And together, we're here to share a bit of what we've learned along the way. So, hey, Chris, what's new in your world?

CHRIS: Hello, Steph. What is new in my world? We are continuing with some of the efforts that we're doing to introduce security, and practices, and policies, and all those fun sorts of things at the organization. One of the things that this is pushing on is we are further refining our usage of 1Password at the company as a way to standardize passwords and secure information and how we store that, how we move it around, as well as integrating SSL, and all those other fun fancier things.

But I'm personally historically a LastPass user, and now I'm getting to experience 1Password. So now I'm a child of two worlds, and it's terrible, and I hate it. I hate every moment of this existence. So what I need to do is move over to 1Password, but now I'm in that space where I'm like, I can see the flaws of both systems. This is terrible. I don't like it. 1Password does seem to be great; I will say that. There's one really interesting thing about 1Password. I'm interested...you're a 1Password user, right?

STEPH: I'm not; I use LastPass. I'm also a child of two worlds because we use 1Password for thoughtbot stuff, but then I use LastPass for my stuff.

CHRIS: Gotcha. Okay, so you survive in the middle space. I'm slowly trying to move everything over because I think 1Password has a little bit more of what I'm going for. And I would like, frankly, to be in one cohesive, consistent space, although having two different accounts seems interesting. I definitely can handle it. But knowing which I'm in and how to save a password to one versus the other, it's a whole thing.

The one thing that I find really interesting though is 1Password has a feature where it will do two-factor, two-factor authentication. It will do that for you. Specifically, it's doing, as far as I can tell, the TOTP. I don't know what that acronym stands for, but it's the fancy type of two-factor, so not SMS, not text message-based, and not others like WebAuthn is a thing that I've heard of, which I don't know if that is distinct from YubiKey or hardware keys. So there's a bunch I'm trying to learn about this space a little bit more.

I'm very interested in the hardware keys because those seem cool. WebAuthn seems like a new standard. That sounds cool. Don't know anything about it, though. So mostly, I know about SMS, and I do not like that one. I do not want to use text messages because, as far as I understand it, they're not super secure. So that's not the space I want to be in. But the TOTP, the Google Authenticator, or Authy, or that space of password or two-factor code generation tools those seem good.

And 1Password has a feature where they're like, hey, yeah, sure, we'll have your password and your two-factor. And so they grab the QR code, which is typically the QR code is a way, as far as I understand it, to share the seed. And then, that seed is used by an algorithm to generate the current code value for a given point in time. So it takes like, given that seed and the current timestamp, we will generate you the relevant code, which can then be verified on the far side. But that seed only exists for one moment in time, et cetera, et cetera.

But I've always thought of it as this separate thing. The idea of having that all in one system is interesting and kind of scary to me. But as I think about it, I'm like, if 1Password or LastPass, in either case, gets compromised, we're all done. Like, this is over. We should throw in our cards, give away the internet. This whole experiment has failed is my sense. But it was very interesting because I had not seen this. I've always had these as separate systems.

So for me, I have had LastPass, and I have Authy on my phone for the two-factor. But it's frankly very clunky, and I don't like it. And the 1Password thing is fantastic where I say like, yeah, 1Password, fill in my password and username, and then also fill in my two-factor because you have it. This is great. But, and this is where I hesitate, and I don't know, I will say this: I trust that 1Password has thought about this deeply way more than I can and have come to a place of deep confidence that this is a fine and okay thing to do. But I'm still intrigued. What's going on here?

STEPH: That was a lot. I have so many thoughts. [laughs]

CHRIS: Sorry, that was a lot of words, a lot of ideas, a lot of space there. It's just where I'm at.

STEPH: People couldn't hear me, but I was laughing when you were talking about LastPass or if these accounts get hacked in. And I'm imagining someone who uses the combination of their cat's name and their birthday as their password and then like, aha, I win. [laughs] It's like, no, we just all lose. [laughs] But that amused me.

Going back, you talked about having it all in one place. And that actually doesn't surprise me that we're different in this area. Because you also like all of your email...you like one source of everything, which makes so much sense, but I'm different. And with these accounts, I like that I have the distinction between all of thoughtbot is in 1Password while all of mine is in LastPass because it's just a very clear delineation between those two accounts. And I'm sure both of these platforms have figured out a really good way to then separate those two.

But I just remembered there was someone at thoughtbot that accidentally...because they have everything in 1Password, they accidentally shared their personal vault with a client. And so they were just typing in Slack. They're like, "Oh, shit, oh shit, like, how do I undo this?" And we're all just watching like, "We don't know. But please let us know how it turns out." [laughs] It turned out fine. I think they actually realized they hadn't fully shared it but based on the UI they thought that they had. So it all turned out okay. So that just lives with me. I'm a little scared of that now now that I know that story. So watch out, friends.

CHRIS: Oh, wow. Well, now, yeah, I'm also now scared of that. I wasn't, but now I am.

STEPH: And I forgot the other thoughts now. Those were my two main thoughts based on the journey that you've shared.

CHRIS: Particular to the thing you were sharing there, yes, now I will have nightmares about it. But also, it feels manageable because they're both entirely different accounts, and then also within that, there are different vaults. So as I'm building up the password infrastructure at Sagewell, there's going to be different...like, the dev team will probably have one vault and then a shared vault for the dev team. And then other teams within the organization will have that. And so it feels like there are at least structures within the tool to manage that.

But mostly, my consideration is around the two-factor thing. And like, is this reasonable to do? And again, I'm sure 1Password has thought way harder than I have about it. And I trust that they're like, yeah, this seems fine that they're not just like, I don't know, it doesn't seem bad. They're like, no, no, definitively for information-theoretic reasons, this is fine. But it was surprising.

