Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from 37signals Dev
Today, we are releasing Hotwire Spark, a live-reloading system for Rails Applications. Reloading the browser automatically on source changes is a problem that has been well-solved for a long time. Here, we wanted to put an accent on smoothness. If the reload operation is very noticeable, the feedback loop is similar to just reloading the page yourself. But if it’s smooth enough—if you only perceive the intended change—the feedback loop becomes terrific. To use, just install the gem in development: group :development do gem "hotwire-spark" end It will update the current page on three types of change: HTML content, CSS, and Stimulus controllers. How do we achieve that desired smoothness with each? For HTML content, it morphs the <body> of the page into the new <body>. Also, it disconnects and reconnects all the Stimulus controllers on the page. For CSS, it reloads the changed stylesheet. For Stimulus controllers, it fetches the changed controller, replaces its module in Stimulus, and reconnects all the controllers. We designed Hotwire Spark to shine with the #nobuildapproach we use and recommend. Serving CSS and JS assets as standalone files is ideal when you want to fetch and update only what has changed. There is no need to use bundling or any tooling. Hot Module Replacement for Stimulus controllers without any frontend building tool is pretty cool! 2024 has been a very special year for Rails. We’re thrilled to share Hotwire Spark before the year wraps up. Wishing you all a joyful holiday season and a fantastic start to 2025.
If you have the luxury of starting a new Rails app today, here’s our recommendation: go vanilla. Fight hard before adding Ruby dependencies. Keep that Gemfile that Rails generates as close to the original one as possible. Fight even harder before adding Javascript dependencies. You don’t need React or any other front-end frameworks, nor a JSON API to feed those. Hotwire is a fantastic, pragmatic, and ridiculously productive technology for the front end. Use it. The same goes for mobile apps: use Hotwire Native. With a hybrid approach you can combine the very same web app you have built with a wonderful native experience right where you want it. The productivity compared to a purely native approach is night and day. Embrace and celebrate rendering things on the server. It has become cool again. ERB templates and view helpers will take you as long as you need, and they are a fantastic common ground for designers to collaborate hands-on with the code. #nobuild is the simplest way to go; don’t close this door with your choices. Instead of bundling Javascript, use import maps. Don’t bundle CSS, just use modern standard CSS goodies and serve them all with Propshaft. If you have 100 Javascript files and 100 stylesheets, serve 200 standalone requests multiplexed over HTTP2. You will be delighted. Don’t add Redis to the mix. Use solid_cache for caching, solid_queue for jobs, and solid_cable for Action Cable. They will all work on your beloved relational database and are battle-tested. Test your apps with Minitest. Use fixtures and build a realistic set of those as you cook your app. Make your app a PWA, which is fully supported by Rails 8. This may be more than enough before caring about mobile apps at all. Deploy your app with Kamal. If you want heuristics, your importmap.rb should import Turbo, Stimulus, your app controllers, and little else. Your Gemfile should be almost identical to the one that Rails generates. I know it sounds radical, but going vanilla is a radical stance in this convoluted world of endless choices. This is the Rails 8 stack we have chosen for our new apps at 37signals. We are a tiny crew, so we care a lot about productivity. And we sell products, not stacks, so we care a lot about delighting our users. This is our Omakase stack because it offers the optimal balance for achieving both. Vanilla means your app stays nimble. Fewer dependencies mean fewer future headaches. You get a tight integration out of the box, so you can focus on building things. It also maximizes the odds of having smoother future upgrades. Vanilla requires determination, though, because new dependencies always look shiny and shinier. It’s always clear what you get when you add them, but never what you lose in the long term. It is certainly up to you. Rails is a wonderful big tent. These are our opinions. If it resonates, choose vanilla! Guess what our advice is for architecting your app internals?
We’ve just released Mission Control — Jobs v1.0.0, the dashboard and set of extensions to operate background jobs that we introduced earlier this year. This new version is the result of 92 pull requests, 67 issues and the help of 35 different contributors. It includes many bugfixes and improvements, such as: Support for Solid Queue’s recurring tasks, including running them on-demand. Support for API-only apps. Allowing immediate dispatching of scheduled and blocked jobs. Backtrace cleaning for failed jobs’ backtraces. A safer default for authentication, with Basic HTTP authentication enabled and initially closed unless configured or explicitly disabled. Recurring tasks in Mission Control — Jobs, with a subset of the tasks we run in production We use Mission Control — Jobs daily to manage jobs HEY and Basecamp 4, with both Solid Queue and Resque, and it’s the dashboard we recommend if you’re using Solid Queue for your jobs. Our plan is to upstream some of the extensions we’ve made to Active Job and continue improving it until it’s ready to be included by default in Rails together with Solid Queue. If you want to help us with that, are interested in learning more or have any issues or questions, head over to the repo in GitHub. We hope you like it!
