I’ve mix phx.new ed many applications and when doing so I often start with wondering how to organize my code. I love how Phoenix pushes you to think about the different domains in your app via generators while at the same time I have the freedom to organize modules on my own. Ecto schemas make for a nice abstraction, but where should I put code related just to that table? It could be in the context, but I don’t want the context to become a “grab bag” of unorganized function calls.

In the past, I’ve searched for someone writing on the subject but haven’t come up with much. I’ve even done some cursory glancing into repositories to get a feeling for what they do, but I’ve never looked thoroughly at different options. In this post, I share what I have found from four different open source Phoenix+Ecto applications. And as the old joke goes, I’ll be asking four developers for their opinions and getting four different answers. In the end, I’ll summarize how I plan to move forward.


Phoenix has evolved in how modules are organized, most notably splitting into my_app and my_app_web folders and with the concept of contexts. Some of these applications were created with early versions of Phoenix which could explain some of the differences.

When I say “typical Ecto schema logic” below, I’m referring to examples in the Ecto documentation and the community on the things to put into schema files (field definitions, schema attributes (such as @primary_key, @schema_prefix, etc…), and changeset logic)



Repository description: “open source e-commerce framework”

A lot of the business logic can be found under apps/snitch_core/lib/core. There is a domain folder containing what appears to be the front-end API modules (what Phoenix might call “contexts”). Next to the domain folder is a data folder containing schema and model directories.

The schema directory contains typical Ecto schema files. The model directory contains correspondingly named modules with CRUD functions (like create, update, delete, get) but also occasionally some helper functions related to those domain objects (functions like formatted_list or get_all_by_shipping_category)

Each type of module also has a use statement at the top (i.e. use Snitch.Data.Model) referring to a module containing shared logic. It’s worth looking at what that shared logic is:

    # apps/snitch_core/lib/core/domain/domain.ex
    alias Ecto.Multi
    alias Snitch.Data.{Model, Schema}
    alias Snitch.Domain
    alias Snitch.Core.Tools.MultiTenancy.Repo

    # apps/snitch_core/lib/core/data/model/model.ex
    import Ecto.Query
    alias Snitch.Core.Tools.MultiTenancy.Repo
    alias Snitch.Tools
    alias Tools.Helper.Query, as: QH

    # apps/snitch_core/lib/core/data/schema/schema.ex
    use Ecto.Schema
    import Ecto.Changeset
    import Snitch.Tools.Validations
    alias Snitch.Core.Tools.MultiTenancy.Repo

The domain modules alias the model modules and the model modules alias the schema modules, indicating the usage pattern of going deeper (Domain -> Model -> Schema):

    # apps/snitch_core/lib/core/domain/stock/stock_location.ex
    alias Model.StockLocation, as: StockLocationModel

    # apps/snitch_core/lib/core/data/model/stock/stock_location.ex
    alias Snitch.Data.Schema.StockLocation, as: StockLocationSchema



Repository description: This is the CMS behind changelog.com.

The business logic is under lib/changelog. This directory seems to contain various modules as well as directories containing grouped functionality. All of the Ecto logic looks to be under the schema directory which contains some base schema modules as well as directories containing grouped schema functionality.

Schemas have the typical Ecto schema logic but also sometimes many helpers like admins, with_email, get_by_website which are scoping/querying as well as defining changeset functions like auth_changeset, admin_insert_changeset, admin_update_changeset, file_changeset, etc…

The schemas use the Changelog.Schema module which, in addition to adding many helper functions like any?, by_position, limit, newest_first, newest_last, etc…, does this:

    use Ecto.Schema
    use Arc.Ecto.Schema

    import Ecto
    import Ecto.Changeset
    import Ecto.Query, only: [from: 1, from: 2]
    import EctoEnum, only: [defenum: 2]

    alias Changelog.{Hashid, Repo}



Repository description: API server and website for Hex https://hex.pm

The lib/hexpm directory contains some modules with basic logic, but the schemas and contexts exist inside of grouping folders. For example, the lib/hexpm/accounts folder has the User schema and the Users context as well as the Organization schema and the Organizations context. The singular modules (i.e. User and Organization) have the typical Ecto schema logic.

