opaleyes-api-breakage-policy

Opaleye’s API breakage policy

– by Tom Ellis, March 2022

Introduction

Opaleye and API breakage

I am the maintainer of Opaleye, a Haskell package for writing queries against PostgreSQL. Occasionally I “break the API” of Opaleye, that is, I release a new version of the package such that some code written against the previous version of the package won’t work with the new version¹. Such breakage imposes a cost on Opaleye’s users: it takes effort to change code to make it work with the new version. There is a related cost which is often left unaccounted for: it takes effort even to discover what changes need to be made!

In my experience of being on the receiving end of API breakage the latter cost is actually the more severe. Once I know what change needs to be made I can come up with a plan and accurately assess the effort involved. On the other hand, if the only information that I receive is a compile error, and no breadcrumbs pointing me in the direction of a solution, then I am left staring at a long-tailed distribution: for all I know fixing the breakage could take me a minute, an hour or a day. Under such uncertainty I am disinclined to even start.

Why break?

The aim of Opaleye is to be of service to users, so if API breakage imposes a cost on users then why break the API at all? Firstly, as sole maintainer I need to keep my burden light, and striving for a small API surface area is one way of doing that. Secondly, our understanding of Opaleye best practice evolves over time, and I want to nudge users towards best practice. Thirdly, I want the API to be approachable, and removing old, deprecated parts of the API helps that end.

This rationale is the justification for occasional API breakage. The alternative is to keep old, discouraged parts of the API around, but to warn against them, deprioritise them in documentation and avoid mentioning them in polite conversation. That alternative is a valid approach too, perhaps even a desirable approach if one has the resources to deal with the mental overhead, but I don’t feel that I do.

So, the aim of the Opaleye breakage policy is to strike a balance between keeping the API small, simple, easy to understand and maintainable on the one hand, and reducing the costs of churn on the user on the other. Later versions will inevitably become incompatible with user code written against older versions, but there is much that can be done to mitigate the costs on the user, to “hold the user’s hand” through the process, and make their life easier, some of which the rest of this article will describe.

Avoid flag day

The single biggest breakage cost that an API can impose is the need for a “flag day”, that is “a change which requires a complete conversion of a sizable body of software”. The cost of a flag day is not just borne by the users of the API individually; the changes that lead to flag days make software ecosystems rigid and inflexible and impose coordination costs across the entire ecosystem! Flag days force the entire ecosystem to change in lock step.

I work very hard to avoid “flag days” caused by Opaleye API changes. Specifically, if a user has written code against Opaleye major version N² that is broken by Opaleye N+1, it should be possible to write different code with the same functionality that works against versions N and N+1 at the same time. For example, when a function present in version N is removed in version N+1 there should always be another way of achieving the same functionality that works across N and N+1.

Concrete examples of API breakage

The following reasons for API breakage, with examples, elaborate on the goal of keeping the API small, manageable and in line with best practice.

• Hiding exposed internals: If part of the public API exposes internal details then one should either make those private details officially public or remove the part that exposed them. The latter is often the judicious choice if one wants to preserve the simplicity of the API.

  For example, formatAndShowSQL exposed three internal types! It was a mistake to add it to a public module in the first place.

• Replacing complicated functions with simple ones: If there is a simpler way to achieve the same functionality it can reduce user confusion and ease maintenance burden to remove the more complicated version.

  For example, the type of leftJoinInferrable was designed so that the return type could be inferred from the argument types. Shane O’Brien and Olly Charles from CircuitHub discovered much better ways, called optionalRestrict and optional.

• Replacing special purpose functions with general ones: Removing special purpose functions when more general ones exist (that are still simple) is a good way to keep the API small, reducing user confusion and to easing maintenance burden.

  For example, runInsert (which could only insert a single element) was replaced with runInsertMany (which could insert a list of elements). But runInsertMany was subsequently found to be insufficiently general (because it did not support RETURNING or ON CONFLICT) and was replaced by runInsert_ (which does). Then, because the name runInsert had been freed up, runInsert_ could be renamed runInsert (removing the _ which was a rough edge in the API).

• Renaming a misnamed function: To make an API more understandable it can sometimes be useful to choose a better name for a badly-named function.

  For example, there was a function called optional. Now, optional is a very valuable part of the namespace! Not only is it a common English word, it is used in base and it is also used as the name of a different, and more important, Opaleye function (with similar functionality to the base one)! Therefore I renamed the former optional to optionalTableField.

How to hold the user’s hand

Opaleye’s fundamental principle of API breakage is that the user’s code should not break when upgrading to Opaleye major version N+2 unless

1. the documentation of (the last point release of) version N warned of the impending breakage, and
2. the user received a deprecation warning when compiling against N+1

Both the documentation warning and the formal deprecation should tell the user what she needs to do to repair the breakage. This way she has plenty of advanced notice that she will need to take action, and the action to take is clear. She doesn’t risk being thrown into a surprise problem solving session without any idea of how much effort she will have to spend.