Quality Assurance (QA) is a team of two at 37signals: Michael, who created the department 12 years ago, and Gabriel, who joined the team in 2022. Together, we have a hand in projects across all of our products, from kickoff to release. Our goal is to help designers and programmers ship their best work. Our process revolves around manual testing and has been tuned to match the rhythm of Shape Up. Here, we’ll share the ins and outs of our methods and touch on a few of the tools we use along the way. Kicking things off At 37signals we run projects in six-week cycles informed by Shape Up. At the beginning of each cycle, Brian, our Head of Product, posts a kick-off message detailing what we plan to ship. This usually consists of new features and improvements for Basecamp, HEY, or a ONCE product. Each gets its own Basecamp project, and each project includes a pitch. The pitch lays out the problem or need, a proposed solution, and the “appetite” or time budget. The kick-off is also QA’s cue to dive in! We offer early feedback, ask questions or illuminate things that aren’t covered, and give extra consideration to flows and interactions that may require extra work on the accessibility front. We then step back and let the teams focus, design, and build things for a while. The right time to test We wait until the feature or product reaches a usable state to start testing in earnest. This helps us keep a fresh perspective, unencumbered by the knowledge of compromises made along the way. We use a Card Table within our QA Team project to track what’s ready for testing or in progress. Teams add a card to the Ready for QA (Triage) section when the time is right. The table is kept simple with just two columns, In Progress and Pending Input, for when we’ve completed our test run and the team is addressing the feedback. Depending on the breadth and complexity of the work being tested, this flow can take anywhere from a few hours to a few days. A holistic approach to QA Once we take on a request, we explore and scrutinize the feature much like an (extremely zealous!) customer would. We want to help teams ship the most polished features they can. We look out for bugs of all kinds: performance issues, visual glitches, unexpected changes, and so on, but perhaps most importantly, we offer feedback on the usability of the feature. We guide our feedback with questions like: Is this feature easy to discover and access? Is it in the right spot? Does it interact in an unexpected way with another part of the app? How does the change play with our mobile apps? Does this solve the problem in a way that customers will find obvious? Critically, what we raise with this type of QA testing are suggestions, not must-haves. The designer and programmer working on the feature make the call on what to address and what to shelve. We document this feedback in a dedicated Card Table within the feature’s Basecamp project. The designer and programmer will then review the cards we’ve added to Triage and direct them to the In Progress and Not Now columns as appropriate. From In Progress, cards are moved to a column called QA to confirm fixed, then finally to Done. More focus, less bloat Our overall approach to testing is guided exploration. We don’t maintain an exhaustive collection of test cases to dogmatically review each time we test a feature. We’ve tried using dedicated test plan tools and comprehensive spreadsheets of test cases upon test cases; the time spent certifying every little thing was considerable, yet it didn’t translate into finding more issues. Worse, it left us with less time to spend sitting with the feature in a more subjective way. We’ve landed on a more pragmatic approach. We’ve boiled down the test plan to a concise list of considerations that live in Basecamp as to-do list templates, one for each product. Instead of a multitude of test cases, each template contains around 100 items. These act as pointers, touching on overall concepts (like commenting, dark mode, email notifications), specific areas of the app, and platform-specific considerations. We reflect on the work presented and how it ties into these areas. Some examples from recent projects have been: Did we update exporting to consider this new addition of time tracking entries? Are email notifications properly reflecting the new Steps feature we added to Card Table? How about print styles, do they look good? QA Considerations for Basecamp 4 We create a to-do list via the template directly in the project we are working on, and use that as our reference for reviewing the work. We also ask the feature team if there are areas that deserve extra attention. Being flexible and discerning about how much time and coverage we use in our testing allows us to cover anywhere from 4 to 12+ projects in a very short span of time. We love working as a team of two and being able to riff on how to approach testing a feature. Sometimes, we divide and conquer; other times, both of us review the work. Fresh eyes provide a good chance of catching something new. Gabriel has a better knack for Android conventions and Michael for iOS, but we actively avoid over-specializing. Keeping up with multiple platforms requires extra effort, but it’s worth it when considering the consistency of the experience across all of them. Accessibility As part of our review, we test the accessibility of the changes. We use a combination of keyboard navigation and at least one screen reader on each platform to vet how well the feature will work for someone who relies on accessible technology. We also use browser extensions like axe and Accessibility Insights for Web to validate semantics of the code and Headings Map to make sure heading levels are sequential. At times, we bring in customers who use a screen reader full-time to help us validate whether everything makes sense and learn where things can improve. Our new colleague, Bruno, is a full-time user of the NVDA screen reader and can offer this sort of direct feedback on how a feature or flow works for him. Explorations in tooling A recent addition to our toolkit is a visual regression tool built on BackstopJS with the help of our colleague Lewis. Whenever we review work, we can run the suite of tests — mostly a list of URLs for various pages around the app — first pointed to production, then against a beta environment where the new feature is staged. Any visual differences will be flagged in a report we review, then write up bug report cards for the team if needed. Walking the walk Part of what enables us to keep our process minimal is that we use our products daily, both on the job and in our everyday lives. This affords us an intimate understanding of how they work and how they can be improved. We’re passionate about what we do. We find ourselves fortunate to work with each other and with so many talented colleagues. We hope this post has given you some helpful insight into the way we do things! If you have questions or if there are topics you’d like us to cover in future posts, drop us an email at qa@37signals.com.
