Join 10350+ others. No spamming.
I promise!

Follow us at github.



inaka/erlang_guidelines

340

inaka / erlang_guidelines

Erlang

Inaka's Erlang Coding Guidelines


READ ME

Erlang Coding Standards & Guidelines

Suggested reading material: http://www.erlang.se/doc/programming_rules.shtml


Table of Contents:

Contact Us

For questions or general comments regarding the use of this library, please use our public hipchat room.

If you find any bugs or have a problem while using this library, please open an issue in this repo (or a pull request :)).

And you can check all of our open-source projects at inaka.github.io

Conventions & Rules

"Things that may be used as reason to reject a Pull Request."

Source Code Layout


Spaces over tabs

Spaces over tabs, 2 space indentation.

Examples: indent

Reasoning: This is not intended to allow deep nesting levels in the code. 2 spaces are enough if the code is clean enough, and the code looks more concise, allowing more characters in the same line.


Use your spacebar

Surround operators and commas with spaces.

Examples: spaces

Reasoning: Again, easier to find / read / etc.


No Trailing Whitespace

Remove trailing whitespaces from your lines

Examples: trailing_whitespace

Reasoning: It's commit noise. Also this long argument.

Syntax

Erlang syntax is horrible amirite? So you might as well make the best of it, right? Right?


100 column per line

Stick to 100 chars per line, maximum.

Examples: col_width

Reasoning: Excessively long lines are a pain to deal with: you either have to scroll horizontally while editing, or live with ugly line wrapping at arbitrary points. The 100 character limit also keeps lines short enough that you can comfortably work with two source files side by side on a typical laptop screen, or three on a 1080p display.


Maintain existing style

When editing a module written by someone else, stick to the style in which it was written. If a project has an overall style, stick to that when writing new modules as well.

Examples: existing_style

Reasoning: It's better to keep a module that just looks ugly to you than to have a module that looks half ugly to you, half ugly to somebody else.


Avoid deep nesting

Try not to nest more than 3 levels deep.

Examples: nesting

Reasoning: Nested levels indicate deep logic in a function, too many decisions taken or things done in a single function. This hinders not only readability, but also maintainability (making changes) and debugging, and writing unit tests. See also: More, smaller functions over case expressions.


More, smaller functions over case expressions

Use pattern-maching in clause functions rather than case's. Specially important if the case is:

  • the top-level expression of the function
  • huge

Examples: smaller_functions

Reasoning: it is usually the case that a case in a function body represents some sort of decision, and functions should be as simple as possible. If each branch of a decision's outcome is implemented as a function clause instead of as a case clause, the decision may be given a meaningful name. In other words, the case is acting as an 'anonymous function', which unless they are being used in the context of a higher-order function, merely obscure meaning.


Group functions logically

Try to always separate unexported and exported functions in groups, with the exported ones first, unless it helps readability and code discovery.

Examples: grouping_functions

Reasoning: Well structured code is easier to read/understand/modify.


Get your types together

Place all types at the beginning of the file

Examples: type_placement

Reasoning: Types are used to define data structures that will most likely be used by multiple functions on the module, so their definition can not be tied to just one of them. Besides it's a good practice to place them in code in a similar way as the documentation presents them and edoc puts types at the beginning of each module documentation


No God modules

Don't design your system using god modules (modules that have a huge number of functions and/or deal with very unrelated things)

Examples: god

Reasoning: God modules, like god objects, are modules that do too much or know too much. God modules usually come into existence by feature accretion. A beautiful, to-the-point module with one job, one responsibility done well, gains a function. Then another, which does the same thing but with different parameters. Then one day, you have a 6000-line module with 500 functions. Having modules (and functions) that do one and only one thing well makes it easy to explore and reason about code, and thus maintain it.


Simple unit tests

Single responsibility applies to tests as well. When writing unit tests, keep them short and don't put more than 1 or 2 asserts per test

Examples: test_SUITE

Reasoning: Multiple tests can identify multiple errors in one run, if you put all the things you want to test into one test you'll have to fix one thing at a time until the test passes.


Honor DRY

Don't write the same code in many places, use functions and variables for that

Examples: dry

Reasoning: This convention is specifically put in this list (instead of treat it as a great idea) so that reviewers can reject PRs that include the same code several times or PRs that re-implement something that they know it's already done somewhere else.


