Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs: OEP-67 - Document our best practice tools and tech. #518

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 16, 2023

Conversation

feanil
Copy link
Contributor

@feanil feanil commented Sep 5, 2023

The topic for consideration in this PR

We should have an OEP to help us know which tools and technology we as a community should standardize on. This OEP will help us track these items and provide a structure place for us to have future conversations when we want to change community standards.

We currently have some of this for the frontend but having something a
bit more standard across the entire ecosystem would be helpful for
making decisions going forward.

Note for Reviewers: The tools/standards in the frontend section were simply moved from OEP-11, they are NOT up for re-consideration in this PR. If they are wrong or need updates, I recommend supporting this OEP and then making a new ADRs to update a recommendation that you feel is incorrect.

Tasks for After the OEP is Approved

  • Update OEP-11 to be superseded
  • Move ADRs from OEP-11 to OEP-67
  • Generate all the relevant redirects.
  • Add a new overall ADR for Codecov, since technically it moves from being a frontend recommendation to being an overall recommendation.

@brian-smith-tcril
Copy link
Contributor

brian-smith-tcril commented Sep 5, 2023

This is great! It looks like everything (except for Codecov) from OEP-11 can go under the "Frontend Technology Selection" section as it's all pretty frontend specific.

Copy link
Contributor

@e0d e0d left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Review of the current draft.

Copy link
Member

@kdmccormick kdmccormick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks Feanil. This is long overdue. A few comments but I'm very supportive of the overall direction.

oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Comment on lines 301 to 302
* OEP-11 will be superseded.

* All ADRs under OEP-11 will be moved to be under this OEP instead.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yay for consolidation!

Comment on lines +108 to +112
#. **Use Redux**

For state management of complex
client-side interactions, Redux must be used. This library was chosen
because it sees strong use in the React community, but is also flexible
enough to be used in situations where a hybrid React/Backbone architecture
exists.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I remember David Joy saying at one point that Redux wasn't worth the hassle and that MFE devs should feel free to simply not use it.

I'm not sure if I remember that right or whether that statement still applies, I'd need @arbrandes or @brian-smith-tcril 's input.

(I guess this is the sort of thing that will make this OEP useful :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a copy from the current frontend OEP. I think any corrections should be made as follow-up ADRs and updates to the OEP.

oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@feanil feanil changed the title docs: Document our best practice tools and tech. docs: OEP-67 - Document our best practice tools and tech. Sep 18, 2023
@feanil feanil marked this pull request as ready for review September 18, 2023 17:24
Python code - see `OEP 18`_ for more information. For more information on
package-lock files see `Package Lock`_.

#. **Keep dependencies up to date by using Greenkeeper**
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't this recommend Renovate instead? See https://openedx.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AC/pages/1841791377/Set+up+Renovate+to+Automate+JavaScript+Dependency+Updates#Notes-on-Alternatives for reasons we started to ditch Greenkeeper. As with the Redux note above we could update it after initial release, but I'd rather not risk people trying to start switching to Greenkeeper after reading this.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yea, I think this should be a follow-up task, I made #524 to track the work.

Copy link
Member

@deborahgu deborahgu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

all but one of my comments are grammar nits, for which I apologize; , because I know it is early days yet. It's just, it seemed a waste not to make the notes as I read.

oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

#. **Use React**

**Rationale**: React must be used for building new UIs, as it is
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

re: must. I am new enough around here that I don't know the standard, but I always assume that if a spec is using RFC 2119 verbs meaningfully, they should be capitalized, e.g. MUST, MAY, just to clarify what requirements really are.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that's a fair point, I'm not sure what the intent of the original authors was here, per your second point, MUST feels like a lot here to me as well but I'm not sure what the current stance should be. This is probably worth a follow-up conversation in the frontend working group. @brian-smith-tcril @arbrandes @adamstankiewicz what do you think?

Copy link
Contributor

@arbrandes arbrandes Sep 27, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I actually think we're squarely in SHOULD-land; even React. This definitely deserves a dedicated conversation.


#. **Use React**

**Rationale**: React must be used for building new UIs, as it is
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is the guidance really MUST on React? Some UIs are going to be so simple that react is overkill. (See above regarding: "new around here"; if this debate has already been had and resolved then I don't need anybody to restart it for me. It's more a question about unexamined assumptions.)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@deborahgu If a UI isn't using React, at least one possible concern is the compatibility with using the Paragon design system and React-based UI component library in terms of brand consistency, etc. across UI projects within Open edX.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yeah, this is a bigger question than can be resolved in this OEP, but eg. right now we're working on a place where we're dealing with the entire Paragon dependency stack to render 100% static pages, and it's not lightweight. It might be fundamentally worth the cost, but the cost is not small.

@feanil
Copy link
Contributor Author

feanil commented Oct 12, 2023

@bradenmacdonald the review period is complete, I think there are a lot of follow-up updates but as far as I can tell, no disagreement on this OEP existing and the goals it's trying to solve for. Do you have any concerns that I should address because I make the rest of the re-organization changes and land this OEP?

@bradenmacdonald
Copy link
Contributor

@feanil Nope! I don't have any concerns, and I think people seem quite happy with this change. (And eager to make the follow-up updates, as it seems like quite a few things have gotten outdated from the original.)

Copy link
Member

@kdmccormick kdmccormick left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, pending a couple formatting fixes.

oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Consequences
************

* OEP-11 will be superseded.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Friendly reminder to go into OEP-11 and make this change.

oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@bradenmacdonald
Copy link
Contributor

@feanil Also, can we track all the follow-up ADRs known to be needed in one place? I see codecov is in the PR description, greenkeeper is #524, Redux is not tracked, etc.

@feanil
Copy link
Contributor Author

feanil commented Oct 13, 2023

@bradenmacdonald good call, I'll make a new top-level issue and collect all the known updates we need into that for now.

@feanil feanil force-pushed the feanil/oep-67-tools-and-tech branch 2 times, most recently from acd775a to 5c86934 Compare October 16, 2023 15:49
@feanil
Copy link
Contributor Author

feanil commented Oct 16, 2023

@bradenmacdonald I've created #531 to track the current known updates that we need. Let me know if you think there's anything else that needs to be done before we land this.

Copy link
Contributor

@bradenmacdonald bradenmacdonald left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@feanil Thanks for making #531 . I think this is ready to go!

oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
oeps/best-practices/oep-0067-bp-tools-and-technology.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
We currently have some of this for the frontend but having something a
bit more standard acrooss the entire ecosystem would be helpful for
making decisions going forward.

We also:

* Replace OEP-11 and relocate its ADRS to OEP-67
* Add redirects from old doc locations to the new locations for any docs
  that moved.

Co-authored-by: Kyle McCormick <kdmc@pm.me>
Co-authored-by: Ned Batchelder <ned@edx.org>
Co-authored-by: Deborah Kaplan <deborahgu@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Braden MacDonald <braden@opencraft.com>
@feanil feanil force-pushed the feanil/oep-67-tools-and-tech branch from 3689a0d to 80aeb92 Compare October 16, 2023 19:26
@feanil feanil merged commit b9faa6c into master Oct 16, 2023
4 checks passed
@feanil feanil deleted the feanil/oep-67-tools-and-tech branch October 16, 2023 19:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.