Here’s some bad Rails code I often come across:

Author.where(public: true).where('score > ?', 50)

The problem isn’t that we’re chaining. Because we’re only handling ActiveRecord::Relation objects, we aren’t increasing the complexity or responsibility of our code by the mere act of chaining. Chaining is a useful programming pattern. However, we are increasing the complexity of our code by making assumptions about the internal workings of Author - we’re breaking encapsulation. Even if you feel that ActiveRecord makes this easy to do, it doesn’t mean you should do it.

We shouldn’t know that authors have internal score and public attributes. Keep in mind that this is different from being able to call Author#score and Author#public, because in the former case, we actually “know” a lot more about Author and we make some unhealthy assumptions.

In particular we make the assumption that these two statements are logically equivalent:{ |u| u.score == 50 }

Author.where(score: 50).all

In short, this code is asking Author to perform an operation based on an assumed internal state. We are asking - not telling. That’s not good.

Telling Author to give us this data looks very different:


Having this kind of interface for our objects benefits us in a couple of really awesome ways.


Using intentionally crafted public interfaces for your objects makes them easier to read and more descriptive. This is usually a by-product of the simple fact that you are naming your methods instead of using what is already there. Keep in mind that ORMs were created as a general infrastructure for many different kinds of applications. There is no need to expose that infrastructure to your own application. It makes more sense to write Author.with_public_account than it does to write Author.where(public: true). The intent is clearly communicated.


Searching for where.*score in a code base can be tedious and might not result in catching all the possible use cases. Code structured like this can easily be missed:

conditions = {score: 50}

By contrast, searching for with_score_above is much more likely to yield usable and accurate results. Obviously having a full test suite helps alleviate this kind of a refactoring, but that doesn’t mean you should make it difficult for others to track down your handiwork.


Have a more explicit interface makes it easier to change our ORM from ActiveRecord if we ever choose to. It makes it easier to make small attribute level changes, like renaming score. That’s because we now only need to modify the Author object, not every piece of code that filters authors on score. You could imagine a future implementation that looks something like this:

module AuthorRelation
  def initialize(authors)
    @authors = authors

  def with_public_account
    @authors ={ |a| a.public? && a.paid? }

  def with_score_above(score)
    @authors ={ |a| a.cached_score > score }

If you’re thinking - why would I ever want to change something like that? Then you’ve missed the point. This isn’t a pre-optimization, this is a philosophy for creating persistence objects that behave like simple Ruby objects, without exception. It’s a slippery slope to assume that some objects just aren’t going to change and that kind of thinking causes headaches for the rest of your code and for other developers working with code you’ve written.

What if we didn’t change the entire object; what if we simply denormalized and indexed a flag that combined score and public? Our carefully crafted public interface would allow us to make use of this new column, whereas being tied to the where way of doing things would mean having to modify a lot more code.


It’s easier to begin building an application without being tied to the ActiveRecord way of doing things. This frees us up to write isolated tests and hide ActiveRecord as a true implementation detail, rather than making it a central part of our application. No object or collection of objects should dominate your code. Some objects might be more or less connected, but that doesn’t mean they should be required to test one another. Isolation is a great thing.


Respect the ActiveRecord. Let it do what it does best, as a piece of infrastructure and as a 3rd party library. Its way of doing things and its method signatures should not infect the rest of your application. It does what it does best when it’s limited to and hidden inside of your ActiveRecord::Base objects.