Should mixins make assumptions about their including class?

Question

I found examples of a mixin that makes assumptions about what instance variables an including class has. Something like this:

module Fooable
  def calculate
    @val_one + @val_two
  end
end

class Bar
  attr_accessor :val_one, :val_two
  include Fooable
end

I found arguments for and against whether it's a good practice. The obvious alternative is passing val_one and val_two as parameters, but that doesn't seem as common, and having more heavily parameterized methods could be a downside.

Is there conventional wisdom regarding a mixin's dependence on class state? What are the advantages/disadvantages of reading values from instance variables vs. passing them in as parameters? Alternatively, does the answer change if you start modifying instance variables instead of just reading them?

Answer 1

It is not a problem at all to assume in a module some properties about the class that includes/prepends it. That is usually done. In fact, the Enumerable module assumes that a class that includes/prepends it has a each method, and has many methods that depend on it. Likewise, the Comparable module assumes that the including/prepending class has <=>. I cannot immediately come up with an example of an instance variable, but there is not a crucial difference between methods and instance variables regarding this point; the same should be said about instance variables.

Disadvantage of passing arguments without using instance variable is that your method call will be verbose and less flexible.

Answer 2

Rule of thumb: Mixins should never make any assumptions about the classes/modules they may be included in. However, as it usually goes, any rule has exceptions.

But first, let's talk about the first part. Specifically, accessing (depending on) including class instance variables. If your mixin depends on anything within the including class, then it means that you can not change that "anything" in the parent class with a guarantee that it would not break something. Also, you will have to document that dependency of mixin not only in documentation related to mixin, but also in the documentation of the class/module that includes the mixin. Because, down the road, the requirements may change or someone might see an opportunity in refactoring your class/module code. Obviously, that person will not dig for that class's documentation or know that that specific class/module has a section in your documentation.

Anyhow, by depending on including class internals, not only your mixin made itself dependant, but also ended up making any class/module that includes it a dependant. Which is definitely not a good thing. Because, you can not control who or which class/module has included your mixin, you will never have a confidence to introduce a change. Not having that confidence to change without a fear of breaking anything is project drainer!

The "workaround" may be - "covering it with test". But, consider yourself or someone else maintaining that code in 2 years. Will you remember to cover your new class, that includes the mixin, to make sure it complies with all mixin dependency requirements? I am sure you or the new maintainer will not.

So, from the maintenance or basic OOP principles, your mixin must not depend on any including class/module.

Now, let's talk about that there is alway an exception to the rule bit.

You can make an exception, provided that mixin dependency does not introduce "surprises" to your code. So, it is ok, if the mixin dependencies are well known among your team or they are a convention. Another case could be when the mixin is used internally and you control who uses it (basically, when you are using it within your own project).

The key advantage of OOP in developing maintainable systems was its ability to hide/encapsulate the implementation details. Making your mixin dependant on any class that includes it, is throwing all the years of OOP experience out the window.