Avoid dynamic calls

If there is no specific need for it, don't use dynamic function calling.

Examples: dyn_calls

Reasoning: Dynamic calls can't be checked by xref, one of the most useful tools in the Erlang world. xref is a cross reference checking/observing tool.


Group modules in subdirectories by functionality

When having lots of modules, use subdirectories for them, named with a nice descriptive name for what that "package" does.

Reasoning: That way it's easier to find what you need and determine what a certain module does.

Note: Remember to properly configure your Emakefile to handle that, if you use it.


Don't write spaghetti code

Don't write spaghetti code (A list comprehension with a case inside, or blocks with begin/end, and nested stuff)

Examples: spaghetti

Reasoning: Spaghetti code is harder to read, understand and edit. The function callgraph for your program should strive to be a directed acyclic graph.

Syntax

Erlang syntax is horrible amirite? So you might as well make the best of it, right? Right?


Avoid if expressions

Don't use if.

Examples: no_if

Reasoning: In some circumstances if introduces static boolean logic in your code, reducing code flexibility. In other cases, a case or a function call with pattern matching in its clauses is just more declarative. For newcommers (that have learned to use if in other languages), Erlang's if can be either hard to understand or easily abused.

Debate:


Avoid nested try...catches

Don't nest try…catch clauses

Examples: nested_try_catch

Reasoning: Nesting try…catch blocks defeats the whole purpose of them, which is to isolate the code that deals with error scenarios from the nice and shiny code that deals with the expected execution path.

Naming


Be consistent when naming concepts

Use the same variable name for the same concept everywhere (even in different modules).

Examples: consistency

Reasoning: When trying to figure out all the places where an OrgID is needed (e.g. if we want to change it from string to binary), it's way easier if we can just grep for OrgID instead of having to check all possible names.


Explicit state should be explicitly named

Name your state records #state and use -type state():: #state{} in all your OTP modules.

Examples: state

Reasoning: OTP behaviours implementations usually require a state, and if it always have the same name it makes it more clearly recognizable. Defining a type for it, helps dialyzer detect leaks (where an internal type as the state is used outside of the module).


Don't use _Ignored variables

Variables beginning with _ are still variables, and are matched and bound, the _ just keeps the compiler from warning when you don't use them. If you add the _ to a variable's name, don't use it.

Examples: ignored_vars

Reasoning: They are not supposed to be used.


Avoid boolean parameters

Don't use boolean parameters (i.e. true and false) to control clause selection.

Examples: boolean_params

Reasoning: Clarity of intention and not requiring the reader to check the function definition to understand what it does.


Stick to one convention for naming modules

Stick to one convention when naming modules (i.e: ik_something vs iksomething vs something).

Examples: naming_modules

Reasoning: It gives coherence to your system.


Lowercase atoms

Atoms should use only lowercase characters. Words in atom names should be separated with _. Special cases are allowed (like 'GET', 'POST', etc.) but should be properly justified.

Examples: atoms

Reasoning: Adhering to one convention makes it easier not to have "duplicated" atoms all around the code. Also, not using caps or special characters reduces the need for ' around atoms.


Function Names

Function names must use only lowercase characters or digits. Words in function names must be separated with _.

Examples: function_names

Reasoning: Function names are atoms, they should follow the same rules that apply to them.


Variable Names

CamelCase must be used for variables. Don’t separate words in variables with _.

Examples: variable_names

Reasoning: Adhering to one convention makes it easier not to have "duplicated" variables all around the code. Camel-case makes variable names more visually distinguishable from atoms and it matches the OTP standard.

Strings


IOLists over string concatenation

Use iolists instead of string concatenation whenever possible

Examples: iolists

Reasoning: Performance and errors during conversion. iolists are just deeply nested lists of integers and binaries to represent IO data to avoid copying when concatenating strings or binaries.

Macros


No Macros

Don't use macros, except for very specific cases, that include

  • Predefined ones: ?MODULE, ?MODULE_STRING and ?LINE
  • Magic numbers: ?DEFAULT_TIMEOUT

Examples: macros

Reasoning: Macros make code harder to debug. If you're trying to use them to avoid repeating the same block of code over and over, you can use functions for that. See related blog post by @erszcz.


Uppercase macros

Macros should be named in ALL_UPPER_CASE:

Examples: macro_names

Reasoning: It makes it easier not to duplicate macro names, to find them using grep, etc.


