Skip to content
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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Define service boundaries within the monolith #7

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
1 change: 1 addition & 0 deletions README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -7,3 +7,4 @@ For creating a new RFC see [workflow](text/0001-workflow.md).

* [0001-workflow](text/0001-workflow.md): the workflow RFC
* [0004-import-reorg](text/0004-import-reorg.md): Sentry import reorganization
* [0007-service-modules](text/0007-service-modules.md): File structure for service modules in the monolith
128 changes: 128 additions & 0 deletions text/0007-service-modules.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
* Start Date: 2022-08-31
* RFC Type: decision
* RFC PR: https://github.com/getsentry/rfcs/pull/7

# Summary

This RFC proposes a file structure for 'compartmentalized services' or 'domain
boundaries'. The concept of service boundaries was introduced in 0002, and this
document aims to provide more detailed guidelines for how 'services' in the
monolith would be structured as Python modules.

# Motivation

The sentry monolith continues to grow in scope as we build new product features.
As the application has grown the number of models, endpoints and tasks makes
understanding how the application is inter-connected more challenging. The
current code layout complicates optimizing CI, and impairs our ability to
clearly dilineate product boundaries within the monolith.

This RFC does not attempt to define what the boundaries and services within the
monolith should be. Nor does it attempt to describe the organization of
Typescript code.

# Background

Currently the Sentry monolith is organized as a single Django application that
follows a typical project layout organized by 'kind of class'. For example, all
models are co-located in a small number of directories, as are all endpoints and
serializers. While this repository layout has served us well, it is increasingly
hard to navigate as the application grows. At time of writing, we have:

* ~275 endpoint modules
* 115 model modules
* 105 serializer modules

Knowing how each of these classes are related to features in sentry is not
always obvious. A similar problem exists for tests as there is no way to easily
locate all the tests that need to be run when a model class changes.

# Proposed Python Structure

As sentry is a django application, we can leverage the
[Django-apps](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/ref/applications/) to act as
a container for application services in the future. While not all services will
need all the features of Django Applications, many will.

## Django app structure

We'll use 'discover' as an example for the service modules

```
src/sentry/discover
__init__.py
app.py
urls.py
models/__init__.py
models/discoversavedquery.py
Copy link

@fpacifici fpacifici Oct 3, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should try to prevent the code of a service to directly access models and tables from another service by doing joins across service boundaries. Joining DB tables across modules would defy the idea of creating boundaries.
When referencing the module class this is not different than preventing a service from accessing the internals of another one, though with Django you can run raw SQL queries. Do we allow that to begin with, and if yes, should we prevent it ?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should try to prevent the code of a service to directly access models and tables from another service by doing joins across service boundaries. Joining DB tables across modules would defy the idea of creating boundaries.

I agree. I considered recommending not exporting Django models from a service. The problem came up against though was that python's typehints will want an importable class to use in typehints, which would generally need to be the model 😢

endpoints/discoverquery.py
serializers/discoverquery.py
tasks/deduplicate_things.py

tests/__init__.py
tests/models/test_discoversavedquery.py
tests/endpoints/test_discoverquery.py
tests/serializers/test_discoverquery.py
```

In addition to the Django related modules, celery tasks, consumers and any other
modules can be contained within a service. If a service doesn't provide
endpoints or use models it can still benefit from the proposed structure.

## Co-located tests

Tests for a service should be bundled with the service code. Having tests
co-located with application code reduces the amount of file navigation that
developers need to do in parallel trees, and makes running a subset of tests
simpler both for developers and in CI.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please no co-located tests, I think mirrored paths works well and keeps day to day work uncluttered

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah I would rather also see tests sit next to the package they go into, not inside the module structure. That said, I noticed the frontend has co-located tests now so I guess we are going down that path somewhere already.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah I would rather also see tests sit next to the package they go into, not inside the module structure.

What does this look like for you? I'll update the RFC to reflect a separate directory tree for tests as we have today.


## Formal entry points

Service modules would use `__init__.py` to define the interface they present to
the rest of the Sentry monolith. Having the public interface of a service
formally defined limits the amount of entanglement the rest of the application
can create.