More in programming
Discover how The Epic Programming Principles can transform your web development decision-making, boost your career, and help you build better software.
Denmark has been reaping lots of delayed accolades from its relatively strict immigration policy lately. The Swedes and the Germans in particular are now eager to take inspiration from The Danish Model, given their predicaments. The very same countries that until recently condemned the lack of open-arms/open-border policies they would champion as Moral Superpowers. But even in Denmark, thirty years after the public opposition to mass immigration started getting real political representation, the consequences of culturally-incompatible descendants from MENAPT continue to stress the high-trust societal model. Here are just three major cases that's been covered in the Danish media in 2025 alone: Danish public schools are increasingly struggling with violence and threats against students and teachers, primarily from descendants of MENAPT immigrants. In schools with 30% or more immigrants, violence is twice as prevalent. This is causing a flight to private schools from parents who can afford it (including some Syrians!). Some teachers are quitting the profession as a result, saying "the Quran run the class room". Danish women are increasingly feeling unsafe in the nightlife. The mayor of the country's third largest city, Odense, says he knows why: "It's groups of young men with an immigrant background that's causing it. We might as well be honest about that." But unfortunately, the only suggestion he had to deal with the problem was that "when [the women] meet these groups... they should take a big detour around them". A soccer club from the infamous ghetto area of Vollsmose got national attention because every other team in their league refused to play them. Due to the team's long history of violent assaults and death threats against opposing teams and referees. Bizarrely leading to the situation were the team got to the top of its division because they'd "win" every forfeited match. Problems of this sort have existed in Denmark for well over thirty years. So in a way, none of this should be surprising. But it actually is. Because it shows that long-term assimilation just isn't happening at a scale to tackle these problems. In fact, data shows the opposite: Descendants of MENAPT immigrants are more likely to be violent and troublesome than their parents. That's an explosive point because it blows up the thesis that time will solve these problems. Showing instead that it actually just makes it worse. And then what? This is particularly pertinent in the analysis of Sweden. After the "far right" party of the Swedish Democrats got into government, the new immigrant arrivals have plummeted. But unfortunately, the net share of immigrants is still increasing, in part because of family reunifications, and thus the problems continue. Meaning even if European countries "close the borders", they're still condemned to deal with the damning effects of maladjusted MENAPT immigrant descendants for decades to come. If the intervention stops there. There are no easy answers here. Obviously, if you're in a hole, you should stop digging. And Sweden has done just that. But just because you aren't compounding the problem doesn't mean you've found a way out. Denmark proves to be both a positive example of minimizing the digging while also a cautionary tale that the hole is still there.