No module or function name macros

Don't use macros for module or function names

Examples: macro_mod_names

Reasoning: Copying lines of code to the console for debugging (something that happens a lot) becomes a really hard task if we need to manually replace all the macros.

Records


Record names

Record names must use only lowercase characters. Words in record names must be separated with _. Same rule applies to record field names

Examples: record_names

Reasoning: Record and field names are atoms, they should follow the same rules that apply to them.


Records go first

Records that are used within a module should be defined before any function bodies.

Examples: record_placement

Reasoning: Records are used to define data types that will most likely be used by multiple functions on the module, so their definition can not be tied to just one. Also, since records will be associated to types, it's a good practice to place them in code in a similar way as the documentation does (and edoc puts types at the beginning of each module documentation)


Don't share your records

Records should not be shared among multiple modules. If you need to share objects that are represented as records, use opaque exported types and provide adequate accesor functions in your module.

Examples: record_sharing

Reasoning: Records are used for data structure definitions. Hiding those structures aids encapsulation and abstraction. If a record structure needs to be changed and its definition is written in a .hrl file, the developer should find all the files where that .hrl and verify that his change hasn't broken anything. That's not needed if the record structure is internal to the module that manages it.


Avoid records in specs

Avoid using records in your specs, use types.

Examples: record_spec

Reasoning: Types can be exported, which aids documentation and, using opaque types it also helps with encapsulation and abstraction.


Types in records

Always add type definitions to your record fields

Examples: record_types

Reasoning: Records define data structures, and one of the most important parts of that definition is the type of the constituent pieces.

Misc


Write function specs

Write the -spec's for your exported fun's, and for unexported fun's when it adds real value for documentation purposes. Define as many types as needed.

Examples: specs

Reasoning: Dialyzer output is complicated as is, and it is improved with good type names. In general, having semantically loaded type names for arguments makes reasoning about possible type failures easier, as well as the function's purpose.


Use -callback attributes over behaviour_info/1.

Unless you know your project will be compiled with R14 or lower, use -callback instead of behavior_info/1 for your behavior definitions.

Examples: callbacks

Reasoning: Avoid deprecated functionality


Use atoms or tagged tuples for messages

When sending a message between processes, you should typically either send a single, human-readable atom, or a tuple with a human-readable atom placed in element 1. This includes messages being sent via gen_server:call and the like.

Examples: message-formatting

Reasoning: Tagging messages with a distinctive, human-readable atom helps clarify the purpose of a message for anyone reading or debugging the code. Using element 1 of the tuple makes code more consistent and predictable, and improves readability when browsing through multiple clauses of functions like handle_call.

This pattern also helps avoid bugs where different messages get confused with one another, or where messages get sent to the wrong recipient; it's much easier to find the source of an unexpected message if it looks like {set_foobar_worker_pid, <0.312.0>} than if you just find a bare pid in your mailbox.


No nested header inclusion

When having many nested "include files", use -ifndef(HEADER_FILE_HRL) .... -endif so they can be included in any order without conflicts.

Examples: nested

Reasoning: -include directives in included headers may lead to duplication of inclusions and/or other conflicts and it also hides things from the developer view.


No types in include files

No -type in hrl files

Examples: types

Reasoning: Defining types in public header files (especially those intended for inclusion via -include_lib()) might lead to type name clashes between projects and even modules of a single big project. Instead, types should be defined in modules which they correspond to (with -export_type()) and this way take advantage of the namespacing offered by module names. In other words, "no type definitions in header files" rule means that we will always need to use some_mod:some_type() unless referring to a type from the same module it's defined in. Following this rule you also get the benefits that -opaque types provide, for instance, to dialyzer.


Don't import

Do not use the -import directive

Examples: import

Reasoning: Importing functions from other modules makes the code harder to read and debug since you cannot directly distinguish local from external functions. In appropriately named functions, the module is part of the function name, it gives meaning to it.


Don't export_all

Do not use the -compile(export_all) directive

Examples: export_all

Reasoning: It's generally considered best to only export the specific functions that make up your module's known and documented external API. Keeping this list of functions small and consistent encourages good encapsulation and allows for more aggressive refactoring and internal improvements without altering the experience for those who make use of your module.