STEPH: That was it. The other comment that you made about two-factor auth that resonated with me because there was a point not that long ago where we have one of those, either New Relic or I forget which account it was, but it was with the systems. We really only needed one person to have access, but every now and then, someone else may need to access that account. And so we wanted to be able to store it in 1Password or LastPass somewhere like that.

But then the two-factor auth was a problem because then you had to coordinate with that other person to say, "Hey, I just need to check something. Would you let me in?" And because we could then leverage that feature, then we could just store all of it. And then that person could just go to 1Password or LastPass and then have access to all of it, and that was really nice. That was a very nice solution to I want to say it was a small problem but yet also very important for team happiness. So that was really nice.

CHRIS: The amount of times that I've been like, "I just tried to sign in to the shared account, and it says that it sent a two-factor request to somebody's phone, but it didn't tell me whose phone. And I'm not sure if we know who that person is or if that person's still around," that version of the story feels true. And so, the idea of being able to centralize two-factor seems great. It almost feels too good to be true, is perhaps where I'm at. I am putting on my tinfoil hat, and I'm saying, yeah, but oh man, security, though.

And again, I will 100% defer to 1Password on this. They've thought about it. But it's mostly I want to get to the place where I understand the thought process that they went through to decide that this is perfectly fine because they definitely did that work. I'm certain of that. I just want to read a white paper or something, and I haven't found it yet. [laughs] I'm like, let me get to that deep place of trust because that's what I want to be at with security tooling and those sorts of things.

STEPH: Yeah, I haven't looked for something like that, but that sounds...I'm kind of surprised that doesn't exist.

CHRIS: Oh, it quite possibly exists. I haven't done much of a search, frankly, at all. Mostly, I'm in the space of like, huh, that's weird and then moving on with my day. Because there's not a lot of free time to go search for the white papers on the internet. But yeah, so moving from 1Password or LastPass or 1Password, or maybe I'll just end up with both for a while. I really hope I don't end up in that space, although you're describing it as a positive, so maybe I will.

STEPH: I have found it helpful for me. When you find that white paper, because you are more likely the type of person to read that white paper than I am the type of person to read it, then I would love a summary. That would be much appreciated.

CHRIS: I'm so intrigued by the persona that you're describing of me of; like, you're the kind of person who would read a white paper. I'm like, well, I don't know if that feels true or if it's definitely true or definitely not true. But if I do happen to find it, and especially if I happen to read it, [laughs], I will share it with you and perhaps with the listeners as well.

Let's see, one other small thing. I have a bad idea. I don't want to share the bad idea with you. I want to more share it with the audience, and then I want the audience to tell me exactly how bad of an idea it is.

STEPH: [laughs]

CHRIS: Because I'm sure it's a bad idea. I'm just not sure how bad.

STEPH: I love that there's not even a scale of goodness here. It's just nope, this is terrible, but I don't know how terrible it is. [laughs]

CHRIS: What's fun is in the later parts of this episode, we're going to go into a segment of good idea, bad idea, sorry, good idea, terrible idea because I like that framing. No, this one is firmly bad idea, but how bad is the question. So we're working on the app, and we keep running into inconsistencies around symbols and strings.

As any Rubyist who has worked in the language for any amount of time, especially in a Rails app, you have experienced this unpleasantness. There are strings; there are symbols. They're often used somewhat interchangeably, and yet they're different. You’ll hit bugs. You'll hit edge cases. You'll hit nils that you didn't expect to be there because you tried to fetch a symbol. It, in fact, was a string, et cetera.

So, what if we just applied HashWithIndifferentAccess everywhere, just deep in the internals of the app or in the Ruby runtime? What if we were to just turn this on? My sense is this would be terrible for performance reasons. My understanding is that's why symbols exist is because they are a more performant mechanism. Strings are complicated within the object model of Ruby because they're mutable. These are things that I understand very loosely, as you can tell by the tone of voice that I'm using. But symbols and strings they're separate. They're separate for reasons, performance I believe to be the main reason.

But what if we were to just say, well, what if it could be like easy, though? That's what I want. Like, this is the promise of Ruby is that I want to express my code in a way that feels like the words I would use to describe to another human. That's the way I always think of Ruby is it's as close to the words I would use to describe the sort of business logic as possible. And yet these symbols versus strings thing it's just annoying, frankly. And again, I think very good reasons for it, I'm sure.

But what if we were to just do the silly thing and turn on HashWithIndifferentAccess for everything? I don't even know that that's fundamentally possible. I don't know that there's the relevant hook or the way to do that. But I would love that because we're using it somewhat regularly throughout our app right now, where we're getting data from one API. And in our test suite, it's one way, and in our code, it's the other way. And granted, that speaks to us being inconsistent in our usage. But overall, I would just love for this to not be a thing.

And so, how bad of an idea would it be? How much of a performance hit? That's my guess as to what it would be. Maybe there's actual fundamental correctness that would go wrong here. But my sense is by collapsing the space together; we would actually get more correct. I don't know. Anyway, how bad do you think of an idea this is?

STEPH: I was thinking through some of the bugs that you're running into. And I think you provided some nice insight around that around it's the fact that you're fetching data from API. So it's typically you're parsing. That's how you're getting the string and symbol differences is because when you're parsing JSON and then you have a mixed case of maybe you have a symbol, maybe you have a string, or maybe you're parsing it differently. Are there other places in the application where that's a concern?

CHRIS: I want to say one other place that we're running into it specifically is we're using a lot of enums, particularly ActiveRecord::PGEnum backed enums. So these are Postgres enums at the database level. And then, within our Rails models, we define them as enums. And the enum is typically defined within the model as a mapping of symbol to string. It could be symbol to symbol. I'm not even sure. I think this might be in terms of our implementation.