One rabbit hole I can never resist going down is finding the original creator of a piece of art. This sounds simple, but it’s often quite difficult. The Internet is a maze of social media accounts that only exist to repost other people’s art, usually with minimal or non-existent attribution. A popular image spawns a thousand copies, each a little further from the original. Signatures get cropped, creators’ names vanish, and we’re left with meaningless phrases like “no copyright intended”, as if that magically absolves someone of artistic theft. Why do I do this? I’ve always been a bit obsessive, a bit completionist. I’ve worked in cultural heritage for eight years, which has made me more aware of copyright and more curious about provenance. And it’s satisfying to know I’ve found the original source, that I can’t dig any further. This takes time. It’s digital detective work, using tools like Google Lens and TinEye, and it’s not always easy or possible. Sometimes the original pops straight to the top, but other times it takes a lot of digging to find the source of an image. So many of us have become accustomed to art as an endless, anonymous stream of “content”. A beautiful image appears in our feed, we give it a quick heart, and scroll on, with no thought for the human who sweated blood and tears to create it. That original artist feels distant, disconected. Whatever benefit they might get from the “exposure” of your work going viral, they don’t get any if their name has been removed first. I came across two examples recently that remind me it’s not just artists who miss out – it’s everyone who enjoys art. I saw a photo of some traffic lights on Tumblr. I love their misty, nighttime aesthetic, the way the bright colours of the lights cut through the fog, the totality of the surrounding darkness. But there was no name – somebody had just uploaded the image to their Tumblr page, it was reblogged a bunch of times, and then it appeared on my dashboard. Who took it? I used Google Lens to find the original photographer: Lucas Zimmerman. Then I discovered it was part of a series. And there was a sequel. I found interviews. Context. Related work. I found all this cool stuff, but only because I knew Lucas’s name. Traffic Lights, by Lucas Zimmerman. Published on Behance.net under a CC BY‑NC 4.0 license, and reposted here in accordance with that license. The second example was a silent video of somebody making tiny chess pieces, just captioned “wow”. It was clearly an edit of another video, with fast-paced cuts to make it accommodate a short attention span – and again with no attribution. This was a little harder to find – I had to search several frames in Google Lens before I found a summary on a Russian website, which had a link to a YouTube video by metalworker and woodworker Левша (Levsha). This video is four times longer than the cut-up version I found, in higher resolution, and with commentary from the original creator. I don’t speak Russian, but YouTube has auto-translated subtitles. Now I know how this amazing set was made, and I have a much better understanding of the materials and techniques involved. (This includes the delightful name Wenge wood, which I’d never heard before.) https://youtube.com/watch?v=QoKdDK3y-mQ A piece of art is more than just a single image or video. It’s a process, a human story. When art is detached from its context and creator, we lose something fundamental. Creators lose the chance to benefit from their work, and we lose the opportunity to engage with it in a deeper way. We can’t learn how it was made, find their other work, or discover how to make similar art for ourselves. The Internet has done many wonderful things for art, but it’s also a machine for endless copyright infringement. It’s not just about generative AI and content scraping – those are serious issues, but this problem existed long before any of us had heard of ChatGPT. It’s a thousand tiny paper cuts. How many of us have used an image from the Internet because it showed up in a search, without a second thought for its creator? When Google Images says “images may be subject to copyright”, how many of us have really thought about what that means? Next time you want to use an image from the web, look to see if it’s shared under a license that allows reuse, and make sure you include the appropriate attribution – and if not, look for a different image. Finding the original creator is hard, sometimes impossible. The Internet is full of shadows: copies of things that went offline years ago. But when I succeed, it feels worth the effort – both for the original artist and myself. When I read a book or watch a TV show, the credits guide me to the artists, and I can appreciate both them and the rest of their work. I wish the Internet was more like that. I wish the platforms we rely on put more emphasis on credit and attribution, and the people behind art. The next time an image catches your eye, take a moment. Who made this? What does it mean? What’s their story? [If the formatting of this post looks odd in your feed reader, visit the original article]
When the iPhone first appeared in 2007, Microsoft was sitting pretty with their mobile strategy. They'd been early to the market with Windows CE, they were fast-following the iPod with their Zune. They also had the dominant operating system, the dominant office package, and control of the enterprise. The future on mobile must have looked so bright! But of course now, we know it wasn't. Steve Ballmer infamously dismissed the iPhone with a chuckle, as he believed all of Microsoft's past glory would guarantee them mobile victory. He wasn't worried at all. He clearly should have been! After reliving that Ballmer moment, it's uncanny to watch this CNBC interview from one year ago with Johny Srouji and John Ternus from Apple on their AI strategy. Ternus even repeats the chuckle!! Exuding the same delusional confidence that lost Ballmer's Microsoft any serious part in the mobile game. But somehow, Apple's problems with AI seem even more dire. Because there's apparently no one steering the ship. Apple has been promising customers a bag of vaporware since last fall, and they're nowhere close to being able to deliver on the shiny concept demos. The ones that were going to make Apple Intelligence worthy of its name, and not just terrible image generation that is years behind the state of the art. Nobody at Apple seems able or courageous enough to face the music: Apple Intelligence sucks. Siri sucks. None of the vaporware is anywhere close to happening. Yet as late as last week, you have Cook promoting the new MacBook Air with "Apple Intelligence". Yikes. This is partly down to the org chart. John Giannandrea is Apple's VP of ML/AI, and he reports directly to Tim Cook. He's been in the seat since 2018. But Cook evidently does not have the product savvy to be able to tell bullshit from benefit, so he keeps giving Giannandrea more rope. Now the fella has hung Apple's reputation on vaporware, promised all iPhone 16 customers something magical that just won't happen, and even spec-bumped all their devices with more RAM for nothing but diminished margins. Ouch. This is what regression to the mean looks like. This is what fiefdom management looks like. This is what having a company run by a logistics guy looks like. Apple needs a leadership reboot, stat. That asterisk is a stain.
