Upgrade re-frame to latest stable release v1.3.0 #15997
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ilmotta
requested review from
alwx,
erikseppanen,
cammellos,
jakubgs,
flexsurfer,
Parveshdhull and
ulisesmac
Jenkins BuildsClick to see older builds (4)
|
flexsurfer
approved these changes
May 23, 2023
Parveshdhull
approved these changes
May 23, 2023
| @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ | |||
| {:source-paths ["src" "test/cljs"] | |||
|
|
|||
| :dependencies [[reagent "1.0.0"] | |||
| [re-frame "0.12.0"] | |||
| [re-frame "1.3.0"] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wondering if cider-nrepl, piggieback versions should be updated in shadow-cljs.edn as well...?
...or maybe removed, since I think we're all using local updated versions anyways...?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We might not need piggieback anymore: Does shadow-cljs use Piggieback? No, it doesn't.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wondering if cider-nrepl, piggieback versions should be updated in shadow-cljs.edn as well...?
...or maybe removed, since I think we're all using local updated versions anyways...?
I would prefer if other contributors could share their opinion about that. I would certainly remove cider-nrepl and piggieback, but I'm not sure if it could affect others.
It's worth creating an issue anyway. Thanks for mentioning @erikseppanen
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removing cider-nrepl might hurt emacs users. Cider needs the nrepl dep for the editor to jack in.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shivekkhurana, I think what @erikseppanen was hinting at is that editor specific deps could be removed from the repo since each developer can use their own preferred versions of these libs, and the ones in the repo are quite outdated anyways. For example, by overwriting deps in ~/.shadow-cljs/config.edn
But for now I'm going to keep these libs in the repo :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes thank you @ilmotta, that's what I was referring to. There's a small reference to it in the docs.
I can see some value in maintaining them in shadow-cljs.edn so that a dev wouldn't have to maintain a separate ~/.shadow-cljs/config.edn. But IIRC, the emacs cider packages (for each developer's local emacs installation) need to have matching versions, or you get a warning about packages being out-of-sync.
In general, when I see those outdated deps, I wonder for whose benefit they are there. I guess it doesn't matter that much leaving them in there... it's a low priority.
ulisesmac
approved these changes
May 23, 2023
erikseppanen
approved these changes
May 23, 2023
|
would be great to bump reagent as well in this PR, wdyt ? |
alwx
approved these changes
May 24, 2023
If you don't mind too much, I would prefer for that to be done separately @flexsurfer. I'll merge this one Edit: Waiting for this week's mobile release. |
94% of end-end tests have passedFailed tests (2)Click to expandClass TestCommunityMultipleDeviceMerged:
Class TestOneToOneChatMultipleSharedDevicesNewUi:
Passed tests (31)Click to expandClass TestCommunityOneDeviceMerged:
Class TestGroupChatMultipleDeviceMergedNewUI:
Class TestCommunityMultipleDeviceMerged:
Class TestOneToOneChatMultipleSharedDevicesNewUi:
Class TestActivityCenterContactRequestMultipleDevicePR:
Class TestActivityMultipleDevicePR:
|
ilmotta
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 5, 2023
This commit shows how to move away from rf/defn https://github.com/status-im/status-mobile/blob/f12c7401d167d7adb81f97bdf9c0902b39ee37bc/src/utils/re_frame.clj#L1-L90 & rf/merge https://github.com/status-im/status-mobile/blob/f12c7401d167d7adb81f97bdf9c0902b39ee37bc/src/utils/re_frame.cljs#L39-L85 and why we should do it. ## Problems Before jumping to solutions, let's understand the problems first, in no order of importance. ### Problem 1: Cyclic dependencies If you ever tried to move event handlers or the functions used inside them to different files in status-mobile, you probably stumbled in cyclic dependency errors. When an event is registered in re-frame, it is globally available for any other place to dispatch. The dispatch mechanism relies on globally unique keywords, the so called event IDs, e.g. :chat/mute-successfully. This means that event namespaces don't need to require other event namespaces, just like you don't need to require subscription namespaces in views. rf/merge increases the likelihood of cyclic dependencies