But you say like, it's an enum. The key is foobar with an underscore, and it's a symbol, and then the value is foobar, but it's a string. And maybe both the key and the value could be symbols; maybe that's a thing, maybe this is our fault. But certain times, when you're interacting with the value, it's a symbol. Certain times I find it to be a string. I feel like that's true. I don't think I'm making that up. [laughs] It's possible I'm making it up.

But that's another place where I feel that inconsistency or other values within the system that like as they go through certain type coercion layers, they'll start as a symbol, and then they get saved to the database, and then they get reflected back, and they come back as a string. And it's like, well, that's unfortunate. It was a symbol a minute ago, and now it's a string. And so our tests suddenly break in this way, or our code is inconsistent. And it's enough of a nuisance that I had the bad idea the other day. And so, I wanted to bring the bad idea to this space.

STEPH: I think you're right. I think the main reasoning for not having everything just be strings is for looking for that performance benefit. And so then using that HashWithIndifferentAccess then you'd have to loop over everything and then convert it. So I imagine, like you said, there would be a performance hit there. I don't know how bad of an idea it would be.

But when you said this, it brought up a memory because I remember someone proposing or the Ruby community talking about the fact, like, what if we didn't have strings? What if everything was just a symbol? Or can we just have one over the other? And there is a ruby-lang issue; it is 7792. And we shall also put it in the show notes and send it to you. [chuckles] And this person is proposing make symbols and strings the same thing.

And then some people call out specifically the idea of using HashWithIndifferentAccess and saying, yes, that works wonderfully, but then you are going to have a performance hit for it. So it sounds exactly like everything you're saying. I don't know the outcome. I mean, clearly, the outcome is we're not there. But it seems like a really good place to see the reasoning or different approaches that maybe people have tried in this space.

CHRIS: Ooh, I love that. I definitely want to read that and see what sort of deeper thinking folks have done on this. Because again, this feels like another one where definitely folks have thought about this, folks who know more about it and have chosen the current path that we're on for reasons. But I would be really intrigued if I could be like, yeah, I would just like it to be easy to start, and then have the performance optimization be something that I could opt into. Again, that's probably not tractable within the language.

Like, oh, we have a hot code path here that we want to actually have immutable symbols only. And that's the sort of thing if we've done this HashWithIndifferentAccess everywhere, you can't back out of it. And so, therefore, you're stuck in a performance low point. That feels like a bad case. And so maybe that's the reason is like, you will shoot yourself in the foot with this definitely.

But yeah, I'm intrigued. So I will definitely read what you're sharing here. And we'll include it in the show notes, of course. I'm probably not going to do this, just saying that out loud because it seems like a bad idea. I just want to know how bad of an idea.

STEPH: I do love it, for when I'm building a class that's working specifically closely with an API, I do reach for HashWithIndifferentAccess frequently. Because like you said, I just don't want to worry about it. I want to set it up top. It's one of the rare times that I actually will use something in an initializer where I'm like, hey, pass in the data. I'm just going to run it through this method. And then all the data from here on forward you can access it in either way. So the class doesn't have to care; a tester doesn't have to care. So I do feel your pain, or I at least will always reach for it whenever I'm building a class specifically around interactions with JSON.

CHRIS: So for a segment that I framed as how terrible of an idea this is, you're like, hmm, I don't know how terrible. That seems to be your take, which is interesting.

STEPH: Good point. Let me assess for a moment. I'm going to go just from skimming this issue, although I think partially this issue is talking about the fact that if you merge symbols and strings, it's like, hey, friend, you're going to break a ton of stuff and break a bunch of libraries, and these two things do serve a purpose. So this may not be exactly what you're looking for, but it has some interesting conversation on there.

But embedding it deep down in the app so that just happens naturally sounds like it's just a performance concern. So yeah, it comes down to what is the question? How big is the performance? So I feel like I can't say it's a terrible idea until I actually know what the performance hit is.

CHRIS: So a plausible question. That's where we're going to put this in the category of. [laughter]

STEPH: Plausibly terrible, but still worth researching.

CHRIS: Not obviously not terrible. But anyway, these are some of the ideas at the top of my head right now. That's a rough summary of my week.

Mid-roll Ad

Hey, friends, let's take a quick break to hear from today's sponsor, New Relic.

All right, so you've probably experienced this before where you're just starting to fall asleep, and it's a calm, code-free peaceful sleep, and then you're jolted awake by an emergency page. It's your night on call, and something is wrong. But I have some good news because you have New Relic, which means you can quickly run down the incident checklist and find that problem.

So let's see, our real user monitoring metrics look good. And that's where New Relic measures the speed and performance of your end-users as they navigate the site. But it looks like there's an error in application performance monitoring. If we click on the error, we can find the deployment marker where it all began, roll back the change, and, ooh, problem is solved. We can go back to bed, back to sleep, and back to happy.

That's the power of combining 16 different monitoring products into one platform. You can pinpoint issues down to the line of code so you know exactly why the problem happened and can resolve it quickly. That's why more than 14,000 other companies, including GitHub and Epic Games, use New Relic to improve their software.

So you know that next late-night call is just waiting to happen, so get New Relic before it does. And you can get access to the whole New Relic platform and 100 gigabytes of data free forever. No credit card required. Sign up at newrelic.com/bikeshed. That's newrelic N-E-W-R-E-L-I-C .com/bikeshed, newrelic.com/bikeshed.

STEPH: I have an update that I can share around factories because the last time we were chatting, I was sharing that strategy that we're pursuing where we're trying to minimize factories and then speed up the CI time by reducing the work that those factories are doing. So Joël Quenneville has done some phenomenal work and this past week, specifically improving factories. And he found one particular factory that he was digging into.