The two types of module use the Hexpm.Schema and Hexpm.Context modules:

    # lib/hexpm/schema.ex
    import Ecto
    import Ecto.Changeset
    import Ecto.Query, only: [from: 1, from: 2]
    import Hexpm.Changeset
    alias Ecto.Multi

    use Hexpm.Shared

    # lib/hexpm/context.ex
    import Ecto
    import Ecto.Changeset
    import Ecto.Query, only: [from: 1, from: 2]

    import Hexpm.Accounts.AuditLog,
      only: [audit: 3, audit: 4, audit_many: 4, audit_with_user: 4]

    alias Ecto.Multi
    alias Hexpm.Repo

    use Hexpm.Shared

You might have noticed that both use the Hexpm.Shared module. This just does a lot of aliases which means that modules like Hexpm.Accounts.AuditLog and Hexpm.Repository.Download become just AuditLog and Download

While that pattern seems common, it’s not always the case. There is an Auth module which is just a plain module as well as UserHandles and Email schema modules without corresponding context modules. Hexpm.Accounts.Email actually seems to be used in the emails folder in Hexpm.Emails and Hexpm.Emails.Bamboo, which seems to be a case of one context reaching into another.



Repository description: Community site for Elixir project/blog post/version updates

At the root of this project, there are lib and web directories. The schemas are located under web/models. This appears to be a pretty old app (the LICENSE file is five years old), which is probably why it’s not using the recent pattern of putting business logic outside of the “web” part of the app.

The models directory contains four schemas (Impression, Posting, ShortLink, and User) which all define typical Ecto schema logic. These all use ElixirStatus.Web, :model which does:

    use Ecto.Schema
    import Ecto
    import Ecto.Changeset

Another module under web/models is Avatar which doesn’t seem to be a schema but rather a grouping of helper functions.

As an example of an context-like module, the Impressionist module (stored at lib/elixir_status/impressionist.ex) defines various querying methods for the Impression schema along with some other helpers.

My thoughts:

I already like Phoenix conventions like:

  • Separating business logic from the web application logic
  • Separating business logic into contexts with well-established APIs
  • Ecto schema modules which are focused on mapping and validation of the data source Things I like about these projects:
  • It’s very nice to have modules headed with something like use MyApp.Schema or use MyApp.Context as the Hexpm project does. Even if the used module doesn’t do much, it provides an at-a-glance label when browsing files.
  • I like that Hexpm has established a bit of a convention around schemas (singular User) vs contexts (plural Users).
  • I like how the Avia project separates “domain”, “model”, and “schema”. In particular as a fan of Domain Driven Design using the word “domain” is nice and I think it’s used in the same way.

Things I don’t like from these projects:

  • Aliasing the right-most module in a path (as the Avia project does) drops it’s context. If Hexpm.Accounts.AuditLog is aliased as AuditLog, that might not be so bad because AuditLog is potentially a unique concept. But aliasing Hexpm.Repository.Download as Download could confuse. If you alias Hexpm.Accounts or Hexpm.Repository you can refer to Accounts.AuditLog or Repository.Download which I find clearer.
  • In the Avia project sometimes there are aliases like Model.StockLocation aliased as StockLocationModel. I would find it simpler to just refer to Model.StockLocation which is one character longer but makes the source clearer.
  • In hexpm the schema vs context convention doesn’t help when browsing a directory to distinguish schemas from plain module files.

As a long-time Rails developer, one thing that makes Rails nice is being able to go between apps easily because there is always a place for everything. But as an app grows large, grouping files by type means that directories like controllers and models get very full. The Phoenix project, I think trying to learn from Rails, encourages using contexts with well-defined APIs. Since each context often needs to solve different problems (such as wrapping a database, creating an API client, or just doing calculations), these can be structured however you like. But when it makes sense I think that we could create directories according to conventions to organize our code. For a long time, many projects have established loose conventions with directories like lib, docs, log, and test. In the web part of a Phoenix application, we have controller, channel, view, etc…

We could do the same in the very common case where our contexts contain Ecto database logic. We are given the “schema” idea from Ecto itself as a way to separate transformation and validation logic. This helps us trim the fat from our “fat model” problem. But we’re left to put other query logic either into our schema or to have it mixed it with all of our context’s business logic.

So after my investigation, the way that I plan to move forward:

    # The context's public API, headed with `use MyApp.Context`

    # Headed with `use MyApp.Schema`

    # Headed with `use MyApp.Query`

    # For non-DB business logic

These things might certainly change, but having looked through some other codebases and reflecting on what I like and don’t like, I think that this will be a good start.