because they force event namespaces to require each other. Although not as common, this happened a few times with devs in the team and it can be a big hassle to fix if you are unlucky. It is a problem we should not have in the first place (at least not as easily). ### Problem 2: We are not linting thousands of lines of code The linter (clj-kondo) is incapable of understanding the rf/defn macro. In theory, we could teach clj-kondo what the macro produces. I tried this, but gave up after a few tries. This is a big deal, clj-kondo can catch many issues and will continue to catch more as it continue to evolve. It's hard to precisely count how many lines are affected, but `find src/ -type f -name 'events.cljs' -exec wc -l {} +` gives us more than 4k LOC. ### Problem 3: Blocking RN's UI thread for too long Re-frame has a routing mechanism to manage events. When an event is dispatched, it is enqueued and scheduled to run some time later (very soon). This process is asynchronous and is optimized in such a way as to balance responsiveness vs the time to empty the queue. >[...] when processing events, one after the other, do ALL the currently queued >events. Don't stop. Don't yield to the browser. Hog that CPU. > >[...] but if any new events are dispatched during this cycle of processing, >don't do them immediately. Leave them queued. > >-- https://github.com/day8/re-frame/blob/master/src/re_frame/router.cljc#L8-L60 Decisions were made (way back in 2017) to reduce the number of registered re-frame events and, more importantly, to coalesce events into bigger ones with the rf/merge pattern. I tried to find evidence of real problems that were trying to be solved, but my understanding is that decisions were largely based on personal architectural preferences. Fast-forward to 2023, and we are in a situation where we have many heavy events that process a LOT of stuff in one go using rf/merge, thus blocking the UI thread longer than we should. See, for example, [status-im2.contexts.profile.login.events/login-existing-profile](https://github.com/status-im/status-mobile/blob/3082605d1e9897da1b1784588aa22fdc65c84823/src/status_im2/contexts/profile/login/events.cljs#L69), [status-im2.contexts.profile.login.events/get-chats-callback](https://github.com/status-im/status-mobile/blob/3082605d1e9897da1b1784588aa22fdc65c84823/src/status_im2/contexts/profile/login/events.cljs#L98), and many others. The following excerpt was generally used to justify the idea that coalescing events would make the app perform better. > We will reduce the the amount of subscription re-computations, as for each > distinct action, :db effect will be produced and swapped into app-db only once > > -- status-im/swarms#31 (comment) This is in fact incorrect. Re-frame, ever since 2015 (so before the original discussions in 2017) uses a concept of batching to process events, which means subscriptions won't re-run after every dispatched event, and thus components won't re-render either. Re-frame is smarter than that. > groups of events queued up will be handled in a batch, one after the other, > without yielding to the browser (previously re-frame yielded to the browser > before every single event). > > -- https://github.com/day8/re-frame/blob/39adca93673f334dc751ee2d99d340b51a9cc6db/docs/releases/2015.md#050--2015-11-5 Here's a practical example you can try in a shadow-cljs :mobile REPL to see the batching behavior in practice. ```clojure ;; A dummy event that toggles between DEBUG and INFO levels. (re-frame/reg-event-fx :dummy-event (fn [{:keys [db]}] {:db (update-in db [:profile/profile :log-level] (fn [level] (if (= "DEBUG" level) "INFO" "DEBUG")))})) (def timer (js/setInterval #(re-frame/dispatch [:dummy-event]) 50)) ;; 1. In component status-im.ui.screens.advanced-settings.views/advanced-settings, ;; add a print call to see when it's re-rendered by Reagent because the ;; subscription :log-level/current-log-level will be affected by our dummy event. ;; ;; 2. Also add a print call to the subscription :log-level/current-log-level to ;; see that the subscription does NOT re-run on every dispatch. ;; Remember to eval this expression to cancel the timer. (js/clearInterval timer) ``` If you run the above timer with 50ms interval, you'll see a fair amount of batching happening. You can infer that's the case because you'll see way less than 20 print statements per second (so way less than 20 recomputations of the subscription, which is the max theoretical limit). When the interval is reduced even