Separate internal options from external ones

[sandstrom]

Is there an existing issue for this?

• I have searched the existing issues

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe

Right now options are used both internally and externally. For example, :block and :association` are blessed options with internal purpose.

They are sometimes 'scrubbed out' for example this line in AssociationExtractor:

options_without_default = options.except(:default, :default_if)

This increases the risk of colliding with user-defined options, and also make the internal code slightly harder to follow/modify.

Describe the feature you'd like to see implemented

I would separate the two sets, in one of two ways:

1. Either into e.g. internal_options and options, and keep things such as :block in the internal set, or
2. turn internal options into proper instance variables, such as @field_block (see example below).

I'd prefer the second way, but (1) would at least be an improvement over the current state.

# base.rb
def self.field(method, options = {}, &block)
  current_view << Field.new(
    method,
    options.fetch(:name) { method },
    options.fetch(:extractor) { Blueprinter.configuration.extractor_default.new },
    self,
    inline_definition: block)
  )
end

# field.rb
class Field
  attr_reader :method, :name, :extractor, :options, :blueprint, :inline_definition

  def initialize(method, name, extractor, blueprint, inline_definition: nil, options = {})
    @method = method
    @name = name
    @extractor = extractor
    @blueprint = blueprint
    @options = options
    @inline_definition = inline_definition
  end

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Additional context

No response

[sandstrom]

Happy to discuss this in more detail, and elaborate more.

[lessthanjacob]

I'd definitely like to see a bit more intentionality here.options feels like this sort of "grab bag" of information, and I certainly agree that it increases the cognitive overhead when reading through it.

So in that sense, I'd also push more towards your second proposed option.

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[sandstrom]

Still relevant!

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[sandstrom]

Not stale