ANDY MALEH: Sorry everybody. I lost the slides.

I had to reconstruct them right now.

Right, like in ten minutes.

Ultra light and maintainable Rails wizards.

Who has written a wizard in their lifetime?

OK. It's, it's almost like the most common
web

use case, yet it's the least under, under-valued
with

regards to providing patterns for doing, like,
writing good

code in order to provide for maintainable
wizards.

A lot of the time, people write, like, multi-step

wizards, where they end up doing a lot of

copy-paste between the steps or between a
bunch of

controllers. And that makes it a hell of a

problem to maintain that code a year or two

later. And every code base is, you know, meant

to be created for a year at least. Maintenance

cost is what's really expensive. It's not,
you know,

I can write a wizard in two weeks but

will I be able to maintain it cheaply over

a year. And that, that's really why I'm giving

a talk about this subject.

So just to give you an overview, I'll be

talking about, why do we even use a wizard?

Provide an example. Some implementation goals.
The 1001 wizard

implementations out there. And, finally, I'll
talk about what

I think is a good ultra light and maintainable

wizard approach.

So first of all, we don't want to overwhelm

the user with a huge form of information,
kind

of like those government forms that we have
in

Canada. So I come from Montreal, by the way.

This is painful on a computer screen. Computers
should

enable people to do better than actual physical
paper.

So one way of tackling this problem is to

divide it into multiple steps in a wizard.

So also it's about simplifying the workflow
into multiple

steps that make them digestible, just like
this protein

shake. And finally it, it gives you the opportunity

to provide more explanation for what each
form does,

by being able to fit more information when
you

break it up across multiple pages, like what
they

do with TurboTax.

Who here has filed their taxes?

Yeah. I did not. I just did this so

I see who raised his hand.

OK. So I had a, a software architecture gig

at EarlyShare about a couple of years ago
where

I helped them launch their site. EarlyShare
is kind

of like KickStarter or Indiegogo, except it's
focused on

allowing people to do crowd investment in
businesses.

And it was a website that was being built

fast in order to catch up with some legal

laws in the U.S. that would allow crowd investment.

So I helped them launch the site and they

had, they, as part of their website, they
needed

a couple of onboarding wizards. One for investors
and

one for business people.

But there were other requirements. Like, the
business was

bootstrapped. We were only two developers.
Me as the

senior and then there was a junior with a

CTO and a designer and that's it. He wanted

us to move super fast, and I was brought

in as the Rails expert.

So I had not written a wizard in like

four years before that. Or maybe five years.
Like,

maybe since the days I did Java development.
And

when I started tackling this problem in Ruby,
you

know, I like, I went online, checked some
Google

guides and all that or StackOverflow, whatever.

And none of their approaches satisfied me.
So let's

talk about what I found.

So the wizard example, though, is basically,
you have

four steps. Step one is collect basic info.
Step

two is details, more details. Step three is
upload

some document content. Step four is just preview
before

you finish the wizard. And then once it's
done,

it shows you a summary, like a landing page

for the project that, that the business is
proposing

for investment.

OK. So, I mean, the goals I had was

the Rails server had to persist every progress
on

every step. So no, like, js client-side tricks.
That

was out of scope. I wanted it to still,

like, be RESTful, like, which is a common
issue

with wizard, like, building wizards. How to
make them

properly RESTful.

I wanted to also stick with MVC, object-oriented
principles

because we're using an object-oriented language.
So I wanted

to make sure that the code is maintainable
by

other developers going to the feature.

And then some non-functional requirements,
like productivity. So that

was part of the concern that the CTO had,

which is he wanted us to move fast, like,

really, really fast. That was part of the
reason

why he brought me in. Well, big mistake. I,

I pay attention to details and nice design
concerns.

So I will slow him down but for good

reasons.

I'll slow him down and then he'll go much

faster later on.

Still, the story does have a happy ending.
So

maintainability, by both junior and senior
developers. They had

one senior developer in Brazil as well. Which
I

just remembered. He was brought in a little
later

on.

Performance concerns. Security concerns.

So it's pretty, it's pretty basic stuff. Like,
I

mean, these are the concerns that we should
care

about whenever we build any feature, really.

So one approach that I've seen on actual code

bases, I actually saw it on a code base

that I maintained on a following project after
that

one, was one controller per wizard step.

So you create a REST resource per wizard step.

