oullette

oullette

Like most engineers these days, I’ve been thinking about the intersection of LLM driven development and using Elixir to do so. After being particular inspired by this blog post, I’ve been looking at implementing architecture testing in Elixir projects and wondering if there’s an equivalent to Java’s ArchUnit. After some research and brainstorming, I’d like to share some thoughts and potential approaches to spark a community discussion.

The Problem

In larger Elixir codebases, maintaining architectural boundaries becomes increasingly important - especially as we navigate the limitations of pumping LLM agents full of context. While Elixir’s design encourages good practices, we still need ways to codify:

  1. Enforcing domain boundaries

  2. Maintaining layered architectures

  3. Preventing unwanted dependencies / insecure patterns

  4. Ensuring architectural decisions are continually followed by the team (or even LLM coding agents)

Java developers have ArchUnit, which provides a fluent API for defining and testing architectural rules:

noClasses().that().resideInAPackage("..source..")
    .should().dependOnClassesThat().resideInAPackage("..foo..")

Now tell me that doesn’t look a lot like a functional pipeline chain…

Potential Approaches in Elixi

I see two main paths forward:

1. Custom Credo Rules

We could extend Credo with custom rules for architecture testing:

# In .credo.exs
%{
  configs: [
    %{
      name: "default",
      checks: [
        {MyProject.ArchitectureCheck.DomainBoundaries, []},
      ]
    }
  ]
}

With implementation like:

defmodule MyProject.ArchitectureCheck.DomainBoundaries do
  use Credo.Check, category: :design, base_priority: :high

  def run(%SourceFile{} = source_file, params) do
    # Parse AST and check for violations
    # Return list of issues found
  end
end

2. Custom DSL with Metaprogramming

Alternatively (and where I’m personally leaning), we could leverage Elixir’s metaprogramming to create an expressive DSL similar to ArchUnit and further leans into pipelines:

defmodule MyApp.ArchitectureTest do
  use ExUnit.Case
  use ArchElixir.DSL
  
  test "domain modules should not depend on web modules" do
    architecture_rule do
      modules_that()
      |> reside_in_namespace("MyApp.Domain")
      |> should()
      |> not_depend_on_modules_that()
      |> reside_in_namespace("MyApp.Web")
    end
  end
  
  test "layered architecture is respected" do
    architecture_rule do
      layers()
      |> define("Web", "MyApp.Web")
      |> define("Application", "MyApp.Application")
      |> define("Domain", "MyApp.Domain")
      |> where_layer("Web")
      |> may_only_access_layers(["Application"])
      |> where_layer("Application")
      |> may_only_access_layers(["Domain"])
    end
  end
end

This would require building:

  • A fluent rule builder API

  • A dependency analyzer (walking the AST similar to Credo and Sobelow)

  • A rule evaluator

  • ExUnit integration

Comparing Approaches

Custom DSL

Strengths

  • Highly expressive and readable rules

  • Flexible and extensible for complex patterns

  • Seamless ExUnit integration

  • Runtime analysis catches dynamic dependencies

  • Customized reporting

  • Paves the path for Dynamic Application Security Testing (which is worth exploring for me as a security professional)

Weaknesses

  • Significant development effort

  • Potential performance overhead

  • Limited community support

  • Complex dependency analysis

Credo Rules

Strengths

  • Integration with existing tooling

  • Static analysis benefits (speed, early feedback)

  • Community and ecosystem support

  • Lower implementation barrier

  • IDE integration

Weaknesses

  • Less expressive API

  • Limited analysis depth

  • Constrained by Credo’s design

  • Less natural for complex rules

Questions for the Community

  1. Has anyone built something like this already and I’m just not finding it in my searches?

  2. Which approach seems most promising?

  3. What architectural patterns would you want to enforce?

  4. Would this be valuable as a standalone package?

  5. Are there specific challenges in Elixir’s compilation model that would make this difficult?

  6. How could we handle dependencies across umbrella apps?

Again, I’m particularly interested in Elixir’s metaprogramming capabilities and how they could enable an elegant DSL for architecture testing. The ability to define rules that match the mental model of our architectural constraints seems valuable.

What are your thoughts? Would you even use such a tool?

Showing Posts 1 to 6

garrison

garrison

This is not really in my areas of expertise or interest, but I will note two things about the DSL you proposed:

  1. There is no metaprogramming needed as far as I can tell; you can just use functions
  2. You can just use the module names as atoms (MyApp.Domain) instead of strings
oullette

oullette OP

Sure! The basic example I showed could be implemented with just functions and atoms instead of strings. I simplified it for illustration purposes.