more, to say 10ms (to simulate lots of dispatches in a row), sometimes you don't see a single recomputation in a 5s window because re-frame is too busy processing events. This shows just how critical it is to have event handlers finishing as soon as possible to relinquish control back to the UI thread, otherwise responsiveness is affected. It also shows that too many dispatches in a row can be bad, just as big event handlers would block the batch for too long. You see here that dispatching events in succession does NOT cause needless re-computations. Of course there's an overhead of using re-frame.core/dispatch instead of calling a Clojure function, but the trade-off is clearly documented: the more we process in a single event, the less responsive the app may be because re-frame won't be able to relinquish control back to the UI thread. The total time to process the batch increases, but re-frame can't stop in the middle compared to when different dispatches are used. Thus, I believe this rf/merge pattern is harmful as a default practice in an environment such as ours, where it's desirable end-users feel a snappy RN app. I actually firmly believe we can improve the app's responsiveness by not coalescing events by default. We're also preventing status-mobile from taking the most advantage from future improvements in re-frame's scheduler. I can totally see us experimenting with other algorithms in the scheduler to best fit our needs. We should not blindly reduce the number of events as stated here #2634 (comment). Solution: only coalesce events into one pile when it's strictly desirable to atomically update the app db to avoid inconsistencies, otherwise, let the re-frame scheduler do its job by using fx, not rf/merge. When needed, embrace *eventual app db consistency* as a way to achieve lower UI latency, i.e. write fast and short events, intentionally use :dispatch-later or other timing effects to bend the re-frame's scheduler to your will. There's another argument in favor of using something like rf/merge which I would like to deconstruct. rf/merge gives us a way to reuse computations from different events, which is nice. The thing here is that we don't need rf/merge or re-frame to reuse functions across namespaces. rf/merge complects re-frame with the need to reuse transformations. Instead, the solution is as trivial as it gets, reuse app db "transformers" across events by extracting the logic to data store namespaces (src/status_im/data_store). This solution has the added benefit of not causing cyclic dependency errors. ### Problem 4: Clojure's language server doesn't understand code under rf/defn Nowadays, many (if not most) Clojure devs rely on the Clojure Language Server https://github.com/clojure-lsp/clojure-lsp to be more effective. It is an invaluable tool, but it doesn't work well with the macro rf/defn, and it's a constant source of frustration when working in event namespaces. Renaming symbols inside the macro don't work, finding references, jumping to local bindings, etc. Solution: don't use rf/defn, instead use re-frame's reg-event-fx function and clojure-lsp will understand all the code inside event handlers. ### Problem 5: Unit tests for events need to "test the world" Re-frame's author strongly recommends testing events that contain non-trivial data transformations, and we do have many in status-mobile (note: let's not confuse with integration tests in status_im/integration_test.cljs). That, and non-trivial layer-3 subscriptions should be covered too. The reasoning is that if we have a well developed and tested state layer, many UI bugs can be prevented as the software evolves, since the UI is partially or greatly derived from the global state. See re-frame: What to Test? https://github.com/day8/re-frame/blob/39adca93673f334dc751ee2d99d340b51a9cc6db/docs/Testing.md#what-to-test. See PR Introduce subscription tests #14472, where I share more details about re-frame's testing practices. When we use rf/merge, we make unit testing events a perennial source of frustration because too many responsibilities are aggregated in a single event. Unfortunately, we don't have many devs in the team that attempted to write unit tests for events to confirm my claim, but no worries, let's dive into a real example. In a unit test for an event, we want to test that, given a cofx and args, the event handler returns the expected map of effects with the correct values (usually db transformations). Let's assume we need to test the following event. The