And you had multiple controllers, multiple
sets of views

and helpers. And then each controller redirects
to the

next one. So something like this. And you
could

do it either with one ActiveRecord that has
conditional

validations for each step, where it says OK,
if

step one, validate presence of name, if step
two,

validate presence of blah, blah, blah. Or
you could

have multiple ActiveRecords.

But either way, who here could find concerns
with

this approach, or at least something that
could be

improved on? Somebody volunteer? Go ahead.

AUDIENCE: [indecipherable - 00:07:10]

A.M.: And what's the concern with that? So
what

if you have a whole bunch of controllers?

AUDIENCE: [indecipherable - 00:07:16]

A.M.: OK. I mean, I've built applications
that managed

user profiles, user accounts, blog posts,
for example, whatever.

You need a controller for each one of those.

I don't think you could escape that.

So I'm gonna give other people a chance to

talk, but I do get your point. I want

to clarify it.

Go ahead.

AUDIENCE: I was gonna say repetition-

A.M.: Exactly.

AUDIENCE: Re-usability and dependencies.

A.M.: Yeah. So quite a bit of that code

is repetitive. It was just, it was always
loading

the resource. It's almost the same resource.
Actually, if

you use one ActiveRecord, it is the same resource.

And then we'd run some validations and then
it

would pass to the next controller. So, I mean,

there was quite a bit of repetition.

We try to add features a couple of months

after the, after a developer had built that
wizard

on that project, and they wanted us to deliver

something in a week, and apparently another
developer, before

I joined that team, had tried to implement
that

feature and it took him a month. And he

still couldn't do it with the, with the design

they had.

It was still, it was just taking a long

time. Like, he was still not done. And then

that guy left. So I ended up solving the

problem with another senior guy. And it was,
so,

I ended up applying this ultra light maintainable
wizard

approach that I discovered on the EarlyShares
dot com

project, and it worked out really well. So,
which,

I'll talk about a little later. But that helped

us actually develop it in, if I remember right,

it was about seven days.

Test first, and rewriting the entire thing,
also.

But it was specifically because we didn't
have that

many controllers anymore. So, we wrote a lot
less

tests so we had a lot less code to

maintain. So that was part of it.

So, another approach I've seen is one controller.
Sorry.

Oh, OK, that's just the critique. We already
went

over that. I don't think I want to go

too much into details for that cause we're
limited

on time.

But yeah, let's go next to one action and

presenter per wizard step. So, I mean, another
approach

is, OK, keep one ActiveRecord, but I've also
seen

this approach in a code base, where there
were

different, say, new_step1, create_step1, new_step2,
create_step2. So there were

just, like, eight actions on that controller,
each mimicking

the new and, and, and create, say, on the

RESTful resource.

So, although it feels RESTful, it was not
REST

anymore. It already broke out of the REST
paradigm.

So we can improve over that.

Also, it still had some repetitive code across
the

actions. So, I mean, it was, it was just

a slight improvement to the problem. Not much.

Using presenters, which is an abstraction
layer between the

ActiveRecord and the controller is an improvement
in the

sense that you can put the validations for
each

presenter per step separately and not have
conditional validations.

I'll talk more about that going forward.

So it was more something like this, where
the

controller had a whole bunch of actions that
are

connecting to presenters that are talking
to an ActiveRecord.

OK.

So I already went over the caveats of that.

OK. Who here has written a wizard with session

accumulation approach? How, how did that work
out for

you or, do you think-

AUDIENCE: That's why I'm here.

-well, I'm sorry if it sounds. Well, tell
me

why you're here. I'm curious.

AUDIENCE: Well, I mean, right now it's just
that

it's to the point where we're breaking it
down

further, it was a very basic general implementation.
And

now dealing with the fact that we have so

much session iteration that I have to pass
it

between, you know, controllers. We deal with
it from

multiple angles, and it's, I mean, I can't
put

that stuff in a model. So my controllers are

getting really out of hand.

A.M.: Exactly. Yeah. Yup. Yup. Yup.

So you end up with the live session management

code in the controller, which breaks MVC.
So if

you're not breaking REST, you break MVC. It's
really

tough. It's a tough problem.

AUDIENCE: Can you explain what session accumulation
is?

A.M.: Yes. So, actually, maybe I should have
somebody

explain that. I saw you raise your hand. Would

you mind explaining it to the audience.

AUDIENCE: Sure. It's basically, as you're
going through the

specs, that you're storing all of the information
that

needs to be in the session. So then, you

go through step

one. You gather the basic info from the form.