Where metaprogramming would become valuable is in:

  1. Creating a truly fluent API that maintains context between chained calls

  2. Supporting pattern matching on module hierarchies (like MyApp.{domain}.**)

  3. Analyzing dependencies at compile time vs runtime

  4. Generating custom test failures with detailed violation reporting

  5. Extracting and evaluating architectural rules from module attributes or configs

The goal would be to make the rules both expressive and powerful enough to handle complex architectural patterns while remaining readable to developers who aren’t familiar with the tool’s internals.

garrison

garrison

Maybe I am overlooking something but I don’t think any of these points would require macros, except maybe the module attribute part, but I’m not entirely sure what that would be useful for.

I suppose the pattern thing is a point in favor of strings, though.

axelson

axelson

Scenic Core Team

Not an exact fit but Boundary handles the majority of what your examples are covering (although you probably have more advanced rules in mind as well)

https://github.com/sasa1977/boundary

It supports defining what the boundaries are in a project, e.g. MyApp.Domain, MyApp.Web, and MyApp.Application could be different boundaries and you could enforce that MyApp.Domain doesn’t call into MyApp.Web, although it’s also easy to add a few exceptions, like allowing calls to MyApp.Web.Endpoint to allow creating permalinks from MyApp.Web.Endpoint.static_url.

And Boundary can also generate a graphviz graph of your boundaries which is helpful for visualizing and understanding them.

josh.nz

josh.nz

In addition to the Boundary Github page linked by axelson, Saša Jurić gives a talk about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKeYV_YOLyE which you might find helpful. You may wish to skip over the umbrella app section at the start of the talk.

yoavgeva

yoavgeva

Boundary is great for compile-time API guards, but if you want the full ArchUnit experience — transitive dependency checks, glob-based module selection, cycle detection, naming conventions, coupling metrics — I built arch_test exactly for this.

Rules live in plain ExUnit tests, work from compiled bytecode, and require zero changes to production code:

defmodule MyApp.ArchTest do
  use ExUnit.Case
  use ArchTest

  test "services don't call repos directly" do
    modules_matching("MyApp.**.*Service")
    |> should_not_depend_on(modules_matching("MyApp.**.*Repo"))
  end

  test "no circular dependencies" do
    modules_matching("MyApp.**") |> should_be_free_of_cycles()
  end
end

It also supports layered/onion/modulith architecture patterns, Martin coupling metrics, and a violation freeze for gradual adoption on existing codebases.

Boundary and arch_test actually compose well — Boundary for hard build-time API boundaries, arch_test for everything else.

— All posts loaded —

Where Next? Top

Trending in Discussions Top

AstonJ
As the title says, please share what you’ve been up to with Elixir. Whether that’s been learning it, looking into it, making stuff with i...
2977 94592 917
New
cblavier
Hey there, It’s been more than a year since we started using LiveView as our main UI library and building a whole library of UI componen...
New
caslu
I want to open this thread for you all to discuss and help those who really like Ash but are still hesitant to use it in a real project. ...
New
mudasobwa
I am happy to introduce the very α version of the new programming language compiled to BEAM. Welcome Cure. It has literally three kille...
New
heathen
Quite interesting article Google brought me. Didn’t find any mentions about it here. What do you think in general? Would you use togethe...
New
marciol
It would be helpful to have a list of companies worldwide that hire engineers without prior experience in Elixir. Often, it can be quite ...
New
durvia
Anyone running long-lived stateful processes on BEAM? We’re building an AI agent runtime and would love to compare notes. We’re a small ...
New

Other Trending Topics Top

marciok
Hi there! We created Gust: A task orchestrator inspired by Airflow. For those who have never heard about Aiflow, it’s a Python-based wor...
New
jimsynz
Beam Bots (or just BB for short) is a framework for building fault-tolerant robotics applications in Elixir using familiar OTP patterns. ...
New
Dmk
Xamal is a deployment tool for Elixir apps that deploys native releases to bare metal servers over SSH. It’s a port of GitHub - basecamp/...
New
Damirados
Hello everyone. After busy few months I am happy to announce v0.1.0 of Emerge & Solve. They are GUI (Emerge) and State management (S...
New
netoum
Corex is an accessible, unstyled UI component library for Phoenix that integrates Zag.js state machines using Vanilla JavaScript and Live...
New
webofbits
Aludel - LLM Evaluation Workbench Aludel is an embeddable Phoenix LiveView dashboard for evaluating and comparing LLM prompts across mult...
New

We're in Beta

About us Mission Statement

Options

Thread Display Mode




Thread Preview

Skip Thread Previews