Introducing zeitwerk

[ericproulx]

In the past, I tried to make some changes regarding autoload #2200, #2207, #2209. Unfortunately, #2207 and #2209 had to be reverted.

After reading this article, I thought it would be great to use zeitwerk instead of autoload.

Benefits

1. manages the autoload
2. eager_load proof
3. no explicit requires except dependencies

Changes

• Applied the file convention structure
• Replaced the MonkeyPatch - Rack::Accept::Header
• eager_load is done when loading grape instead of at compile!
• eager_load_spec has been removed
• Removed the validator registration process (were loaded dynamically through inherited)
• Removed the cache for coercers (@collection_coercers)

[dblock]

What's the downside?

[ericproulx]

What's the downside?

Follow the file structure convention if we can label that has a "downside".

[dblock]

Rebase? I'll take a look.

[ericproulx]

I'd like to merge this.

1. Update the language around auto/lazy loading/reloading in README.

2. What externally visible contracts are we breaking? Should we be incrementing the version to 3.0?

There's a breaking change with custom validator. Now, they must follow the convention Grape::Validations::Validators::[CustomName] The registration part was done through inheritance. I'll put it back.

[dblock]

There's a breaking change with custom validator. Now, they must follow the convention Grape::Validations::Validators::[CustomName] The registration part was done through inheritance. I'll put it back.

Sounds good, I'll wait to merge.

[ericproulx]

@dblock I've found something else related to gem grape-swagger. Versions below 2.0 are grape ~> 1.3 and ruby >= 2.7. Above 2.0, its ruby >= 3.0 and 'grape', '>= 1.7', '< 3.0'.

Next Grape release is 2.1.0 and Grape is still ruby >= 2.7.0. Should they follow each other related to ruby version ?

[dblock]

Next Grape release is 2.1.0 and Grape is still ruby >= 2.7.0. Should they follow each other related to ruby version ?

I don't think they have to. Generally we remove rubies going EOL or if there's "good reason". If you can spell it out in a PR we can do whatever :)

[dblock]

The code looks good here. I think we still need to say something in UGPRADING/README about auto-loading? WDYT? It feels like a scary change to go "quietly" :)

[dblock]

@ericproulx Want to add some words to those files and let's merge?

[ericproulx]

@ericproulx Want to add some words to those files and let's merge?

Done. I mentionned something about Monkey Patch that might result in a Zeitwerk Error.

[dblock]

Merged, nice work.