Post

Hard pass. I dislike how things which are strongly related (validation and the corresponding error) are separated so far apart. This is what I do instead 👇

Fully agree. I would also consider converting the 2 boolean functions to those that return :ok | {:error, reason}: is_email_address? => validate_email_address is_available => check_availability It's also future-proof if additional error reasons pop up. You may say I generally dislike booleans :)

I think having boolean funs is fine, they might be useful in other scenarios. The `validate` helper is a simple way of converting a boolean to ok/error.

Oh I see, this way, error is closer to the statement. Idk if I prefer your approach but this is 100% valid!!!

I also think the approach I proposed gets to the point more quickly. In your example you produce the error in one shape (e.g. `{:is_email, false}`), and then later convert that into another shape (`{error, reason}`). I find this extra conversion needless and confusing.

Was going to argue with you, but then I realized you're right 😂I was going to say something along the lines of "I might not be in control of those functions being called", but nothing stops you from writing a wrapper function for each step.

I'm aware of this pattern but never needed it, as I prefer functions that return :ok | {:error, reason} as opposed to a boolean. Booleans are simply not informative enough, I don't like them :)

Works for me :) I’ve seen people suggest it’s a bad idea, but I don’t see why personally.

I'm ASHAMED that I NEVER thought about doing this!!!! This is something I'd apply to every function exposed to my controllers in Phoenix

An argument could be made that it's better to have functions produce errors that you can easily handle/compose. We use `splode` for this in Ash. Also allows for multiple things to go wrong. hex.pm/packages/spl...

Nah, if you need something like that, then you probably need to rethink your API a little bit.

Why’s that? Don’t you struggle to identify which part of a with statement failed?

If I need to know which statement failed then I find `with` to be trying to fit square peg into round hole. You either need to know (and then you probably should use `case` or separate function) or you do not care, and then you do not need hops like that.