So some stats before the change. The factory was taking around two seconds, which I know on paper doesn't sound so bad, but it gets more interesting. So total database time is around 1,000 milliseconds. And 833 total database queries were being made, which includes reads, creates, and updates. So then after, Joël was diving into this looking mainly to reduce the number of database queries because that's such a big number.

So after the change, which took a lot of research on Joël's part, the factory is now taking around one second, so half of that time. The total database time is around 666 milliseconds. And the total database queries went from 833 down to 647, so a nice improvement there. But the real wonderful outcome of the story is not just those stats, but okay, so how did we impact CI? So we spent time working on this factory. And we have reduced, and we can see some of that in the stats. But how does that apply to the bigger picture?

And so Joël took the time of the last 20 successful builds, and based on those builds, we average 27 minutes and 37 seconds for each build. With the factory change that he made, that same test suite was now averaging 21 minutes and 33 seconds. So shaved off six minutes from the build time, which is about a 22% decrease in the build time which is just fabulous. So that was a really nice win from all the work that had been invested in improving that one factory.

CHRIS: That's a heck of a haircut there so glad to see that the efforts are paying off.

STEPH: Yeah, it was a really nice win to see that we had researched which factories we should pursue, and then we were methodical about that. And then Joël worked hard to improve this factory and saw such a large payoff. It's one of those areas where the team has already invested a lot of effort and hours into improving the test suite. And it's challenging when you have so many areas that you'd like to improve and 100-plus engineers also contributing to that same codebase. So how do you improve and keep up with it all at once?

They had spent about a year, so I think they were recognizing that yes, there are still a lot of areas to improve but also felt like small efforts wouldn't move the needle. So it was a nice data point to remind ourselves that we can still reduce the CI build time in a significant way. We just need to be very strategic about where we invest our time in those improvements.

There is also an interesting conversation that Joël and I were having because we have a daily sync with each other each day. We've now been embedded with a team with a client, which is wonderful, but before then, we were also chatting with each other. And we like to chat about code, so we've had lots of fun conversations around code. And one, in particular, this week, came up about how people view code differently. And there's even a tweet that Joël shared that I can link to in the show notes.

And there's one view that code is a liability, and if a line can't justify its existence, then it should be deleted. And then there's another view that code is an asset. If a line isn't causing any immediate issues, then why not keep it? And part of the reason that came up was while I was going through and reading pull requests, there was a particular change where someone was memoizing an expensive call, which was great, something that we wanted to do.

But then they were also memoizing a very fast operation in two other places where it was just like parsing some params something that, you know, superfast and only getting called in maybe two places. And it was one of those that just caught my attention to be like, hey, I love that you memoized this other call, but this one, I don't think we need the additional overhead or complexity of adding memoization.

And I found myself when I was writing that suggestion for the author that I was already looking for more than just to say, like, hey, this is more than we need. Because I've realized that often I take that stance of code is a liability. So if we don't need it, let's just get rid of it. But I've definitely run into other people where they're like, well, it's not hurting anything, so why can't I just leave it? And getting that kind of pushback on suggestions about removing code.

So it was a fun opportunity to think through okay, well, why is this memoization not just unnecessary, but how could it actually cause us problems? And what's the cost of keeping it in, not just the cost of removing it but also the cost of keeping it in? And that was fun to talk about.

CHRIS: I'm so glad you're bringing this particular conversation up because if we're being honest, I saw Joël tweeted about this. I saw it. I sent an email to myself linking to the tweet with the subject of the email being ahhhh, just A-H-H-H-H, which I believe was me being like, oh my God, we got to talk about this. I apparently didn't want to write all of those words, so I just wrote ahhhh.

But as a handful of asides, one, if you're not following Joël Quenneville on Twitter, @joelquen, that is a mistake, because Joël is one of the clearest, most concise, and effective thinkers about code that I've ever seen. The writing that Joël produces is absolutely fantastic. And having worked with Joël for forever, I still will look at his Twitter feed and be like, well, this is fantastic. You're saying amazing things that I have not heard you say. So, again, strongest recommendation I can make; please follow Joël on Twitter and also via the Giant Robots blog and all of those other places.

But in particular, I saw this one come through, and I was like, oh, man, we have to talk about this. So I actually have it up in my email app right now behind the scenes. [laughs] I was like, oh, I want to mention this to you, Steph. So I'm very excited that you're bringing it up in this moment. It is such an interesting thing. It's such an interesting case of like; I deeply believe both of these truths, and yet they do seem to be in contradiction. And so what do we do with that?

More generally, I feel like that's true of a lot of stuff in life, like, the ability to hold two competing ideas in your head and be able to know where one applies and where one doesn't. That is a critical thing to get to in life and to figure out how to do, and that's some of the hard work of thinking. But in particular, this one, the idea that code is a liability. You have a line of code...I'm going to read it precisely as Joël wrote it, "Code is a liability. If a line can't justify its existence, it should be deleted. Code is an asset. If a line isn't causing any immediate issues, why not keep it?"

And I think for me, if I were to try and interpret this, because I do believe both of those sides, I would apply one during code review. When code is coming into the application or when I'm writing code, do I need this? Do we need this? Is this necessary? Because it really should be necessary to come into the app. But then once something has made it in, especially the longer something's been in there, I think code sort of ages and matures. And so, the longer it's been part of the app and not causing an issue, the more I am liable to just leave it at rest. Just say, sure, or not at rest but as part of the runtime production code.

But these are two competing ideas, but I think they apply at different times in the conversation. And so I'm definitely on memoization. In particular, memoization is a form of caching. Caching I have run into a handful of caching bugs in my life, let me tell you. I'll probably run into a few more. So if we can avoid caching, let's do that. So that's a particular question around that thing. But again, that idea of like the point in time to have that conversation is during code review or initial authoring or when it's about to come into the app.

