Methoddispatch Woes: Should Ably Python Ditch This Dependency?

Hey guys! Let's dive into a bit of a code conundrum. We're chatting about methoddispatch, a dependency in the Ably Python library, and whether we should keep it around. It's a question of maintenance, reliability, and ultimately, the long-term health of our codebase. So, let's break down the situation and see if we can come up with some solid ideas.

The Problem with Methoddispatch

Methoddispatch seems to be mostly used within the Channel class. Now, the main concern here is the state of methoddispatch itself. Based on some research, and what the original request mentioned, the package's testing setup doesn't exactly scream confidence, especially with its compatibility checks seemingly stuck in the past. Having tests that ensure Python 3.6+ compatibility is a good thing, and we want to ensure compatibility, especially since Python 2.7 has reached its end of life. The fact that the test suite seems to be testing against older versions isn't ideal, either.

Further compounding the issue, Snyk gives methoddispatch a less-than-stellar score of 46/100. This low score often reflects potential vulnerabilities or areas needing improvement within the package. While Snyk scores aren't the be-all and end-all, they're definitely a signal that something might need attention. Considering the key role of the Channel class, relying on a potentially problematic dependency introduces risk, making us all collectively uneasy.

Basically, the core issue is this: a dependency that's not actively maintained or thoroughly tested can become a liability. We depend on our libraries being strong and stable. When a dependency has known or suspected problems, it affects the overall stability of the Ably Python library. The last thing we want is to introduce potential bugs or security holes because of our dependencies, right?

Option A: Giving Methoddispatch Some TLC

One potential path is to invest in updating methoddispatch. This would mean actively contributing to the project, improving its testing, and ensuring it's compatible with modern Python versions. This would be a great outcome, and the best of all possible worlds, but that assumes a couple of things:

• Community Engagement: Are the maintainers of methoddispatch receptive to outside contributions? Do they respond to issues and pull requests? Without active maintainers, we may be on our own. Contributing to a project that isn't actively maintained can be a difficult challenge. You may end up doing all the work, but not have any way to incorporate your changes.
• Time and Resources: Updating a dependency takes time and effort. Someone on the team would need to familiarize themselves with methoddispatch, identify and fix any issues, and write the necessary tests. It's possible that this task would need to be prioritized. If this is the case, it could take away from other tasks.

However, there's a flip side to this story. By contributing to methoddispatch, we'd be directly improving our codebase, and we'd be empowering ourselves with a better understanding of how the core parts of our system work. It could also strengthen our connection to the broader Python community. However, this is a lot of work to do. And if the maintainers do not accept our changes, then this work will be completely wasted. It is also important to note that Snyk's score on methoddispatch is low for a reason. There may be critical bugs that need to be addressed, which would take more effort than just testing for Python 3.6+ compatibility.

Option B: Removing Methoddispatch and Embracing typing.overload

Now, let's talk about the most attractive thing to do. The alternative is to remove methoddispatch entirely and replace it with typing.overload. This sounds like a great move for several reasons:

• Modern Python: typing.overload is a core part of Python's typing module, which is up-to-date and well-maintained. We can be sure that this will continue to be maintained with each version of Python.
• Simplified Code: Replacing a dependency with a built-in feature can often simplify the codebase. This would mean fewer external dependencies and, potentially, easier maintenance in the long run.
• Dependency Reduction: Fewer dependencies mean less code to manage, fewer potential security vulnerabilities, and a generally cleaner project structure. This is also attractive since it is a well-known fact that dependencies, especially those that are not updated and have low security scores, can cause potential security issues.

The downside? Well, there's always a catch, right? This path involves a bit of "elbow grease." We'd need to rewrite the relevant parts of the code to use typing.overload appropriately. This would take time and effort. However, if we're only using methoddispatch in one place (the Channel class), the refactoring effort may be less significant than it seems, so this would be a great move.

Making the Right Choice

So, what's the best route for us? I'd lean towards removing methoddispatch and using typing.overload. Here's why:

• Reduced Risk: Removing a potentially problematic dependency immediately reduces our exposure to vulnerabilities. We'd have more control over the stability of the code.
• Long-Term Benefits: Using standard Python libraries improves maintainability and makes our code more future-proof. With typing.overload being maintained by the Python core team, we can be confident of long-term support.
• Sustainable: While it will involve some initial effort, the long-term benefits in terms of maintainability and security outweigh the cost of refactoring.

Ultimately, the choice depends on several things: the size of the refactoring effort, the available time, and the team's capacity. But, given the concerns around methoddispatch's status, I think the safer, more modern option is to replace it.

Additional Considerations

Before we pull the trigger, let's keep a few things in mind:

• Testing: Thoroughly test any changes. We'll want to ensure that all existing functionality works as expected after the refactor. And make sure our tests cover the relevant functionality.
• Performance: Verify that the performance of the code doesn't suffer after the change. While typing.overload is unlikely to introduce performance issues, it's always good to be cautious.

Conclusion: Time for a Change?

In a nutshell, it's time to strongly consider bidding farewell to methoddispatch. By replacing it with typing.overload, we can improve the security, maintainability, and overall health of our codebase. While this will require some effort, the potential benefits – reduced risk, a more modern codebase, and a lighter dependency footprint – make it the right call for the Ably Python library. Let's get this done. Thanks for reading!