When submitting the form, instead of storing
that in

an ActiveRecord, you actually store it in,
in the

session, using the session helper in the,
in the

Rails controller. And then once you move to,
and

then you redirect to step two, and then you

submit that form again, and then you add more

stuff to the session.

Once you reach the last step, kind of like

what you see in this diagram, that's when
you're

ready to create the ActiveRecord. So you pass
all

of this as the params and the ActiveRecord
will

validate it and then you're done.

OK. So, so I mean as far as critique.

So reliance of session, storing objects in
the session

has implications on scalability. Usually you
want to store

ids of primitives because they're easier to
move across

servers when it's primitive data and be able
to

support multiple servers.

My understanding is if you have actual objects
in

the session, it makes it harder for you to

scale.

Controller code is more complex because of
managing session

data. Validations could get defined twice,
because you might

have to validate on every step as well, in

JavaScript or in a, in a presenter or something.

And, also present at the last step in the

model.

So again, I mean, if you're not breaking REST,

you're breaking MVC. If you're not breaking
MVC, you're

breaking duplication whatever, concerns, so,
it's a tough problem.

Hidden value accumulation. Somebody share
with us what this

is, or, it's very similar to session accumulation.

Yeah, go ahead.

AUDIENCE: Really, when you're submitting the
form at each

step you're shoving all the values from the
form

into hidden fields on the page, and then eventually,

when you hit submit, the final version will
just

set everything to the server.

A.M.: Yup.

So it's not stateful, it's stateless, because
it keeps,

like, each request has its state. You don't
have

to maintain the state in a session. So the

performance implications are gone. Like, it
has no problems

in scalability.

But you might, you, you might not want to

expose the values all the time on the, on

the user page. You can hash them or do

encoding on them, so that could improve that,
that

problem with regards to keeping form data
in a,

in hidden fields on the page every step of

the way.

But there's, yeah, I mean, but the complexity
is

still there, with having to manage the accumulation
and

having to construct the model at the end.

So it's a slight improvement.

Who here has used the state matching for a

wizard?

OK. Do you mind sharing with us your experience

with it?

AUDIENCE: I think main problem that you run
into

is that you get fat models, cause you have

to put all of the different validations into
different

states. But overall, I found that it was a

better compromise than the other options.

A.M.: Generally it is. One, yeah. So, you
create

one ActiveRecord. You make the ActiveRecord
a state machine.

You have to add a step column on that

model to support which step you're on when
it,

in order for the validation to know which
validations

to run for what step. So that way you

say, OK, on step one, if you have that

column, you'll say, OK, you'll have validations
that say,

OK, if it's step one, then I'm gonna check

for first name and last name presence. If
it's

step two I'm gonna, I'm gonna check that the

project details are present. And so on and
so

forth, depending on what each form, what field,
what

field each form contains on the, in the specific

step.

So yeah, different view per step. I already
went

over conditional validations.

To share an example, it looks something like
that,

like validate :phone, presence: true, if current_step
is shipping.

So that's just one way of doing it. There's

other better ways of doing it. There's also
gems

out there that help you with that. But that's

one way of doing it.

AUDIENCE: ActiveRecord has the ability to
run conditional validations

like that. You don't have to run a block.

A.M.: Mhmm. Yup. Yup. I'm familiar with that.
Yeah,

that's why I mentioned, there's multiple ways
of doing

that. That's just one example.

AUDIENCE: How does, how is the state machine
different

than the first, better than any of the ones

you mentioned, [indecipherable - 00:16:39]

A.M.: OK. With the other one, you could cheat

a bit and set an in memory variable that

represents the step name that you're on and
then

do that conditional validation that way, whereas
with this

one, you have, you're only working with one
model

and you don't, you haven't managed the stepping.
So

yeah, with the other approach, the controller
is doing

management of the stepping. In this one the
model

is doing the management of the stepping.

So critique. Well, first of all, it puts in

presentation concerns, like adding an extra
column to our

presenter's state, sorry, step, is not part
of the

domain, the business domain. So when you're
doing MVC,

usually the model, you're trying to put in
it

as much decoupled logic that's focused on
the business

at hand as possible in order to maintain that

separately from any view concerns or controller
concerns.

I mean, you can put anything in the model,

really. But the reason why we do that is,

in my experience, when I'm maintaining a code
base,

if I'm not having to manage view concerns
like

stepping into a state machine and a model
concern,

like the business rules of, of what happens
when,

you know, like the project description is
not present

or whatever, then it's easier for me to maintain

that model, cause I'm not thinking on one
thing

at a time. I'm not thinking multiple things
at

the same time.