But if we've had some memoization in the app for forever and you're like, do we need this memoization? I don't know, but don't remove it because maybe it's very important at this point. Maybe it's one of the cornerstones holding up our application. So that's a bunch of thoughts about that. But also super glad that you brought this up because I was very excited about this particular tweet.

STEPH: Yeah, there's someone that said something very similar to what you just said around they agree with number one for all new code. And they agree with number two, where code is an asset for refactoring. And I thought, yep, that's a great way to look at it. And I hadn't really thought about that specific perspective. And so it was one of those moments. Because I do like when people will push back on something that I so firmly believe on, not that this person did. I was, frankly, having a conversation with myself based on previous conversations with other pull requests authors that I've had that it's not related to this particular pull request.

But in general, when people do push back on something that I do have such a firm belief in...and early eager optimization around memoization is something that I'm just like, I don't want to do it, especially for something that's so cheap and in such a fast execution and something that we're only calling twice. There's no benefit to it at that point. But then when someone says, "Well, but it's not hurting anything," then I appreciate that question because then it's more of not just pushback, but it's sort of well, tell me more. What is the pain that I'm introducing by keeping this in?

And then that can be a really nice conversation to have with someone around; like you just said, I've seen caching bugs, and this could be a caching bug, and they are painful to then triage. And so we've introduced this optimization, but it's actually just going to cause us debugging pain later. And we really didn't even get the reward from it in the first place. So I really like those conversations when I feel like there's a little bit of a challenge of where I'm like, oh, I hold this as a deep truth, and somebody doesn't, and I would like to have that conversation with them.

There are also some other fun conversations; one was around introducing a query object, which, as you know, we're both really big fans of. And then there was another great question because not everybody who works on this team is really familiar with Ruby and RSpec. They work in Scala, but then sometimes they hop over to the Ruby side. And so then they hop into the Ruby channels, and they're asking questions. And one of them was around the idea of introducing an RSpec Matcher. And they're like, "Am I doing this right? Is this how you would extract something to then improve your test? "

And so that was a really fun conversation around like, yes, you did it right. This is exactly how you write a Matcher. But let's talk about use cases because extracting something to an RSpec Matcher to me means it meets the most generalized sense of usefulness that you want the whole team to use this and that you're willing to put in the extra overhead to then introduce this essentially like new RSpec DSL for the rest of the team to use and then maintain that. So it is the most aggressive step that I take when I'm trying to introduce a helpful tool.

So then I shared my progression for when I'm extracting something for a test. And first, I will start with just a local method to that test because then it's scoped to just that test. And from there, then I will think about extracting to a shared helper. So maybe it's a module that can get included. But then its scope can still be confined to a couple of tests, but then we've also increased some of its observability.

So then other developers will notice it and be able to share with it. And then from there, if I'm like, oh, this is super generic, it is testing time, and it's something that everybody is going to benefit from, then I reach for something like an RSpec Matcher or introducing a custom RSpec Matcher. So lots of fun testing conversations this week.

CHRIS: That was a wonderful hierarchy. I like that a lot. I feel like that would make a good blog post.

STEPH: There are some things that I realize that I just think of inherently about that I realize that would be fun to share. I'm much better at podcasting than I am at blog posting. [laughs]

CHRIS: There's this friend I know, Joël Quenneville, very good at the blogging. He could probably help talk you through writing this up as a quick blog post. But you just described this heuristic hierarchy that you have. And you could probably provide quick examples of each, and I think encapsulate that knowledge. I, too, default to podcasting because it's easy for me to just say stuff here, and then it's there it is.

But what you just said also mirrors exactly what I would think of as sort of the hierarchy and the reasons you're like, I'm not sure I'd go all the way to an RSpec Matcher. That hesitation is meaningful and comes from experience that you've had. And again, that seems sort of a trade-off of like, well, why not? Is it hurting anyone? What's the cost here? You know that cost. You have that in your head. And so now if you can capture...I don't want to put work on your plate. But I think that would be a great blog post. I would be happy to read that blog post and share it with other folks.

STEPH: Cool, cool. Cool. So I totally hear you. So here's my hierarchy. Typically, I start with a podcast, and then I share it there. And then maybe it'll go to a tweet. And then once I'm like, okay, this is super generic, it can help everybody, then we've reached blog post status.

CHRIS: I love how tweet is higher in the hierarchy than a podcast for you. That somehow the throw away let me just have 140 characters or 280, or whatever we're at these days, that somehow that's next in your hierarchy. But I agree; I share that place in the world.

STEPH: Yeah, just writing is hard. Here I get to show up, and I say things. And then we have wonderful Mandy, who is then editing all of our words, so there's a safety net here. If it's just me and a keyboard, who knows what's going to happen?

CHRIS: Then you'll probably think about the switches that you're using on the keyboard. And do you need a new keyboard? Should it be silent? What do we do?

STEPH: I was thinking more how many exclamation marks do you use? That's always a question.

CHRIS: Not too many, not too few. It's a difficult question.

STEPH: [laughs]

Mid-roll Ad

Hi, friends, and now a quick break to hear from today's sponsor, Scout APM.

Scout APM is an application performance monitoring tool that's designed to help developers find and fix performance issues quickly. With an intuitive user interface, Scout will tie bottlenecks to source code, so you can quickly pinpoint and resolve performance abnormalities like N+1 queries, slow database queries, and memory bloat.

Scout also recently implemented external service monitoring, adding even more granularity when it comes to HTTP requests and API calls. So give Scout a try today with a free 14-day trial and experience first-hand why developers worldwide call Scout their best friend.