Encapsulate OTP server APIs

Never do raw gen_server calls across module boundaries; the call should be encapsulated in an API function in the same module that implements the corresponding handle_call function. The same goes for other such OTP constructs (gen_server casts, gen_fsm events, etc).

Examples: otp_encapsulation

Reasoning: By sticking to this pattern of encapsulation, we make it much easier to find out where calls/events might originate from. Instead of having to search through the entire source tree for e.g. gen_server calls that look like they might send a certain message to a given process, we can just search for calls to the corresponding API function. This makes it much easier to modify APIs, and also allows us to benefit more from Dialyzer's checks, assuming our API functions have appropriate type specs on them. We can also change the underlying message format without disturbing any code outside of the module in question, and we can more easily avoid issues with RPC calls when running a mixed cluster. With good encapsulation, you can even do things like convert a gen_server to a gen_fsm without any code changes beyond just the one module.


No debug calls

Unless your project is meant to be run as an escript, there should be no io:format nor ct:pal calls in your production code (i.e. in the modules inside the src folder). Same rule applies for lager or error_logger calls if they're used just for debugging purposes during test stages.

Examples: debug_calls

Reasoning: Leaving unnecessary logs on production code impacts performance. It increases the processing time for the functions you're debugging and also consumes disk space if the logs are written to a file (as they usually are). Besides, more often than not the log messages are only understood in the context of the test or debugging round in which they were created, therefore the become useless pretty fast.


Don't Use Case Catch

Don't capture errors with case catch, use try ... of ... catch instead.

Examples: case-catch

Reasoning: case catch ... mixes good results with errors which is confusing. By using try ... of ... catch the golden path is kept separate from the error handling.

Tools


Lock your dependencies

In your rebar.config or Erlang.mk, specify a tag or commit, but not master.

Examples:

Reasoning: You don't want to be suddenly affected by a change in one of your dependencies. Once you've found the right version for you, stick to it until you need to change.


Loud errors

Don't let errors and exceptions go unlogged. Even when you handle them, write a log line with the stack trace.

Examples: loud_errors

Reasoning: The idea is that somebody watching the logs has enough info to understand what's happening.


Properly use logging levels

When using lager, use the different logging levels with the following meanings:

Meanings:

  • debug: Very low-level info, that may cover your screen and don't let you type in it :P
  • info: The system's life, in some detail. Things that happen usually, but not all the time. You should be able to use the console with acceptable interruptions in this level.
  • notice: Meaningful things that are worth noticing, like the startup or termination of supervisors or important gen_servers, etc…
  • warning: Handled errors, the system keeps working as usual, but something out of the ordinary happened
  • error: Something bad and unexpected happen, usually an exception or error (DO log the stack trace here)
  • critical: The system (or a part of it) crashed and somebody should be informed and take action about it
  • alert: There is no rule on when to use this level
  • emergency: There is no rule on when to use this level
Prefer the https protocol over others when specifying dependency URLs

When specifying dependencies in erlang.mk Makefiles or rebar.config, prefer using the https protocol to download the dependency repository.

Examples: makefile example rebar example

Reasoning: HTTPS is recommended by GitHub and is easier for CI.

Suggestions & Great Ideas

Things that should be considered when writing code, but do not cause a PR rejection, or are too vague to consistently enforce.


Favor higher-order functions over manual use of recursion

Occasionally recursion is the best way to implement a function, but often a fold or a list comprehension will yield safer, more comprehensible code.

Examples: alternatives to recursion

Reasoning: Manually writing a recursive function is error-prone, and mistakes can be costly. In the wrong circumstances, a buggy recursive function can miss its base case, spiral out of control, and take down an entire node. This tends to counteract one of the main benefits of Erlang, where an error in a single process does not normally cause the entire node to crash.

Additionally, to an experienced Erlang developer, folds and list comprehensions are much easier to understand than complex recursive functions. Such contstructs behave predictably: they always perform an action for each element in a list. A recursive function may work similarly, but it often requires careful scrutiny to verify what path the control flow will actually take through the code in practice.


CamelCase over Under_Score

Symbol naming: Use variables in CamelCase and atoms, function and module names with underscores.

Examples: camel_case

Reasoning: It helps a lot with the next issue in this list ;)


Prefer shorter (but still meaningful) variable names

As long as it's easy to read and understand, keep variable names short

Examples: var_names

Reasoning: It helps reducing line lengths, which is also described above


Comment levels

Module comments go with %%%, function comments with %%, and code comments with %.