Also, it makes those models smaller files,
if you

separate those concerns. You don't want a
huge model

as maintaining a state machine and maintaining
business rules

and maintaining like ten other things. You
could manage

that with splitting that into modules or concerns,
but

still, when I'm working with that model, my
head

will have the context of everything at once.
SO

it wouldn't, like, this is more of an advanced

programming thing. Like, once you've been
programming for three

years at least, you'll, you'll start noticing
that.

You'll start noticing the subtleties with
regards to mixing

concerns. Like, you start understanding why
people say follow

the single responsibility principle. I'm not
a fan of

following it dogmatically, I, but I think
it's a

good guideline, like any other guideline,
where if you

could minimize responsibilities in a model
and have it

not manage view concerns, then do that. Especially
if

MVC prescribes that as well as that's what
all

Rails developers on the field would expect.

So I think I pretty much sold that. So

yeah, so I mean, I think that makes it

pretty clear why I don't like this approach
that

much.

Also, it's a bit techy. Like, thinking of
the

wizard as a state machine is a bit computer

science-y. Like, I mean, I have a background
in

computer science, but, the, the point of anything
you

learn is to apply it in the right place

for it, and I don't feel like, when I'm

thinking about a wizard I'm thinking about
the business

problem. That's what I really want to think
about.

I don't want to think about a state machine.

As cool as that is, that's not the time

to think about it.

So I mean, a thousand and one approaches is,

there's a whole bunch of gems out there. Most

of them will simplify the things I mentioned,
or

give you better, shorter DSLs for doing the
approaches

I mentioned. But none of them achieve all
the

goals at once, of having MVC, REST, and all

of that.

I mean, to get back to that, there's REST,

MVC, OO, and then the non-functional requirements.
So, let's

go to, jump into this. I think we have

about ten minutes left.

So the first thing that, so I, I'm like,

OK, let's try to solve this wizard problem
from

scratch, like, as if I just, I'm just gonna,

like, get my tools out there. Like, the object-oriented

principles, the domain-driven design principles.
Who, who here has

read the book Domain Driven Design? Or heard
of

it, at least?

It's a book that I, my team did a

book club on, or a previous team, like six

years ago, did a book club on for the

sake of learning how to do object-oriented
design on

real business problems. Cause a lot of the
time

you learn object orientation, but it's hard
to figure

out how to create the right objects for the

real, for the right person's problem. It's,
that, that

book is a very good book on how to

tackle that.

So I, I started using those tools. Like, whatever

I learned from that book, whatever I learned
from

object-oriented programming. Whatever I learned
from, like REST. To

try to figure out what a wizard is.

Before I go ahead and talk more of what

a wizard is, what do you think a wizard,

the wizard's highest goal is?

Go ahead.

AUDIENCE: To serve views for the user.

A.M.: That's correct. So, you stumped me.
Cause I

was gonna ask about the highest goal from
the

developer's point of view, but you're right,
we should

think about the user's perspective first.

Now, let's dig, let's dig a little. No, that's

good. Let's dig a level lower. So, OK, so

we know that. That's our guiding principle,
is OK,

to serve to make things easier for the user.

But, next, what, why, why, OK, technically
what, what

is a wizard doing?

OK, that's my next question. What is a wizard

really doing? Go ahead.

AUDIENCE: Collect the proper set of validated
values.

A.M.: That's part of the work. What else?

AUDIENCE: Break down the form so they're just
small

steps.

A.M.: OK. Break down the data. Yup. Like separate

it. What else?

AUDIENCE: I was gonna say something really
similar to

that. Organize the data into, like, you know,
making

it weighted or in comprehensible sections.

A.M.: OK. And what's the end goal of running

through the entire wizard?

AUDIENCE: Creating an object.

A.M.: Yup. Pretty much. So a wizard is nothing

but the good old builder design pattern. Anybody's
heard

of it. I mean, I used to be a

hardcore Java geek and design patterns were
big in-

[audio jump] seven days - in Ruby.

But it's still good to know about things like

that, cause that pattern flashed in my head
right

away. I'm like, oh wow, a wizard is nothing

but a builder. Like, it, all it does is

like an assembly line of building a car, where

step one, you know, whatever, you put the
chassis,

second, like, step two is you add more, I

don't know, you add the doors. Step three,
you

add the windows. Four, five, and then all
of

the sudden you've built a car. So that's really

what it is.