And as an added bonus for Bike Shed listeners, Scout will donate $5 to the open-source project of your choice when you deploy. To learn more, visit scoutapm.com/bikeshed. That's scoutapm.com/bikeshed.

STEPH: Pivoting just a bit, [laughs] what else is going on in your world?

CHRIS: What else is going on in my world? So we are building out a whole platform over here at Sagewell, and one of the things that we need to build is a mobile app or, frankly, two mobile apps, one for iOS and one for Android. And I'll be honest; I resisted this for a while. I am a big, big believer in the web as a platform like deeply in my heart of hearts. That's the place that I want to spend my time. That's the thing that I believe in.

And there are absolutely cases where truly native mobile apps shine, completely outshine what we can do on the web platform sometimes for reasons that are, I think, not great, limitations of the available mobile web platforms, et cetera, reasons that I'll slam my fist on the table or whatever it is.

But there are plenty of really great mobile experiences, offline, et cetera, that we just can't...offline is not even a great example. See, I can't even find a great example. There are definitely things, though, where truly native mobile apps are 100% superior. But again, I'm such a big fan of the web platform that that's what I wanted to do. I wanted to hold on to this dream of, like, what if we just make a really great web app and it's just great?

And then consistently, our backend is one singular thing. Our frontend is kind of one singular thing. And yeah, we got to deal with responsive design. But that's to me a much more tractable problem than fracturing our entire application architecture across a bunch of different platforms and having all of the logic of our domain splintered and especially depending on how you implement it. That's sort of a big question.

I've talked a ton about Inertia.js on this podcast, and that's because I believe it's a really great example as to how to pull some of the logic back to the server-side, which, in my experience, that's where I want the logic to be implemented, our deep domain logic. I just want that to be on my server in a Rails controller, or a Rails model, or a command object, or any of those sorts of things, query objects, all of these wonderful things but server-side that's centralized in one space.

Nonetheless, though, we had to build a mobile app. These are the truths of the world. Sometimes it just comes down to the expectation of your user base. And there are certain things that by building a mobile app we will get so, for instance, in our case, having biometric login, so fingerprint, or facial ID, or any of those sorts of things. Those are actually material security differences. They are actually, as far as I can tell, available on the web but not consistently on every browser, et cetera. So that's something that we can get by having our app as a native app.

Push notifications is another one that certain platforms, certain web platforms have dragged their feet on, Apple Safari. iOS Safari, specifically, I'm looking at you, but that's an example of something that by going the truly native route, we'll get that. Similarly, access to some of the lower-level things, cameras, et cetera, that is something that we'll get a better experience of. And again, you can hear in my voice I don't want to really seed it to the native platform, but it is true right now, at a minimum.

So we had a decision to make as to how we would implement these applications, and we went with an interesting route. So for anyone that's familiar with Turbolinks native, or I believe Turbo iOS is pretty similar. But I'm more familiar with Turbolinks native as there was a talk I Can't Believe It's Not Native I think is the name of the talk that was given a while back talking about the Turbolinks native architecture.

So basically, what's happening under the hood is let's still render these things server-side. Let's send down some HTML. In our case, it's a weird sort of hybrid of HTML and not HTML. But broadly, let's say that the server is rendering things. And our native application is going to then be a native shell that wraps around WebViews. But it does so in not just a single WebView sort of way. It's instead trying to find that optimum hybrid spot where let's do native things where they make sense.

So, for instance, we have introduced a tab bar at the bottom of our application that is a truly native UI. We similarly have push notifications, biometric login, et cetera. Those are features of the native platform that we're using. But then, for most of the screens, most of the screens that are just some text, maybe a button, maybe a form, et cetera, we are using the server-rendered code that we have. And so server-rendered, in our case, because we're Inertia, it's sort of a misnomer because technically it is being rendered on the client-side in the WebView. But, I don't know; we're now getting too nuanced and in the weeds for it.

But what we've opted for is to reuse the same views, controllers, et cetera. All of that is still being reused. Our iOS and our Android codebase at this point are wrappers around those WebView stacks. So it's not just a singular WebView; it's a stack of WebViews. So if you're doing swipe to navigate thing on iOS, that'll work...or Android. I think Android has an actual back button, though, within the applications.

But most importantly, we've introduced a tiny little bridge layer. So from our WebViews, we can communicate to the wrapping native context. And similarly, from our native context, we can send messages into our WebView. So we can have a button in our native UI. And when a user clicks that button, it will send a message to the WebView that it's wrapping around and vice versa. We can do push notifications. We can do all that sort of stuff. For any given view, like, say, the login view, we can say, "Hey, don't render the normal server-side thing. Instead, render this truly native, local Swift or Kotlin view that we want to use there."

So it's an interesting choice. I think it's something that I've certainly seen applications that are just like, let's take some HTML and wrap it in a WebView, and it'll be fine. And they don't make great apps. But I think this time it might just be a good idea. I actually do think that the approach that we're taking, at a minimum, is buying us a ton of simplicity in terms of having to duplicate what are somewhat nascent domain concepts across multiple platforms.

We're not entirely certain as to what our platform and what our business is going to be. So we'd love to non-enshrine that across three different platforms that are hard to update. Like the web, I can kind of change that every day. But iOS and Android because I have to go through review cycles, because I have to get them out to devices, because there are slow update cycles that individuals will use, I'm going to be stuck supporting whatever version of these applications are out there.

And so if more of that is the dynamic content that's driven by the server, frankly, I just feel way better about that, at least for now, at least for the point in time that we're at. But I kind of believe that this may be a really useful architecture for us long term.

That was a bunch of me rambling about the architecture. Let me pause there, thoughts, questions, comments, concerns?