code is still using the combo rf/defn & rf/merge. ```clojure (rf/defn accept-notification-success {:events [:activity-center.notifications/accept-success]} [{:keys [db] :as cofx} notification-id {:keys [chats]}] (when-let [notification (get-notification db notification-id)] (rf/merge cofx (chat.events/ensure-chats (map data-store.chats/<-rpc chats)) (notifications-reconcile [(assoc notification :read true :accepted true)])))) ``` As you can see, we're "rf/merging" two other functions, namely ensure-chats and notifications-reconcile. In fact, ensure-chats is not registered in re-frame, but it's 99% defined as if it's one because it needs to be "mergeable" according to the rules of rf/merge. Both of these "events" are quite complicated under the hood and should be unit tested on their own. Now here goes the unit test. Don't worry about the details, except for the expected output. ```clojure (deftest accept-notification-success-test (testing "marks notification as accepted and read, then reconciles" (let [notif-1 {:id "0x1" :type types/private-group-chat} notif-2 {:id "0x2" :type types/private-group-chat} notif-2-accepted (assoc notif-2 :accepted true :read true) cofx {:db {:activity-center {:filter {:type types/no-type :status :all} :notifications [notif-2 notif-1]}}} expected {:db {:activity-center {:filter {:type 0 :status :all} :notifications [notif-2-accepted notif-1]} :chats {} :chats-home-list nil} ;; *** HERE *** :dispatch-n [[:activity-center.notifications/fetch-unread-count] [:activity-center.notifications/fetch-pending-contact-requests]]} actual (events/accept-notification-success cofx (:id notif-2) nil)] (is (= expected actual))))) ``` Notice the map has a :dispatch-n effect and other stuff inside of it that are not the responsibility of the event under test to care about. This happens because rf/merge forces the event handler to compute/call everything in one go. And things get MUCH worse when you want to test an event A that uses rf/merge, but A calls other events B and C that also use rf/merge (e.g. event :profile.login/get-chats-callback). At that point you flip the table in horror 😱, but testing events and maintaining them should be trivial. Solution: Use re-frame's `fx` effect. Here's the improved implementation and its accompanying test. ```clojure (defn accept-notification-success [{:keys [db]} [notification-id {:keys [chats]}]] (when-let [notification (get-notification db notification-id)] (let [new-notifications [(assoc notification :read true :accepted true)]] {:fx [[:dispatch [:chat/ensure-chats (map data-store.chats/<-rpc chats)]] [:dispatch [:activity-center.notifications/reconcile new-notifications]]]}))) (re-frame/reg-event-fx :activity-center.notifications/accept-success accept-notification-success) (deftest accept-notification-success-test (testing "marks notification as accepted and read, then reconciles" (let [notif-1 {:id "0x1" :type types/private-group-chat} notif-2 {:id "0x2" :type types/private-group-chat} notif-2-accepted (assoc notif-2 :accepted true :read true) cofx {:db {:activity-center {:filter {:type types/no-type :status :all} :notifications [notif-2 notif-1]}}} ;; *** HERE *** expected {:fx [[:dispatch [:chat/ensure-chats []]] [:dispatch [:activity-center.notifications/reconcile [notif-2-accepted]]]]} actual (events/accept-notification-success cofx [(:id notif-2) nil])] (is (= expected actual))))) ``` Notice how the test expectation is NOT verifying what other events do (it's actually "impossible" now). Using fx completely decouples events and makes testing them a joy again. ### Problem 6: Unordered effects status-mobile still uses the legacy way to describe the effects map, which has the problem that their order is unpredictable. > Prior to v1.1.0, the answer is: no guarantees were provided about ordering. > Actual order is an implementation detail upon which you should not rely. > > -- https://github.com/day8/re-frame/blob/39adca93673f334dc751ee2d99d340b51a9cc6db/docs/Effects.md#order-of-effects > In fact, with v1.1.0 best practice changed to event handlers should only > return two effects :db and :fx, in which case :db was always done first and > then :fx, and within :fx the ordering is sequential. This new approach is more > about making it easier to compose event handlers from many smaller functions, > but more specificity around ordering was a consequence. > > -- https://github.com/day8/re-frame/blob/39adca93673f334dc751ee2d99d340b51a9cc6db/docs/Effects.md#order-of-effects ### Problem 7: Usage