## Importing service internals is not allowed

An important change from the present application structure is that modules
outside of a service's scope would be *disallowed* from importing modules inside
a service. Modules outside of a service boundary may only import the top-level
service.

Disallowing cross-service internal imports could be enforced with the
[flake8-import-graph](https://pypi.org/project/flake8-import-graph/) extension.

# Options Considered

Another approach to this would be to put 'services' inside the directories of
each 'kind'. Again using discover as an example:

```
src/sentry
endpoints/discover/discover_query.py
models/discover/discoversavedquery.py
tests/models/discover/test_discoversavedquery.py
```

This approach dilutes the consistency benefits, and requires a significantly
more complex import graph rules. It also does not improve local development or
offer benefits to CI subsetting.

# Drawbacks

This approach will require moving **most** of the application source code
around. We currently store classpaths in several locations in the database. We
may need to use data migrations to update these paths or maintain aliases for
compatibility.

Co-locating tests with application code is a potentially contentious change.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm unsure how this line relates to the current draft. I don't see that co-located tests are recommended, above. Unless you're calling this directory structure co-location, but this isn't the first thing people think of when they hear "co-located tests".

src/sentry/discover
    models/discoversavedquery.py
    tests/models/test_discoversavedquery.py

Test co-location usually means (something equivalent to):

src/sentry/discover
    models/discoversavedquery.py
    models/discoversavedquery_test.py

I personally like that model, but as you note it's not commonplace in python.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would propose to separate out the colocation discussion about tests into a separate proposal and to remove it form the scope of this. I think the test location discussion has a high bikeshedding potential but I think underpinning that largely philosophical debate are good reasons for one or the other which deserve to be discussed independently.

Either way I agree that we need a proposal for where tests go, but that we can have independently of the service boundaries.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm unsure how this line relates to the current draft. I don't see that co-located tests are recommended, above.

This is a vestigial change from a previous rev. I'll take it out.

I would propose to separate out the colocation discussion about tests into a separate proposal and to remove it form the scope of this.

Agree that this could be a big bikeshed.

While co-located tests are compatible with pytest test discovery works, it is an
[un conventional](un-conventional) approach in python projects.

# Unresolved questions

* What 'services' would we need to add to the application?
* What do we do with models and logic that is shared by many endpoints/domains?
Examples of this include rate limiting, and models like Organization, and
Project?
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There must be no "common" or "utils" or "misc" directory, or you'll eventually get a fresh new cobweb of code with unclear ownership. Under the current proposal, as written, each (kind of, or owner of) shared code must be given a name and a directory at src/sentry/*.

to your examples

  • src/sentry/rate-limiting
  • src/sentry/project/models/project.py
  • src/sentry/organization/models/organization.py

It's tempting to combine project and organization into a single "core" or "sentry" service, but then there's no clarity as to what should be added to (or rejected from) that service. Keep in mind that the "project" service will not contain just the one file but all the endpoints, serializers, tasks and tests that are specific to "project". And any proposed additions to this service will have a very clear admission criteria: is it actually about "project" or does it have some other scope.

But that's just my two cents :)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There must be no "common" or "utils" or "misc" directory, or you'll eventually get a fresh new cobweb of code with unclear ownership.

💯 agree that there should be no utils service.

It's tempting to combine project and organization into a single "core" or "sentry" service, but then there's no clarity as to what should be added to (or rejected from) that service.

Yes, we would need really clear boundaries on what goes into the 'core' service should it be created. Defining what the services are and where the lines in the sand should be should be a separate discussion in my opinion.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The point that I tried to make was that "core" by definition has no clear boundary. Even if you make a document about its boundary, that doc is liable to be "improved" or ignored. Whereas a "project" service does have clear boundary by definition.

Note: I'm just trying to be extra clear. I don't actually have a strong opinion on this.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note: I'm just trying to be extra clear. I don't actually have a strong opinion on this.

Thank you for the clarification. I agree that 'core' will be magnet of increasing scope. 'projects' could be a good container for organization, project and related settings that those resources have.