Adventures in Refactoring

Spelunking into stale code two years later.

May 30, 2020 - 13 minute read -

I recently decided to revisit my halfway-finished (i.e. abandonded) TUI project: so. My last commit to this project was in May 2018, which was before I joined SimSpace where I was exposed to myriad new techniques, from clever constraint programming to new language extensions, in addition to debates regarding larger-scale patterns such as how to achieve error handling with the fewest headaches possible. I’ve found that whenever I enter a new environment and get exposed to other, smarter peoples’ perspectives, my old code looks more and more wretched. So I was not surprised that upon revisiting so, I found code that horrified me and was in dire need of refactoring, some of which may be of interest to budding Haskell developers. So, if you’re interested, let’s dive into some of these changes, enumerated here for convenience:

Bracket Pattern

I had a clear case of a bracket pattern in my loading animation:

waitWithLoading :: Async a -> IO a
waitWithLoading a = do
  loadingThreadId <- forkIO showLoadingAnimation
  res             <- wait a
  killThread loadingThreadId
  A.setCursorColumn 0
  return res

Here I have some a :: Async a that the user is waiting for, and I’m providing a nice animation for them while they wait. Once I get the res :: a, I need to clear and clean up the animation. Whenever you want to execute some action which should always be preceded and followed by some other pre_action and post_action respectively, bracket is the way to go:

bracket :: IO a        -- first "acquire resource"
        -> (a -> IO b) -- last "release resource"
        -> (a -> IO c) -- computation to run in-between
        -> IO c

waitWithLoading a =
    (forkIO showLoadingAnimation)
    (\tid -> do
      killThread tid
      A.setCursorColumn 0
    (const $ wait a)

While the before and after code may look functionally the same, there is an important difference in behavior: exception handling. In my previous version, if wait a threw an exception, the animation would not be cleaned up! As the documentation for bracket explains, in the second version if wait a throws an exception, the animation clean up still gets called, and then the exception is re-thrown to the same scope. This is the correct behavior.

I found another, slightly subtler, instance of bracket in a state-monadic context:

queryLucky :: App (Either Error (Question [] Markdown))
queryLucky = do
  initialState <- get
  put $ initialState & sOptions . oLimit .~ 1
  result <- query
  put initialState
  return $ case result of
    Right []    -> Left NoResultsError
    Right (q:_) -> Right q
    Left e      -> Left e

Here queryLucky is a hopeful version of query that just grabs the first search result from the StackExchange API. Consequently, instead of requesting the usual number of question results, we limit the request to a single question, so as to have a more efficient API call. So I want to run an inner query :: App b action with a temporarily modified configuration state, setting the limit to one, and put the initial state back in place once I’m done. This should trigger your bracket spidey-sense! What could go wrong if query throws an exception? The caller of queryLucky is left with what was supposed to be a temporarily modified state! So let’s bracket this:

queryLucky :: App (Either Error (Question [] Markdown))
queryLucky = do
  initialState <- get
  result <- bracket_
      (modify $ sOptions . oLimit .~ 1)
      (put initialState)
  return $ case result of
    Right []    -> Left NoResultsError
    Right (q:_) -> Right q
    Left e      -> Left e

Now regardless of what happens in query, we are assured that put initialState will be called afterwards. Note here that bracket_ :: App a -> App c -> App b -> App b is a generic version that runs in the MonadMask App instance, rather than IO. It is also a shorthand variant of bracket which doesn’t require passing values to the second and third actions, like we had to do above with the forked thread ID. Also, see in the same module other useful variants of the bracket pattern, such as bracketOnError or onException which only run the “release” action when an exception is thrown.


LambdaCase is one of my favorite extensions. It’s also arguably the smallest and simplest one available. Chances are if you are reading this, you are already aware of it, but I thought I’d include it here just in case. All it does is enable the \case syntactic sugar which is short for \a -> case a of, but it cleans up code surprisingly well. Here is an example of an unnecessarily named function:

execPrompt :: Async (Either Error [Question [] Markdown]) -> App ()
execPrompt aQuestions = liftIO $
  waitWithLoading aQuestions >>= runner
    runner qs =
      if null qs
        then exitWithError "No results found. Try a different question."
        else void $ runStateT (runByline runPrompt) (initPromptState qs)

The runner function is poorly named and an unnecessary binding. Here’s a version with LambdaCase, which let’s the information flow a bit more cleanly:

execPrompt :: Async (Either Error [Question [] Markdown]) -> App ()
execPrompt aQuestions = liftIO $
  waitWithLoading aQuestions >>= \case
    [] -> exitWithError "No results found. Try a different question."
    qs -> void $ runStateT (runByline runPrompt) (initPromptState qs)

Error Handling

What jumped out the most to me, and probably to you as well by now, is just how many App (Either Error a) types are floating around. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with passing Either e a types around, even frequently, generally speaking this is a code smell, particularly if they are nested directly within an App-esque monad stack. The issue is that, in most of these places along the application flow, I don’t particularly care about the Either e context and am simply bookkeeping to have errors bubble up to a top-level (or nearer-to-top-level) error handler.