Examples: comment_levels

Reasoning: It clearly states what the comment is about, also helpful to search for specific comments, like "%% @".


Keep functions small

Try to write functions with a small number of expressions, and that do only one thing. 12 expressions per function except for integration tests is a good measure.

Examples: small_funs

Reasoning: From 3 different sources:

  • Small functions aid readability and composeability. Readability aids maintainability. This cannot be stressed enough. The smaller your code, the easier it is to fix and change.
  • A small function allows one to see its purpose clearly, so that you need to only understand the small subset of operations it performs, which makes it very simple to verify it works correctly.
  • These are all compeling reasons:
    • a function should do one thing, if it's too large you are likely to be doing work better suited for multiple functions
    • clarity, it's easier to see what a function does when it's short and concise
    • reuse, keeping them short means you can use them later for something else (specially true for Erlang)
    • screen size: you want to be able to see the whole function if you want to connect via ssh to a server for whatever reason

Notes:

This guideline, together with Avoid deep nesting and More, smaller functions over case expressions, can be well followed by structuring your functions as follows:

some_fun(#state{name=foo} = State) ->
  do_foo_thing(),
  continue_some_fun(State);
some_fun(#state{name=bar} = State) ->
  do_bar_thing(),
  continue_some_fun(State).

continue_some_fun(State) ->
  ...,
  ok.

Remember:

  • There is no cost for a tail call like that.
  • This pattern is efficient, compact, clear.
  • It "resets" indentation so the code doesn't wander off the right edge of the screen.

Most importantly:

  • It's easier to test because the functions delineate the testing hinge points.
  • It gives more surface for tracing, so one can get very specific about where the computation goes off the rails. Nested cases are opaque at runtime.

Use behaviours.

Encapsulate reusable code in behaviors.

Examples: behavior

Reasoning: It's the OTP way ;)


When programming defensively, do so on client side

Do validations on the outmost layers of your code.

Examples: validations

Reasoning: One aspect of choosing where want you to crash is how you design your API: A function that checks the input before calling the gen_server behind it will avoid a full roundtrip to the gen_server and maybe even a gen_server crash. do_it(Pid, X) when is_integer(X) -> gen_server:call(Pid, {do_it, X}). If you design this way, the caller crashes if the arg is wrong. If you don't tighten up the function head, the gen_server will crash.


Avoid unnecesary calls to length/1

Lots of use cases of length/1 can be replaced by pattern matching, this is specially true when checking if the list has at least one element.

Examples: pattern matching

Reasoning: Pattern matching is one of the core aspects of Erlang and as such it's both performant and readable. Pattern matching is also more flexible so changes to the logic get simpler.


Move stuff to independent applications

When you identify a block of functionality that is self-contained (it may be several modules or just a big one) and actually independent of the main purpose of your application, place that in a separate application. And consider open-sourcing it.

Reasoning: It's easier to share among apps. If open-sourced, you're sharing it with the community and you get the benefits of the community being involved in it.

Note: Do not create highly specific libraries that are too coupled with the project you're working on. Use this rule for libraries that will likely be reused in other projects.


Use the facade pattern on libraries

The facade pattern is great to simplify library usage and serves as a form of self-documentation.

Examples: kafkerl

Reasoning: Having the relevant functions in a single module means that the end user doesn't have a hard time figuring out which functions to call. Note that to avoid making it too complex, you probably want to carefully consider which functionality you wish to support here; exposing fewer functions (the ones that show the basic use of the library) as opposed to just creating a dummy module containing every single exported function in the library is prefered. This greatly reduces the learning curve of the library and therefore makes it more tempting to use.


Types in exported functions

Custom data types used in exported functions should be defined with Erlang type declarations and exported from the module

Examples: data_types

Reasoning: It helps with function documentation and, when using opaque types, we ensure encapsulation.


Separate responsibilities in sumo_db

When using sumo_db you should separate the responsibilities clearly, creating for each entity:

  • one module (usually called MODELs) to describe the entity and allow administrating instances of the model in memory
  • one module (usually called MODEL_repo) to handle the various operations that require business logic relating to the entity

Examples: separate responsibilities in sumo_db

Reasoning: By dividing the functions into two different modules we increase understandability of the functionality especially if these are called from external modules. It also allows us to better organize the code and have smaller modules.