of deprecated effect dispatch-n We have 35 usages, the majority in new code using dispatch-n, which has been officially deprecated in favor of multiple dispatch tuples in fx. See https://github.com/day8/re-frame/blob/39adca93673f334dc751ee2d99d340b51a9cc6db/docs/api-builtin-effects.md#L114 ### Problem 8: Complexity 🧙♂️ Have you ever tried to understand and/or explain how rf/merge and rf/defn work? They have their fare share of complexity and have tripped up many contributors. This is not ideal if we want to create a project where contributors can learn re-frame as quickly as possible. Re-frame is already complicated enough to grasp for many, the added abstractions should be valuable enough to justify. Interestingly, rf/merge is a stateful function, and although this is not a problem in practice, it is partially violating re-frame's spirit of only using pure functions inside event handlers. ### Problem 9: Using a wrapping macro rf/defn instead of global interceptors When rf/defn was created inside status-mobile, re-frame didn't have global interceptors yet (which were introduced 3+ years ago). We no longer have this limitation after we upgraded our old re-frame version in PR #15997. Global interceptors are a simple and functional abstraction to specify functions that should run on every event, for example, for debugging during development, logging, etc. This PR already shows this is possible by removing the wrapping function utils.re-frame/register-handler-fx without causing any breakage. ## Conclusion By embracing re-frame's best practices for describing effects https://github.com/day8/re-frame/blob/39adca93673f334dc751ee2d99d340b51a9cc6db/docs/FAQs/BestPractice.md#use-the-fx-effect, we can solve long standing issues that affect every contributor at different levels and bring the following benefits: - Simplify the codebase. - Bring back the DX we all deserve, i.e. Clojure Language Server and clj-kondo fully working in event namespaces. - Greatly facilitate the testability of events. - Give devs more flexibility to make the app more responsive, because the new default would not coalesce events, which in turn, would block the UI thread for shorter periods of time. At least that's the theory, but exceptions will be found. The actions to achieve those benefits are: - Don't use the macro approach, replace rf/defn with re-frame.core/reg-event-fx. - Don't use rf/merge, simply use re-frame's built-in effect :fx. - Don't call event handlers as normal functions, just as we don't directly call subscription handlers. Use re-frame's built-in effect :fx. ## How do we refactor the remainder of the code? Some numbers first: - There are 228 events defined with rf/defn in src/status-im2/. - There are 34 usages of rf/merge in src/status_im2/. ## Resources - Release notes where fx was introduced in re-frame: https://github.com/day8/re-frame/blob/39adca93673f334dc751ee2d99d340b51a9cc6db/docs/releases/2020.md#110-2020-08-24
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #15963
Summary
This PR upgrades re-frame to
v1.3.0(latest stable release), released ~9 months ago, in 2022-08-27. This is a solid upgrade, with no breaking changes as far as I testedstatus-mobile. It's a great testament of re-frame's stability and commitment to backwards compatibility, as are many Clojure libs.The big, and truly relevant addition is the introduction of the
:fxbuilt-in effect that was added ~3 years ago in Aug/2020 inv1.1.0. I already did preliminary work on using :fx in status-mobile, but it's not yet ready for a PR (there's more than meets the eye).Review notes
If we're afraid of causing any disruption this week due to the next mobile release, I think it's wise to merge next week.
Relevant changelog
v1.0.0).reg-event-fxwill just warn (not generate an error) if the effect map returned contains an unknown effect key.subscribeoutside of a reactive context.:dbeffect, if present, will be actioned before any other sibling effects. re-frame continues to provide NO guarantees about the order in which other effects will be actioned." (https://day8.github.io/re-frame/releases/2020/#110-2020-08-24)reg-subdeclarations (added inv1.3.0). See the documentation forreg-subfor more details https://day8.github.io/re-frame/api-re-frame.core/#reg-sub:dispatch-latercan now take a single map value. Supplying a sequence of maps is now deprecated in favor of using multiple:dispatch-latereffects within the new :fx effect." https://day8.github.io/re-frame/releases/2020/#111-2020-08-26status: ready