Service objects are a pattern that I believe should be part of Rails’ default. This extends the basic MVC model by introducing services to implement business logic (instead of stuffing it into a model). While Rails’ default assumption that each model would hold its own business logic is sound, it doesn’t scale well when the application’s size increases.

There are a lot of articles suggesting patterns on where and how to store services. My approach is mostly the same, but with a few upgrades. This is what an example app/services folder might look like:

The main thing to note here is that there are a few conventions, but no strict rules.

One, or few responsibilities

Naming plays a big role here - try to keep the name as specific as possible to avoid the temptation to extend the responsibility of a service object. So, instead of Users::SlackService, it might be a better idea to call it Users::SendSlackMessageService.

Unlike models, with their attached database tables, it’s cheap (zero cost, really) to create new services - spin new ones up whenever you encounter business logic that needs to be implemented.

Services are grouped into a pluralized-model-name module when the action they perform is closely related to a model. This group is for the sake of organization - nothing more, so if a service does something that’s related to two models, you’ll have to make a call on which module it best fits into.

Frequently, business logic may not tie in directly to any model. In this example, there’s a third-party service that the application needs to interact with, so the module its grouped under is simply the name of the service. The execute method is also replaced with a posts method to indicate that the service returns something, instead of simply performing an action.

Concerns to share abilities

Embrace Rails concerns when you encounter pieces of functionality that is useful in a number of situations - a common one is the ability to write to the log.

Including this module into a service will allow it to easily write to the Rails log with additional information regarding the source of the message and a timestamp.

They’re easy to test

Because these are plain Ruby classes, they’re generally easy to test. If you’ve stuck to the Single-resposibility Principle, the test cases should be pretty simple as well - writing a lot of small services pays off here.

Conclusion

If you’re working on a non-trivial project, services can be a massive boon. There’s definitely a back-to-the-roots feel to it, and that’s deliberate - Ruby is an expressive, easy-to-read language, and service objects are plain Ruby classes that describe all the little pieces that form the building blocks of your application.

I’ve heard it said that a someone looking through your services folder should get a fair idea of what your application does, and I think that’s an inevitable end-result if you write service objects properly.