The Lowly Assert: Idempotence

on October 30 2019, 8:28PM

Charging someone twice is bad for business; it burns trust with customers and it involves a lot of unnecessary churn. Payment providers go to great efforts to support idempotent endpoints. When you do something more than a given number of times, and every time after that, things don't change. In the case of a payment it would be once and only once, no matter how many times the request was submitted after that.

An involutive function is idempotent modulo a certain number of applications. Involutive: Driving a car around a square block means after four turns you're back on the same corner you began on. Idempotent: A volume knob that reaches maximum volume but still keeps turning. The assertion of idempotence looks suspiciously like involution, but the concepts aren't quite the same:

-- Involutive

f(x)       != x
f(f(x))    == x
f(f(f(x))) != x

-- Idempotent

g(x)       == x
g(g(x))    == x
g(g(g(x))) == x

If the function f was a one-hundred and eighty degree turn around a point then the next part of the series would be another equality and would alternate back and forth for every other function application. In the case of g, we do something once, twice, or n-many times and nothing seems to change. Per the volume example, there might be some changes initially, but g becomes idempotent at or after a particular value.

Idempotence can relate to values, but it can also relate to side effects, such as the payment example we've given above. A "thunk" is a function that performs a calculation once and then stores ("memoizes") that result to return on all future calls: in this case a thunk is idempotent in its computation: it's lazy and cached.

Things don't always need to be idempotent but can be chosen to be idempotent for stylistic reasons. One API may force users to use explicit insert and update calls, managing the housekeeping of keys itself, whereas a different, but equally effective, API could allow a single endpoint that "saves" the provided data, inserting at first, overwriting when the data is different, and idempotent when the data is the same, forcing the tracking of keys on the client. Both of these are valid options but have different trade offs for particular applications!

When you think of idempotence, think about the mental model of things "clamping" into place for a particular subset, or all, of our domain (inputs). And while you're at it, make sure no one ever gets charged again for smashing the refresh button for a slowly loading payment submission page!