We're building a new marketing site here at Fancy Pants Inc. A totally new greenfield project within an existing organization is fun and exciting, but offers a unique set of challenges. Let's outline some of the most common scenarios and see how to tackle them head on.
For this, we're going to start with the idea of sort of a team meeting, a kind of round table discussion. We have a new site that has static content and maybe some forms.
Some of the requirements from our collective bosses: everyone needs to be able contribute, but only the director or those bestowed with the power can publish content. The other big need is to be able to see changes, updates, new material on the site and pass around an internal url to gather feedback before it ever goes live. There are a few more catches that will come up as we scaffold out this exciting new project.
Like all good sized projects, we've made some choices up front and want to tease out if they will meet our needs before writing up the work and getting started. Based on a few of the requirements outlined earlier, we'll be using Sanity content platform. Everything will hopefully go there from importing existing content, rich media, and even copy for the landing page. For our development choice and deployment, we've chosen Eleventy paired with Netlify for deploy. The idea is to make the developer experience vastly superior to our current system: to make deployment and preview of the project as seamless and transparent as possible. Let's get started.
When we talk about everyone in the company being able to 'contribute', what exactly do we mean? Everyone should be able to make a blog post about the latest and greatest? That sounds fine. What about changing the copy on the homepage or updating the Terms and Service fine print buried in the footer? That's a little less clear now, right? These questions raise important technical decisions about were to apply friction. We often talk about 'reducing friction' as a positive thing. We want to reduce the friction of custom checkout so that more people will buy our product or goods. There are cases, however, were we want to increase friction. We want to ensure that updating legal copy or replacing the hero image on the home page is not just a one click away. There needs to be some amount of process or intentional friction to be a sort of checks and balance.
With that in mind we'll create some simple roles within Sanity 'creator' and 'moderator'. Sanity has a great sample project and the CMS studio itself is React components all the way down, so we can customize it to great extent. We're not entirely sure what the fine grain controls will look like, so let's start broad and then we can narrow down those controls overtime.
For now, creators can create any new content that includes page updates and posts, but only moderators can actually publish that content from its draft version to production. With the content up and running, the actual site will be built leveraging Eleventy Static Site Generator, and the main reason is for its simplicity and flexibility.
In Eleventy, data is merged from multiple different sources before the template is rendered. The data is merged in what Eleventy calls the Data Cascade.
While we are only getting data from Sanity to start with, we have multiple other data sources that will need to be added. Even if that list were zero, a growing business and product will need to evolve and take on new responsibilities in the future. You'll thank your past self when you need to add Shopify or some other datasource in addition to the CMS.
Just when we are starting to get some momentum in the project, a hiccup. As we onboard different departments into adding content, there are several requests for a more fine grain approach to content permissions. Our "anyone can create" approach isn't going to fly. After some research, it's decided that Contentful has the sort of finer permissions built in that teams are looking for. Great, but what do we do with our implementation now?
A suggestion is to run
git init a new project and just start over. We've spend a nontrivial mount of time working on templates and layouts in Eleventy, is it salvagable? The short answer is, yeah absolutely. Remember: our site doesn't care where the data comes from or how many places it comes from. We can wire-up Contentful as a data source, adjust the templates to any changes in the structure of the content (
post.body may now be something like
post.content) and then run a new build. Having this deployed on Netlify, a couple of us can work on a feature branch, deploy, and share it without slowing down the group working on the page layout, footers, or contact page!
Cache continues to be awful. Humans are not built for the level complexity Goldberg machines that deploy software. We want to keep things simple, and more importantly deterministic. We don't want deployment should not be a constant consideration when creating, improving, or trying new and inventive things within the company.
Our goal is whatever is merged into the main branch will be deployed to the production url. So let's follow those steps. A pull request is merged into
main. This kicks off a build of the app on Netlify. It runs
npx @11ty/eleventy, gathers up all the data sources from across a pleura of sources, and starts to build, on success Netlify points, all the incoming http requests from Fancy Pants dot com to the newly built site that our build step outputted to
What if it fails? That might happen. Sooner or later it's going to happen. Will the customers of our fine establishment be forever disappointed with the HTTP 500 ERROR they witnessed? Nope. They won't even know. When a build fails, not if, the site continues to run the last successful build it has been. We can setup a web hook to send us a slack message, 'ops, looks like the build failed'. This is a very different message then: 'the software team broke production and we're losing money every minute it's down, everything is on fire!!!'.
Those messages invoke very different feelings, don't they? When you've broken a build, gone back and fixed it, then deployed again, you likely forget about it the next day. If you've ever broken production and spent endless hours trying to put it back together again, you'll never forget it.
This is very much a quality of life that a system like the JamStack provides us: it's secret sauce. Things are going to go wrong, and when they do, you have the time, space, and mental where-with-all to fix it. When it fails, and it will at some point fail, it doesn't affect the product in production. Other teams internally may not even notice. This gives everyone explicit permission to ship. If that's publishing content with some cool new media, or the latest and greatest GraphQL data collection: if it fails, it's fine. The risk is so low as to be trivial to ship and to try new things. If this all sounds too good to be true, it's not, I promise. Come join us on the moon.
'What a waste of time. It's physically draining to do release engineering. There are other things we want to be doing. And it's not FE release engineering. ' ~ Jason Lengstorf
'It's not something we worry about on our team' ~ Zach Leatherman
I want to thank my guests on Build In Better, Jason Lengstorf with Netlify and Zach Leatherman, Open Source Author of Eleventy, for an amazing conversation and sharing their knowledge with me. This article would not be possible without their time and insight. Thank you. 👋
Special Thanks to the fine folks at Fancy Pants wearables and underoos 😉