STEPH: First, I really appreciate the thoughtful approach and explanation. Also, you highlighted the reasons that y'all are pursuing having a native app, and all of that makes a lot of sense. Because there is that user expectation of you told me about a service that then there must be an app that I can download because that's what I'm accustomed to using versus having to go to a browser and then having to then remember the URL of the site that I'm supposed to go to. So there's that convenience factor.

There's also the idea that some people go to the App Store and search for their solutions instead of going to a browser and searching for a service. So having that presence in the App Store can seem like a really huge win because then even if it maybe slowly pushes them back to use the website or as long as they get a decent experience, they've now at least been exposed to the idea of the service and that it's out there.

But then, as you pointed out, building a mobile native application is a lot of work. And then it becomes a question of like, well, are you going to hire people to work specifically on these platforms? And then, is it really worth that investment at this point? Or is it worth the approach that you're taking where you're going the more hybrid approach? I am curious; maybe this is something that you'll know. So as you are investing in this hybrid approach and you are starting to collect more users that are then using the app versus going to the browser, then what does that pivot look like, or how does that further investment look like?

If you realize that the UI isn't quite delivering the expectations that you want that if you'd actually built a native iOS or Android application, then what does that investment look like? Can you still reuse some of the work that you've done? Is it totally scrapping that work? I think that would be my biggest question around taking this first approach. Is it an all-in bet that we are now stuck to this? Or is there some salvageable pieces to then move this forward into native apps should we need to do that?

CHRIS: That's a heck of a question. Have you made a terrible decision or just like an iffy decision? I think that the framework that we're choosing or, frankly, building right now will actually be amenable to a potential transition entirely into the native world in the future. So again, one of the options that we have here is the ability to say, no; this facet of the application is entirely native. We're going to opt-in.

And so it actually happens at the navigation layer. So we can say, if a person transitions to the /user/signin route, instead of just rendering that WebView right in place, push a native Swift or Kotlin. Depending on the context that we're in or the platform that we're in, push the native view onto the stack and use that. And so we're able to, on a screen-by-screen basis, make a decision of no, we'd like to opt into native behavior here.

And so, if we did eventually see that the vast majority of the users of the platform are using it via the native app, we should probably continue to invest in that and push in that direction. I think we could do it in sort of a gradual style, and that is critically important to me. I don't want to make a big bet and then be like, oh no, we got to rewrite from the ground up. And there's no way to do that incrementally. It's going to be a whiz-bang Friday launch that everyone's going to hate. That's the thing I want to avoid most in the world.

And so I think what we found now is this seems great for right now because it allows us to avoid this complexity explosion of three different platforms and trying to keep them in sync and trying to keep them up to date. But it does, I think, give us an opportunity as we move forward to slowly sort of transition things over. We are, to state it, this isn't just like wrapping a WebView around things. We are building essentially a mini framework on both iOS and Android, or roughly Swift and Kotlin is what the actual languages are, to work with Inertia because inertia is the core technology that we're using.

Inertia, thankfully, has a nice little event system in there, so we can say, Inertia on navigate. And when a navigate event happens, we can hook into that and then connect it to whatever Swift or Kotlin runtime that we're building here. And there are a couple of different events that we can opt into. And so that's giving us the hooks that we need in the current architecture.

But longer-term, if we needed to, we could just, I think, slowly transition everything over to be truly native mobile, and then that would probably be backed by more traditional API endpoints and that sort of thing. I want to avoid that. That's my dream is to stay in this happy place where we're always going to need some web presence. And I would hate for those to be fractured distinct things.

I've worked with enough mobile apps that are wonderful native experiences, and yet I'm like, could you just give me the desktop view? Just scaled to...like, I'll even pinch and zoom because you're hiding data from me, and that makes me very, very sad. Please give me the buttons, and the text, and the content that you would give me on the web. And the fact that you're not is just breaking my heart right now. And, frankly, for our user base, consistency of experience is something that I think is really important. So that's another facet of the conversation that is really interesting to me of like; I don't want it to be different on each platform.

Certainly, a three-column layout doesn't work on an iOS app that is zoomed in 150%. But we can turn that into each column is just floated down and then otherwise have all the content in there. And I believe in that as sort of a fundamental truth of let's reshape the content but not fundamentally rethink it. I say that as something that I believed deeply. But as I said it out loud, I was like, yeah, but also, I don't know, make it work on the platform it's on. So I can see both sides. But I have had enough experiences personally where I'm sad about the app that I'm using.

STEPH: Yeah, I could also see an argument for both ways where you don't want it to be fundamentally different, but then also, you want it to fit the platform. And then there may be some advantages to the fact that there is a different platform, and you want to utilize that. I also agree with the not hiding of the data. I have felt that pain where I have an app, but I really want to go to my desktop, and I really want to use it there. But then on mobile, it's then hiding, and I realize it's hiding. And that inconsistency really frustrates the heck out of me. So I can understand that as well.

Overall, I really like this. You're taking a bet in a direction of we should have a mobile presence, and we should start attracting people through this new marketplace. But we want to reuse a lot of the logic that we already have before we go so far as then we're going to have to start building for each different platform. Because while I don't have a lot of experience in that area, the times that I have been part of teams that are building native apps, it's a big investment.

I mean, they hire people very focused on that; designers have to design for browser, for mobile, and then for native, and then everything has to stay in sync across. You have to think about how a feature is going to work across all three of those different views. And so it is certainly not something to go into lightly, which I think is exactly what you're describing is that you're looking for that in-between to how can we start working our way in this direction but yet also do it in a way that we're reusing a lot of the work that we have versus having to invest full sail into then building out these different platforms?