There a number of ways for me to avoid this bookkeeping and replace App (Either Error a)’s with App a’s, so as to have a cleaner flow of information. Because my errors were really only used closer to the main entry point, I chose to use exceptions. In particular because I am using asynchronous processes for a friendlier user interface, it made sense to have a MonadMask instance. Similar refactoring could be accomplished with MonadError, or even just putting errors into your MonadState transformer; it really just depends on the use case and style preference.1

For this code, the Either Error a was only coming from one place, namely the decoding of the JSON response from Stack Exchange:

  :: String
  -> [W.Options -> W.Options]
  -> App (Either Error [Question [] Text])
seRequest resource optMods = do
  -- eliding irrelevant code
  decoded <- makeRequest resource optMods >>= thenDecodeIt
  return $ case decoded of
    Left e   -> Left . JSONError $ T.pack e
    Right [] -> Left NoResultsError
    Right qs -> Right qs

So all that changes is the last return statement, and of course the type signature:

  :: String
  -> [W.Options -> W.Options]
  -> App [Question [] Text]
seRequest resource optMods = do
 -- eliding again
 case decoded of
    Left e   -> throwM $ JSONError $ T.pack e
    Right [] -> throwM NoResultsError
    Right qs -> pure qs

With these changes, the rest of the code between main and seRequest can be cleaner and just concern itself with the underlying question and answer data coming from the StackExchange API. At the top level, instead of dealing with the Either Error we deal with the exception. Originally the code looked something like:

-- Simplified main example
main :: IO ()
main = do
  q <- getQuery
  runApp q >>= \case
    Left e    -> exitPrintingError e
    Right qas -> print qas

and it changed to this:

-- Simplified main example
main :: IO ()
main = do
  q   <- getQuery
  qas <- catch (runApp q) exitPrintingError
  print qas

Furthermore, even if a few of the intermediary functions along my application flow required the Either Error context, there would still likely be a net benefit to change to exceptions. I could still reference any possible errors within the application flow, and choose whether or not the exception should bubble up, like so:

intermediary :: App a
intermediary = do
  txt <- catch getQuestionTxt $ \case
    NoResultsError -> "No results, try another query."
    e              -> throwM e
  displayText txt

In this example I want to continue the same application flow if the error is simply that the query returned no results from the search API, a reasonable thing to do.2 But for other bona fide exceptions such as a JSON decoding issue, I throwM e to continue to let the exception bubble up, halting execution until the next exception catcher. Some readers may be opposed to this latter version aesthetically, and I sympathize, but if it cleans up the ugly juggling of Either types in 10 other locations, the maintenance benefit outweighs the “purity” aesthetic.

To play devil’s advocate, I do think in the current state of the codebase, MonadError e m is a great fit, especially given that I am only dealing with a single type of error. And for the scope of this application, now and in the future, that’s probably a fine choice. However, after seeing the headaches that can come from using MonadError as an application gets more complex, and the reconciliation required of different types of errors in various parts of a growing application, I personally feel some bias against the approach.

I’ve chosen to go over this section rather painstakingly because, in my experience, it seems exceptions in Haskell are rarely found in beginner to intermediate level code. I’m not really sure why this is; it could be influenced by the available learning materials, or perhaps it inherently feels a little “dirty” to use exceptions, or any dynamically scoped features, in such a pure language, but I hope to disavow you of this notion by referring you to Mark Karpov’s Exceptions tutorial, or at the very least the Motivation for exceptions section.


I think this was on my TODO list even back in 2018, but of course if I am throwing a NoResultsError, why am I using a data type [] that allows for no results? And worse, having to redundantly handle the [] case in three locations? Enter NonEmptyList which allows for safer code and peace of mind. Now instead of handling the empty case at the prompt

showLuckyAnswer :: Question [] Markdown -> IO ()
showLuckyAnswer question =
  case question ^. qAnswers of
    [] -> exitWithError "No answers found." -- this line never runs
    (answer:_) -> putMdLn answer

redundantly, since such a situation would have thrown an error earlier, we can type-safely access the first element of the answers list:

import qualified Data.List.NonEmpty as NonEmpty

showLuckyAnswer :: Question NonEmpty Markdown -> IO ()
showLuckyAnswer question =
  putMdLn . NonEmpty.head $ question ^. qAnswers

Type Synonyms

Good type synonyms can do wonders for readability, particularly for type constructors with common or canonical parameters. Consider the noise of all the Question [] Markdown types you’ve seen in this post thus far. I suppose now is a good time as any to explain the need for such a parameterization: the Question datatype is defined as

data Question t a = Question
  { _qId      :: Int
  , _qScore   :: Int
  , _qAnswers :: t (Answer a)
  , _qTitle   :: Text
  , _qBody    :: a
  } deriving (Functor)

data Answer a = Answer
  { _aId       :: Int
  , _aScore    :: Int
  , _aBody     :: a
  , _aAccepted :: Bool
  } deriving (Show, Functor)

and t is parameterized because, while most of the application iterates over answers in a NonEmpty container, there are areas within the brick implementation that need to be able to iterate over questions and answers in brick’s list widget container. Because they are nested, without this parameterization, we would essentially need to duplicate datatypes for the brick interface. The a is just the content type of the answers, which is initially just raw Text but later is parsed into a Markdown AST.

But, as noted above, that means I’ve added this type parameter noise everywhere in my application when only one place, the brick implementation, uses a different parameter. We can de-noise this using a type synonym:

type Question = Question' NonEmpty

data Question' t a = Question
  { _qId      :: Int
  , _qScore   :: Int
  , _qAnswers :: t (Answer a)
  , _qTitle   :: Text
  , _qBody    :: a
  } deriving (Functor)

Now I can use Question Text or Question Markdown in all of the above code snippets. Furthermore, I can add another type synonym specific to the brick interface to use there:

module Interface.Brick
  ( execBrick
  ) where

type BQuestion = Question' (GenericList Name Vector) Markdown


  1. See here for a more detailed look at the distinction between errors and exceptions, and here for an excellent dive into community opinions on the matter. 

  2. In my case, NoResultsError is still worthwhile as an exception because the application immediately bails on no results. Again, there’s no single right way to handle this, but I tend to agree with those reading who think that NoResultsError should be classified separately from say JSONDecodingError