I strongly relate to this. Zen was a huge part of what sold me on InterSystems tech 15 years ago when I started here as an intern - for all the reasons you've described - and if I want to throw together a really quick POC that just has results of a class query shown in a table, with maybe some basic interactions with the data, I might still use it.

That said, for my team's work and even for my own personal projects, I've found the combination of isc.rest and isc.ipm.js to be *almost* as quick as Zen. With something like Angular with an IRIS back-end (consisting of a bunch of %Persistent classes), you need to write:
1. REST APIs for all your basic CRUD operations, queries, and business logic
2. Client code to call all those REST APIs
3. Client code for all the models used in those REST APIs
4. The actual UI

Suppose you want to make a simple change to one of your models - say, adding a property to a class and making it available in the UI. With Angular, this probably means changes at all four levels; with Zen, you get to skip 1-3 entirely. That's compelling. An inevitable side effect of this is that your application's API surface (and therefore attack surface) is enormous and near-impossible to fully enumerate. It is possible to secure a Zen UI, but much easier to shoot yourself in the foot.

isc.rest makes (1) super easy - add a parent class to your %Persistent class and do a few easy parameter/method overrides to get CRUD and queries basically for free, and write a bit of XML if you want to do fancier things to expose business logic or class queries. This provides enough metadata to generate an OpenAPI spec, which can then be used to automate (2) and (3) with the help of openapi-generator. So while you can't skip 1-3 entirely, this toolset makes it all significantly faster.

Sorry we missed that. I started to look around for best practices and forgot to circle back.

It's a fantastic question, and I think your gut feeling from https://github.com/intersystems/git-source-control/discussions/343 is correct - the local-to-the-server repo should be in a place accessible from all mirror members, provided you can do this in a way that doesn't introduce a single point of failure operationally.

If that location is unavailable, you won't be able to do development, but operations on the running instance shouldn't be impacted otherwise (and that location being unavailable would be something that needs to be fixed immediately anyway).

The answer about mocking is great.

At the TestCoverage level, by default the tool tracks coverage for the current process only. This prevents noise / pollution of stats from other concurrent use of the system. You can override this (see readme at https://github.com/intersystems/TestCoverage - set tPidList to an empty string), but there are sometimes issues with the line-by-line monitor if you do; #14 has a bit more info on this.

Note - question also posted/answered at https://github.com/intersystems/TestCoverage/issues/33

We'll be getting out the next release of git-source-control (https://github.com/intersystems/git-source-control) this month, which includes support back to 2016.2 via an artifact associated with (some) releases. We haven't produced this for the past few releases but will do so for the next one.

You can follow the project here to be notified about new releases: https://openexchange.intersystems.com/package/Git-for-Shared-Development...

Two major things: the data structures at your disposal and when and how to use them, and the fact that your code is in the database (which enables some super cool things but also makes other things harder). Another way to put this would be both "how to use (much) older/more basic language features and functions well" (as others have alluded to with the command/function references) and "how to get the most out of object-oriented programming and IRIS' unique strengths" (particularly, having object-orientedness and all your code right in the database).

Re: data structures, basically you have $listbuild lists (which are just linked lists) and the swiss army knife of sparse arrays. If you're building or working with a simple list of any sort of datatype, or with delimited strings as input/output, $listbuild lists are super helpful and more natural to work with than strings. If you're doing pretty much anything else, you want an array. For general coding and algorithms, these are simpler to use (once you know the syntax) and faster (at runtime) than the %Library.List*/Array* classes you're likely to gravitate toward. That is not *at all* to say that you should write your code all your code in .MAC routines like it's the 1990s - although, depending on the environment you're learning in, you might see some of that.

The simplest value proposition of IRIS (in my opinion) from a general development standpoint is:
Write a class (that extends %Persistent), compile it, you get a table - then you can naturally work with the same data from an object-oriented or relational perspective, whichever is most natural. Both of these models are just thin wrappers around our super fast under-the-hood data structure. Every database has one of those, but with ours (called "globals"), if you want that extra 5% performance boost you can see and work with it directly (although you shouldn't really need to).

But on top of that, your code is in the database, and that means you can interact with your own code from an object-oriented or relational perspective using classes in the %Dictionary package. This enables all sorts of amazing metaprogramming techniques that end up being more natural in ObjectScript than any other language I've worked with. (Disclaimer: I've spent way more time working in ObjectScript than any other language, so take this with a grain of salt.)

The drawback to your code being in the database is that you're probably used to it being on your filesystem, and that means you may need to think differently about source control than you usually would. If you're working through interoperability editors or with IRIS BI, you're already modifying code in the database directly, and should adopt an "embedded source control" workflow - I'd recommend https://github.com/intersystems/git-source-control for this if you're not sure where to start. If you're not using interoperability or IRIS BI, you can work more or less the way you're used to with VSCode, keeping in mind that what really matters is what's running / has been saved to the IRIS instance (rather than what's on your filesystem).

Have you just joined a team that's using ObjectScript extensively and has background in it, or are you learning on your own?

I tried out GPT 3.5 for ObjectScript a while back just for fun, and it came up with some really plausible-looking hallucinations with class names that don't exist, but sound like they could. GPT4 is probably better, but I still find it likely that a beginner to intermediate developer would end up getting confused about why the output doesn't work.

I have a lot of opinions about good programming patterns in ObjectScript (especially in intermediate-to-advanced areas), and I doubt there's enough publicly-available good ObjectScript code in existence to serve as training input.


Create a class DC.Demo.UpToDate and save/compile it.  $System.OBJ.IsUpToDate("DC.Demo.UpToDate") returns 1. Add a method with /// documentation and save but don't compile - it returns 0. Change the /// documentation for the method and save (don't compile) -  $System.OBJ.IsUpToDate("DC.Demo.UpToDate") returns 0, but $System.OBJ.IsUpToDate("DC.Demo.UpToDate",0,1) returns 1.

Create a routine named DC.Demo.UpToDate, save and compile. This returns 1:
Save and don't compile. This returns 0:


Scott, I'd recommend reaching out to InterSystems Support on this. My gut feeling looking at that message would be that your web gateway configuration is incorrect. Specifically, maybe the web gateway itself is trying to connect unauthenticated, which isn't allowed (because UnknownUser can't use %Service_WebGateway), and the request just happens to be for the /api/atelier web application.

Assuming this is with git-source-control, the approach would be to have the temp folder *and all subfolders* owned by SYSTEM (in this case), as discussed at https://github.com/intersystems/git-source-control?tab=readme-ov-file#du.... This is under folder Properties > Security > Advanced. Click "Change" next to "Owner", and under Object Names to Select type in "SYSTEM". Before applying, check the box with "Replace all child object permission entries..." at the bottom of the dialog. That should do it.

@Enrico Parisi I appreciate all of your feedback, and your patience. Regarding tarball installation, I've created another issue for git-source-control on that topic (https://github.com/intersystems/git-source-control/issues/310) as well as one for IPM more generally (https://github.com/intersystems/ipm/issues/436).

git-source-control is not officially InterSystems-supported, though it is maintained by people at InterSystems as a service to the developer community. The project certainly has not been abandoned, and there's actually an ongoing effort this month/next to deal with some of the rough edges (now to include your observations around CSP application mapping configuration). I'm personally committed to making it not feel half-baked.