- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork22.1k
Offer the option to use parameterization for shared processing of headers and ivars#27825
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ | |||
| module ActionMailer | |||
| # Provides the option to parameterize mailers in other to share ivar setup, processing, and common headers. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
"in other" -> "in order"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
I'd also expandinstance variable.
kaspth commentedJan 27, 2017 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Digging it, especially now that we can extract things into I'm curious why the method is called Especially since most of the mailer actions I've written just blankly assign their parameters to an instance variable so I'm curious if we should take this a step further with: classInvitationsMailer <ApplicationMailerassigns:inviter,:inviteeassigns(:account){@inviter.account}# Personally, meh. But throwing it out there :)end This would then just do In case a specific action haven't passed, say, This way I think we could also avoid the InvitationsMailer.account_invitation(inviter:'david@basecamp.com',invitee:'jason@basecamp.com').deliver_later Regarding defaultto:->{@invitee.email_address} Or if we're cool enough with |
kaspth left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Implementation seems fine 👍
kaspth commentedJan 27, 2017
Reading your example again, we'd probably need to update: InvitationsMailer.account_invitation(inviter:'david@basecamp.com',invitee:'jason@basecamp.com').deliver_later Since those strings won't respond to |
maclover7 left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
IMHO, I don't see this as a big improvement over the current usage. Introducing aActionMailer::Base#params method which you then call the mailer method on seems kind of messy to me. I'm a big fan of explicitly passing arguments to the mailer method, over more magicalparams handling 😬
dhh commentedJan 28, 2017 via email
There's nothing magical about setting a context which allows controller-wide preprocessing. That's exactly how action controllers work, and this brings mailers in line with that usage.The A/B here is imo undeniable, and it's a reduced example from what I've actually seen in Basecamp code. There the advantage is even larger.As a general observation, I find any objections based on the idea of "magic" entirely without persuasion. Especially in this case where the flow basically is "instantiate object, assign variables, call method". It doesn't get more basic OO than that. … On Jan 27, 2017, at 21:38, Jon Moss ***@***.***> wrote:@maclover7 commented on this pull request. IMHO, I don't see this as a big improvement over the current usage. Introducing a ActionMailer::Base#params method which you then call the mailer method on seems kind of messy to me. I'm a big fan of explicitly passing arguments to the mailer method, over more magical params handling 😬 — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread. |
dhh commentedJan 28, 2017 via email
Params was just to match the concept from controllers in the sense that they're going to be used the same way. Especially as it relates to serialization during jobs as well.#assigns is not a bad way to go either though, but I don't think it has the same overall naming benefits. Here we can now talk of a new concept: parameterized mailers. The method follows that name. And it makes the before_action and other filters feel immediately familiar to anyone who've done the same work with action controllers.Agree on the Procs. I didn't change anything there, that's just the implementation AM already had. It only took Procs, not lambdas. If you want to have a look at that, please do!I looked at the assigns thing at the top level too. Kinda like expose. But I couldn't find enough value in my code to justify the new concept. … On Jan 27, 2017, at 19:06, Kasper Timm Hansen ***@***.***> wrote: Digging it, especially now that we can extract things into default 👍 I'm curious why the method is calledparams? Is it to bridge the terminology gap between controllers and mailers? I'm asking because I'd have thought this would be called assigns, which eludes to the view aspects of mailers. Especially since most of the mailer actions I've written just blankly assign their parameters to an instance variable so I'm curious if we should take this a step further with: class InvitationsMailer < ApplicationMailer assigns :inviter, :invitee assigns(:account) { @inviter.account } # Personally, meh. But throwing it out there :) end This would then just do@Inviter = assigns[:inviter]. In case a specific action haven't passed, say, :invitee, the action would just have a blank@invitee ivar and nothing would blow up. Regarding Proc.new in default. It feels outside of the Rails aesthetic to me and I'm curious if we should do something to support: default to: -> { @invitee.email_address } Or if we're cool enough with proc :) — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread. |
Confusing to have both the context setter as a unqualified method andthe accessor as well. Considered #with_params, but I think that’simplied well enough using just #with.
Inviting yourself? Your life must be a party! 😄
kaspth commentedJan 28, 2017
Ha! It took me until now to fully grasp what you meant by this. |
rafaelfranca commentedJan 30, 2017
This is great! I did some improvements in the implementation here341fab8...2dadf73 |
kaspth commentedJan 30, 2017
@rafaelfranca and now it's even better 😃🎉 |
dhh commentedJan 31, 2017
Lovely, thanks@rafaelfranca! |
williamromero commentedNov 14, 2017
Excuse me if i don't understand, but it means now we can send mails with a particular name for each mail for our mailing lists? Right? Sorry if don't understand it well. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Consider this example that does not use parameterization:
Using parameterized mailers, this can be rewritten as:
That's a big improvement! It's also fully backwards compatible. So you can start to gradually transition
mailers that stand to benefit the most from parameterization one by one and leave the others behind.