Why bother writing similar code twice for blocking and async code?
When implementing both sync and async versions of API in a crate, most API of the two version are almost the same except for some async/await keyword.
maybe-async
help unifying async and sync implementation by procedural
macro.
- Write async code with normal
async
,await
, and letmaybe_async
handles thoseasync
andawait
when you need a blocking code. - Switch between sync and async by toggling
is_sync
feature gate inCargo.toml
. - use
must_be_async
andmust_be_sync
to keep code in specified version - use
impl_async
andimpl_sync
to only compile code block on specified version - A handy macro to unify unit test code is also provided.
These procedural macros can be applied to the following codes:
- trait item declaration
- trait implmentation
- function definition
- struct definition
RECOMMENDATION: Enable resolver ver2 in your crate, which is introduced in Rust 1.51. If not, two crates in dependency with conflict version (one async and another blocking) can fail complilation.
The async/await language feature alters the async world of rust. Comparing with the map/and_then style, now the async code really resembles sync version code.
In many crates, the async and sync version of crates shares the same API, but the minor difference that all async code must be awaited prevent the unification of async and sync code. In other words, we are forced to write an async and an sync implementation repectively.
maybe-async
offers 4 set of attribute macros: maybe_async
,
sync_impl
/async_impl
, must_be_sync
/must_be_async
, and test
.
To use maybe-async
, we must know which block of codes is only used on
blocking implementation, and which on async. These two implementation should
share the same function signatures except for async/await keywords, and use
sync_impl
and async_impl
to mark these implementation.
Use maybe_async
macro on codes that share the same API on both async and
blocking code except for async/await keywords. And use feature gate
is_sync
in Cargo.toml
to toggle between async and blocking code.
-
maybe_async
Offers a unified feature gate to provide sync and async conversion on demand by feature gate
is_sync
, with async first policy.Want to keep async code? add
maybe_async
in dependencies with default features, which meansmaybe_async
is the same asmust_be_async
:[dependencies] maybe_async = "0.2"
Wanna convert async code to sync? Add
maybe_async
to dependencies with anis_sync
feature gate. In this way,maybe_async
is the same asmust_be_sync
:[dependencies] maybe_async = { version = "0.2", features = ["is_sync"] }
Not all async traits need futures that are
dyn Future + Send
. To avoid having "Send" and "Sync" bounds placed on the async trait methods, invoke the maybe_async macro as #[maybe_async(?Send)] on both the trait and the impl blocks. -
must_be_async
Keep async. Add
async_trait
attribute macro for trait declaration or implementation to bring async fn support in traits.To avoid having "Send" and "Sync" bounds placed on the async trait methods, invoke the maybe_async macro as #[must_be_async(?Send)].
-
must_be_sync
Convert to sync code. Convert the async code into sync code by removing all
async move
,async
andawait
keyword -
sync_impl
An sync implementation should on compile on blocking implementation and must simply disappear when we want async version.
Although most of the API are almost the same, there definitely come to a point when the async and sync version should differ greatly. For example, a MongoDB client may use the same API for async and sync verison, but the code to actually send reqeust are quite different.
Here, we can use
sync_impl
to mark a synchronous implementation, and a sync implementation shoule disappear when we want async version. -
async_impl
An async implementation should on compile on async implementation and must simply disappear when we want sync version.
To avoid having "Send" and "Sync" bounds placed on the async trait methods, invoke the maybe_async macro as #[async_impl(?Send)].
-
test
Handy macro to unify async and sync unit and e2e test code.
You can specify the condition to compile to sync test code and also the conditions to compile to async test code with given test macro, e.x.
tokio::test
,async_std::test
and etc. When only sync condition is specified,the test code only compiles when sync condition is met.# #[maybe_async::maybe_async] # async fn async_fn() -> bool { # true # } #[maybe_async::test( feature="is_sync", async(all(not(feature="is_sync"), feature="async_std"), async_std::test), async(all(not(feature="is_sync"), feature="tokio"), tokio::test) )] async fn test_async_fn() { let res = async_fn().await; assert_eq!(res, true); }
maybe-async
compiles your code in different way with the is_sync
feature
gate. It remove all await
and async
keywords in your code under
maybe_async
macro and conditionally compiles codes under async_impl
and
sync_impl
.
Here is an detailed example on what's going on whe the is_sync
feature
gate set or not.
#[maybe_async::maybe_async(?Send)]
trait A {
async fn async_fn_name() -> Result<(), ()> {
Ok(())
}
fn sync_fn_name() -> Result<(), ()> {
Ok(())
}
}
struct Foo;
#[maybe_async::maybe_async(?Send)]
impl A for Foo {
async fn async_fn_name() -> Result<(), ()> {
Ok(())
}
fn sync_fn_name() -> Result<(), ()> {
Ok(())
}
}
#[maybe_async::maybe_async]
async fn maybe_async_fn() -> Result<(), ()> {
let a = Foo::async_fn_name().await?;
let b = Foo::sync_fn_name()?;
Ok(())
}
When maybe-async
feature gate is_sync
is NOT set, the generated code
is async code:
// Compiled code when `is_sync` is toggled off.
#[async_trait::async_trait(?Send)]
trait A {
async fn maybe_async_fn_name() -> Result<(), ()> {
Ok(())
}
fn sync_fn_name() -> Result<(), ()> {
Ok(())
}
}
struct Foo;
#[async_trait::async_trait(?Send)]
impl A for Foo {
async fn maybe_async_fn_name() -> Result<(), ()> {
Ok(())
}
fn sync_fn_name() -> Result<(), ()> {
Ok(())
}
}
async fn maybe_async_fn() -> Result<(), ()> {
let a = Foo::maybe_async_fn_name().await?;
let b = Foo::sync_fn_name()?;
Ok(())
}
When maybe-async
feature gate is_sync
is set, all async keyword is
ignored and yields a sync version code:
// Compiled code when `is_sync` is toggled on.
trait A {
fn maybe_async_fn_name() -> Result<(), ()> {
Ok(())
}
fn sync_fn_name() -> Result<(), ()> {
Ok(())
}
}
struct Foo;
impl A for Foo {
fn maybe_async_fn_name() -> Result<(), ()> {
Ok(())
}
fn sync_fn_name() -> Result<(), ()> {
Ok(())
}
}
fn maybe_async_fn() -> Result<(), ()> {
let a = Foo::maybe_async_fn_name()?;
let b = Foo::sync_fn_name()?;
Ok(())
}
When implementing rust client for any services, like awz3. The higher level API of async and sync version is almost the same, such as creating or deleting a bucket, retrieving an object and etc.
The example service_client
is a proof of concept that maybe_async
can
actually free us from writing almost the same code for sync and async. We
can toggle between a sync AWZ3 client and async one by is_sync
feature
gate when we add maybe-async
to dependency.
MIT