Second part of the philosophy that I was following

is, each step in a wizard is nothing but

a partial view of that main, full object you're

building. So, one, one step is about, say
I'm

ordering a car and I want to customize that

car. Like, one step will show me the exterior

body and another will show me the interior
to

customize the interior with, whatever, leather
or mahogany front-panel,

whatever. And then, and then a third part
lets

me customize the engine.

So it's just, so all what steps are, are

views. Like, instead of thinking about them
as states

and in a state machine, this is a more

higher level way of thinking about it. It's
less

technical and more, it's just, I'm viewing
one part

of a model.

Third part is if you were to, so, with

that in mind, if you ever think about the

REST resources, it's very simple now. It's
done. Like,

you have the main model, that's the main resource.

And then you have the model parts, nested
model

part, under the main model. That's the second
resource.

That's it. You have two RESTful resources.
Very clean.

So every time you're walking through the steps
of

a wizard, you're actually editing a model
part. So,

and, so that makes it very, very clear what

the REST resource is.

Another thing in my philosophy about it was
I

did not want to have conditional validations,
cause they

make a model hard to maintain. It's harder
to

read if statements. Like, if I can have those

without if statements, it would be better.
Especially when

you come back to maintain that wizard six
months

later and then a year later and, on, on

both projects I was on, they actually added
steps

to the wizard. So they started with four steps

and then they grew to nine steps.

And the more I can separate that stuff, the,

the better. And then finally I just wanted
to

maintain the views in separate view files
as well.

I didn't want a single view file that would

do it the way I used to write code

in ASB where I'd have a crazy if-else statement

that says if step1 show this part of the

form, if step2, show me the project details,
if

step3, show me a document content upload.
I don't

want that. That's, yeah. That's ASP programming.

AUDIENCE: If they change the order of the
steps,

you want the steps [indecipherable] step three
became step

four.

A.M.: Yeah. It'll work.

OK. So, so really I mean, high level is

just, I have the main model. That's the main

resource. And then the, on the, nested under
it,

there's the four different, so, what I end
up

doing is creating four different presenters.
One per step.

Which manages the validations for that step
separately, as

well as any stepping logic related to what
happens

when you land on that page. What are the

defaults for that form? Should we initialize
the phone

number with zero, zero, zero, zeros, or should
we,

like, should, should we prefil the name from
the

logged in user account? These kinds of concerns
now

are uploaded cleanly to the model.

So we're adhering to MVC. You handle all the

wizard intelligence and business logic in
the models now.

You're not, or presenters. I mean, a presenter
is

just another form of a model that focuses
on

presented a vi- a part of a model. So,

really, I'm, I'm using it in a loose sense.

There's many ways to do presenters. I don't
care

which way.

I do have a prescribed way here, but, the

point of first to grasp is that you're operating

on a part of the model. You're not operating

on the full model. And you're doing the logic

in the, in a model, not in a controller.

And then the, the controller is the, yeah.
So

there's two of them. There's the one that
manages

the main model creation. So the first step
of

a wizard, when you create it, you create it

with a main model controller. So if I have

projects controller, I have a create action.
And then

that triggers the wizard. It'll, it'll create
it and

then redirects me to the first step.

So when it redirects me to the first step

it takes me to the edit page of model

part, the nested model part, with id_step1,
for example.

Or id basic info. So you use the step

names as the ids of that RESTful resource.
Which

is perfect REST. Like, that's, that, that
goes with,

that gives you an example of why, when people

talk about REST outside of Rails, they tell
you

REST does not relate to having a database
table.

You can, so this, this, this is an example

where the RESTful resource is a step that
is

a view of the model, but it's not a

resource. It's not a database table. It's
not a

separate database table. It's just a virtual
resource.

I need to wrap it up and then I'll

take, I'll take questions. So in a nutshell,
you

have the model resource, nested model. So
you end

up with URLs like that, which is very restful,

again, cause, like, so you have projects,
with the

id. We were using friendly id on the projects,

so the project says, yeah, so project1, then
project_parts,

and then the name of the step. And there'll

be four steps for, you know, every time you

run through that wizard. So there'll be four
ids,

only. It's a finite set. You don't have to

store it in the database.

So yeah, step names. There's id, contains
validations, yeah.

I already talked about all of that. So let's

skip.

So the routes is very, are very simple. You

just have a resources projects. It's actually
only create

and show. I left the show out. There should

be a show as well. Show is the landing

page of the project when you finish the wizard.

And then the project parts, which is edit
and

update. And it's that simple.