So I'm going to go with this is not a terrible idea. [chuckles] I'm excited to see how it feels once I can download this and check it out. I'm excited to then see how that feels from a UX perspective. But overall, everything you're saying really jives with me. It makes a lot of sense. I am curious, what about React Native? Is that something that you considered using?

CHRIS: Oh yeah, great question and definitely something that we considered. We're not using React on the backend, so that was actually a consideration when I was thinking about Svelte initially is I assumed we'd be building a React Native app eventually for the native platforms. But I talked myself into Svelte for the web, and that is not the reason that we're not using React Native for the native apps. But it is an interesting sort of constellation of technologies that we have now.

We're not using React Native because I'm clinging to this idea of what if we could have a singular experience? So React Native fundamentally you're building a native app that this is this bundle that you download that's got all of the UI and that front-end logic in that bundle that you download. And then when it wakes up, it makes some calls back to some APIs to get some data or to decide if I can do an action or to actually do an action, all those sorts of things. But you're building out a Rest or GraphQL or one of those APIs.

And with my explorations of Inertia, I found that what if I didn't need to do that? What if I could do a more traditional Rails CRUD-like experience but CRUD in a good way (I mean it in the very positive sense of the familiar architecture) and still give users a delightful experience but not have to build a distinct API where all of the or majority of the logic was on our client-side? So if I did that, then my web client would need to be that much smarter. And each of the iOS and Android clients would need to be that much smarter because that's fundamentally how these technologies work.

UI components they can give a higher fidelity experience, more native-like experience, but they tend to own a lot more of the smarts. And one of my core beliefs is however long I can get away with this, I want to keep as much intelligence on the server as possible and have my view layer be as minimal and as simple as possible.

So I think React Native is a really fantastic technology for that sort of work. But my goal was to avoid that sort of work entirely. What if we had a singular way that we had the logic exist on the server-side, and then we rendered pretty minimal view layers? Or, from a user experience, the view should do all this stuff and show all of the things that they want. But I want that view layer to be as naive as possible. And by naive, I mean in the positive sense of like, I want to be able to change this very rapidly. I want to be able to evolve it and iterate it.

And so this is more of a buy into I think the thing that Inertia gave me is valuable enough and if I can keep using that and reuse it, especially on these mobile platforms...now if we add a new fundamental part of our Sagewell platform, if we have that, it just exists on each of the iOS, the Android, and the web, and that's fantastic. And we're going to keep a really close eye on what experience that gives to the user. And is it still great? But presuming it is, the complexity savings there are so huge.

Our team is a team of web developers that is able to think about things holistically and singularly. We implement it once within our stack, and it just works. And if we can do that, that is worth a ton. We may not be able to do that forever. But for now, especially while we're figuring things out, while we're super early on as a company, I think that savings and complexity is worth a lot. So it'll be interesting to see how it plays out, and will certainly report back. But I'm a big believer in this little adventure we're on.

STEPH: Yeah, you said it perfectly there at the end; you're a team of web developers. And so as long as you can stick to that, then that's what's best for y'all and the team and the product. So that's wonderful. I have a short segue because I had a little bit of inspiration when we were talking about terrible ideas. I want to circle back to your other terrible idea because I have a terrible idea for your terrible idea about strings and symbols.

Okay, so my terrible idea is you're talking about using HashWithIndifferentAccess for everything. What if you had a class or method that then will first try to access via string and if that fails, access via symbol, and then if that fails, then it fails loudly? So you now have this let's try this, and then let's try the next thing. I have strong feelings about this as I'm saying it.

CHRIS: [laughs]

STEPH: But we're in the terrible idea segment, so I'm going to embrace it. This is my terrible idea.

CHRIS: HashWithIndifferentAccess with runtime exceptions. I think HashWithIndifferentAccess under the hood probably does what you're describing of, like checks one and then checks the other or checks has_key is probably the underlying implementation. I haven't actually looked at it. But some version of that makes sense. Falling back to the key error gets interesting.

I did see a different thing recently of a deep fetch, which is something that I want, to stop trying to make fetch happen, except I'm going to try and make fetch happen. We thought about this a bunch where we have these objects that we need to traverse into. So we use dig to get into the third layer of the object, but dig doesn't care. And it's just going to happily nil out whatever. So I'm like, no, dig but then right at the end, fetch, deep fetch. I saw somebody post this recently. So deep fetch is something I want to make happen. HashWithIndifferentAccess, which raises at the end also intriguing.

STEPH: So yes, but this will be a little different because this one, you don't have to do the transformation process upfront with HashWithIndifferentAccess where you have to pass the data first, and then it transforms it so then it can do these two different lookups or the fallback. This one, you're skipping the transformation process, and you're using your own custom method that then does that first check for a string or first check for a symbol and then default back to the other one and then fail loudly, yeah, if both of those fail.

CHRIS: Interesting, and I have to see what it looks like in practice. But I mean, broadly, I'm into something in this space. Let us find some simplicity. That is what I want.

STEPH: Let's find some terribleness and see which one feels not so terrible. [laughs]

CHRIS: Some terrible simplicity. Well, I like that idea. We'll see where we get to with it. But I think on that note, and we've said a bunch of stuff today, should we wrap up?

STEPH: Let's wrap up.

CHRIS: The show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm.

STEPH: This show is produced and edited by Mandy Moore.

CHRIS: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review on iTunes, as it really helps other folks find the show.

STEPH: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us at @_bikeshed or reach me on Twitter @SViccari.

CHRIS: And I'm @christoomey.

STEPH: Or you can reach us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email.

CHRIS: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week.

ALL: Byeeeeeeee!!!

ANNOUNCER: This podcast was brought to you by thoughtbot. thoughtbot is your expert design and development partner. Let's make your product and team a success.

Support The Bike Shed