Deprecation cycle for renaming a function

The fundamental principle suggests, for example, that later versions should never change the behaviour of a function. Instead they should add a new function with new behaviour, subsequently deprecate the old function, and subsequently remove it.

For example, if my package contains a function myFunction but I decide that betterFunction provides a better way of doing the job that myFunction does, but for the reasons explained above it’s actually judicious to remove myFunction then this is how I would do so. Suppose the latest major version is N, then

1. In version N I would add betterFunction, and add a note to the Haddock documentation of myFunction to say that users should use betterFunction instead, and myFunction will be deprecated in version N+1

2. In version N+1 I would deprecate myFunction and change the note to say that it will be removed in version N+2.

3. In version N+2 I would remove myFunction.

Real world example

When optionalRestrict was discovered I realised that its API was much nicer than that of leftJoinInferrable, so I wanted to promote the former and remove the latter. Here’s how that worked in practice, following the recipe above.

• 0.6.7004.2 was the last version of Opaleye before optionalRestrict was added.

• 0.6.7005.0 (August 2020) introduced optionalRestrict and added to the Haddock of leftJoinInferrable the text “Do not use. Will be deprecated in 0.7. Use optionalRestrict instead.”

• 0.7.0.0 (August 2020) formally deprecated leftJoinInferrable using {-# DEPRECATED ... #-}. It still had the recommendation to use optionalRestrict (but I forgot to say that “it will be removed in 0.8”!)

• 0.8.0.0 (November 2021) removed leftJoinInferrable

Deprecation cycle for removing a function

Removing a function follows the same deprecation cycle as renaming, except that the package is not providing a direct functional replacement. Because there is no direct replacement it’s valuable to leave a hint to users about how they should obtain similar functionality.

Deprecation cycle for modules, types and classes

Modules

The same deprecation cycle works for removing and renaming modules. For example, the module Opaleye.Constant was renamed Opaleye.ToFields by, first, in version 0.6, leaving a note to use the new name and that the old name would be deprecated, then second, in version 0.7, deprecating the old module, and third, in version 0.8, removing the old module.

Types

One can use a similar deprecation cycle to rename types, by taking advantage of type synonyms. For example the type Opaleye.Constant.Constant was renamed Opaleye.ToFields.ToFields. First, in version 0.6, I left a note to use the new type synonym, and that the old name would be deprecated in version 0.7. At this stage the new name was a type synonym for the old name. Second, in version 0.7, I switched things around so that the old name was a deprecated type synonym for the new name, with a note that it would be removed in 0.8. Thirdly, in version 0.8 the old name was removed³.

Classes

Because types and classes are treated in a very similar way by the type system the same deprecation cycle for types works for classes too, but with a rough edge. One cannot use a type synonym to name a class in an instance declaration for that class. For example, to rename QueryRunnerColumnDefault to DefaultFromField I used the same technique above of defining a type synonym

type DefaultFromField = QueryRunnerColumnDefault

The synonym could be used in most places that original class name could be used, but not in instance heads. For example, I can write the following, but I cannot replace QueryRunnerColumnDefault in the instance head with DefaultFromField.

instance DefaultFromField a b
   => QueryRunnerColumnDefault (Nullable a) (Maybe b) where
   ...

Perhaps this is a weakness in the language. It certainly prevents a smooth deprecation cycle for class names.

Difficulties

It’s not always possible to avoid flag day and it’s not always possible to uphold the “fundamental principle”. For example, the type class synonym example above shows that it is impossible to avoid a flag day when renaming classes. In version N users would have to use QueryRunnerColumnDefault in type class instance heads, and in version N+1 they would have to use DefaultFromField. Regrettably there is no way to write code that works across version N and N+1⁴. Perhaps a change to GHC could add support for this workflow.

Another example is a change to Opaleye’s type of SQL fields or columns, that used to be called Column. Non-nullable columns were represented as, for example, Column SqlText and nullable columns were represented as Column (Nullable Sql). Unfortunately the nonsensical Column (Nullable (Nullable SqlText)) was not prevented. To tighten up the types, version 0.9 improved the situation by replacing Column with Field_⁵, which has the distinction Field_ NonNullable SqlText vs. Field_ Nullable SqlText. Replacing Column with Field_ caused a flag day for the Opaleye ecosystem. Although there is a compatibility type family it’s not enough to guarantee that user code can work across 0.8 and 0.9 at once.

Summary

There is a wide spectrum between “never break userspace” and “move fast and break things”⁶ and the right place on that spectrum for a project to position itself can only be determined on a case-by-case basis by taking into account the needs of the project maintainers and users. If the project decides that some rate of API breakage is desirable then the maintainers can make life easier for the users by following a principle like Opaleye’s fundamental principle if API breakage. Users’ lives are made easier if they are given breadcrumbs and hand-holding when their code breaks.

Do you have thoughts or comments on this article? Do you know articles explaining similar API breakage policies? Or different policies? Would you like my help designing a deprecation cycle for your library? Feel free to contact me.

References

This article was partly inspired by Chris Done’s Immutable Packaging Policy.

Elixir’s compatibility and deprecations policy