So, so here's the project model. It's got
the

basic definition of that model. And associations
and so

on and so forth. However, what I end up

doing is creating a presenter per wizard step,
so,

and I nest them under a directory that matches

the model name, so, project, for example.
And that's

one way of doing it. There's many ways of

doing it, but.

In this case, only step one and two had

customizations over that model. Step three
did not have

validations of its own, so I didn't even have

to create a file for it. And step four

actually didn't have anything either so I
didn't have

to create a file for it.

But yeah. Step one, you can't see the details,

but the point is that this is, these are

validations for step one, only. So that's
the first,

and then the first step, as well as some

business logic related to it, like initializing
default, like

initialize from user, which initializes from
the signed in

user.

And then there's the project detail model,
which has

a few validations, only. Only three, cause
it only

has three fields on it. So that one is

also, like, cleanly separated. Nice, easy
to maintain. So

you go back to maintain the code and it's

like, it's like, it's squeaky clean. You know
it's

like so easy. It's like the way programming
should

be.

So the project's controller, the create action,
all it

does is it creates the project and then redirects

to the edit page of the first step, which

is basic info. And then the project parts
controller

has the edit and the update and all it

does is it steps through the wizard. Now,
what

I ended up doing here is the way I

reasoned about it is that the project in MVC,

or, sorry project controller in MVC is, or
project

parts controller, is actually, although it's
a controller, it's

a model of sorts. It's a model focused on

control flow.

And stepping through a wizard is control flow.
So

then I made the controller responsible for
it. So

the, so here, at the top, it, it defines

the order of the steps, and then based on

that it walks through them. So in a way

the controller is the state machine, except
I didn't

need a state machine cause I'm not maintaining
state.

I do it with, I don't need to maintain

state. Every time we finish a step we can

redirect to the next step. And I can pass

the id of the next step RESTfully and redirect

to the next resource.

So I, I don't need to maintain what step

I'm at, on. It's always on each page. Like,

on each page, I can know, if I'm on

step two, I know that if I hit submit

it'll take me to step three next. I don't

have to, like I just know that from this

array that we define over here, which orders
the

steps in the wizard.

So, yeah, we're almost done. But yeah. I mean,

it's got stepping logic. There is, there's
a gem

out there called wicked that helps to implement
this

sort of logic in a controller. I, I'm starting

a gem called ultralightwizard that will do
similar stuff,

except it'll add the, the concept of presenters
to

it as well. But until then you could use

wicked for the controller part.

The views, you'll just have a different wizard
part

view, or sorry, step view. And one thing I

didn't know is that this edit action, it actually,

when it renders the view, you don't render
and

edit dot html dot erb, you polymorphically
just render

the step name. And then it ends up picking

a view matching that step name.

So if I render basic_info, it renders basic_info
dot

html dot erb, which contains the edit form
for

that step. If I render the, the detail step,

then it renders detail dot html dot erb. So

that's why I have these. So that way we

have the views separated as well. So we achieve

that goal.

The form that you put can be the same

on all views actually. Because you have, you're
editing

the same model. You're just editing different
parts of

that model, but it's, it's the same model
on

all pages. So the root model is project, but

on one page I'm editing nested document content,
upload

the documents. On another page I'm, I'm, I'm
editing

just the first name and last name, and so

on and so forth.

So you could actually wrap this whole thing
up

in the helper, call it project_form_for. That's
super short.

Just use that. I know on one of my

projects, another senior developer on the
team did that,

like he did that as a refactoring step.

So, I mean, this is an example, but a

view, a very straightforward view form, like,
straight Rails.

Nothing special about it.

So that concludes the talk. So, I mean, I

talked about why use a wizard, provide a wizard

example, implementation goals, other implementations
out there, and finally

talked about what's my recommended approach
for sticking with

REST, MVC, OO, and, you know, all the things

that would help ensure that your code is not

maintainable only today but also a year from
now,

and also by other developers that will join
the

team with minimal training efforts, hopefully.

This is the project that I launched and is

empty right now, but I would like to, but

I mean, you can star it and monitor it

and hopefully I have something out soon. Maybe
I'll

do it at RailsConf. Somebody want to pair
with

me on this, you're welcome to. So yeah, my

name is Andy Maleh. I'm the VP of Engineering

at a remote only, or 100% remote option consulting

company called BigAstronaut. These are my
folks over here.

That's Lance, CTO.

Oh, oh yeah, Chief Fun Officer as well.

AUDIENCE: We've got t-shirts and stickers
and we're hiring.

A.M.: Sweet. Yeah. Thank you everybody.