Improving Software Design Through Refactoring and Testing
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
4 gefällt mir•1,446 views
The document discusses improving the design of existing software by following principles like DRY, SOLID, and refactoring code using techniques such as extracting classes, methods, and interfaces. It emphasizes writing characterization tests to preserve existing behavior when refactoring, and improving code quality by reducing duplication, dependencies, and complexity over time through preventative maintenance and refactoring.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Improving Software Design Through Refactoring and Testing
Ähnlich wie Improving Software Design Through Refactoring and Testing (20)
Mehr von Steven Smith
Mehr von Steven Smith (15)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Improving Software Design Through Refactoring and Testing
- 1. Improving the Design of Existing Software Steve Smith Founder, DevIQ @ardalis | DevIQ.com
- 3. Weekly DevTips Podcast and Newsletter • Ardalis.com/tips • WeeklyDevTips.com
- 7. Technical Debt • Low quality code and shortcuts in our applications • Financial Debt • Principal – Amount borrowed • Interest – Additional cost of the debt • Technical debt • Principal – Amount of time required to code solution “properly” • Interest – Additional time needed to work around improper code http://deviq.com/technical-debt/
- 10. A Well-Designed Application is Simple to Maintain and Extend
- 11. Technical Debt is a Design Decision (or series of decisions)
- 12. Paying DownTechnical Debt Improves Application Design and Quality
- 14. Preventive Maintenance • Refactoring • Eliminate Duplication • Simplify Design • AutomatedTests • Verify correctness • Avoid regressions • Increase Confidence
- 15. When should you refactor? • While delivering value
- 16. “ ” You don’t need permission to practice basic hygiene when you write software. http://ardalis.com/when-should-you-refactor/ Make cleaning up your code something you do as part of writing code.
- 18. Refactoring Should Not Change System Behavior
- 19. The Refactoring Process • Verify existing behavior • Write CharacterizationTests if none exist • Find test points • Break dependencies • Apply Refactoring • Confirm existing behavior is preserved Commit the working code! Commit the working code!
- 20. CharacterizationTests Process 1. Write a test you know will fail 2. Use the output of the failing test to determine the existing behavior to assert 3. Update the test with the new value/behavior 4. Run the test again – it should now pass
- 22. Brownfield / Legacy Development
- 23. Maximize Code Changes Made to New Classes
- 24. Why new classes? • Nothing depends on them (yet) • You can write them to be testable • Even in an otherwise hard-to-test application
- 25. Add High-ValueTests to Legacy Apps • Probably not writtenTest-First • Trying to UnitTest Everything is likely cost-prohibitive • Start by writing tests for bugs • Verify the bug behavior with a test • Make the test pass by fixing the bug
- 26. S O L I DPrinciples http://flickr.com/photos/kevinkemmerer/2772526725/
- 27. Principles of OO Design 0. Don’t RepeatYourself (DRY) 1. Single Responsibility 2. Open/Closed 3. Liskov Substitution 4. Interface Segregation 5. Dependency Inversion Pluralsight Course: http://bit.ly/SOLID-OOP
- 30. Don’t Repeat RepeatYourself •Duplication in logic calls for abstraction •Duplication in process calls for automation
- 31. Common Refactorings • Replace Magic Number/String • Parameterize Method • Pull Up Field • Pull Up Method • Replace Conditional With Polymorphism • Introduce Method
- 32. Common Source of Repetition: Role Checks if(user.IsInRole(“Admins”) { // allow access to resource } // favor privileges over role checks // ardalis.com/Favor-Privileges-over-Role-Checks var priv = new ContentPrivilege(user, article); if(priv.CanEdit()) { // allow access }
- 33. Visual Studio Code Clones • Find similar blocks of code in your projects/solution • Can detect matches that are similar but vary in small ways (like variable names) • Available inVS2015 Premium and Ultimate
- 35. Single Responsibility Principle The Single Responsibility Principle states that every object should have a single responsibility, and that responsibility should be entirely encapsulated by the class. Wikipedia There should never be more than one reason for a class to change. Robert C. “Uncle Bob” Martin
- 36. What is a responsibility? “My CustomerManager class is only responsible for anything to do with a Customer.That follows SRP, right?”
- 37. Examples of Responsibilities • Persistence • Validation • Notification • Error Handling • Logging • Class Selection / Construction • Formatting • Parsing • Mapping
- 38. Dependency and Coupling • Excessive coupling makes changing legacy software difficult • Breaking apart responsibilities and dependencies is a large part of working with existing code
- 39. Common Refactorings • Extract Class • Extract Method • Move Method
- 40. Heuristics and Code Smells • Visual Studio Metrics
- 42. Keep Cyclomatic Complexity under 10 for every method
- 44. Code Smell: Regions More on Regions: http://ardalis.com/regional-differences
- 46. Open / Closed Principle The Open / Closed Principle states that software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification. Wikipedia
- 47. Open / Closed Principle Open to Extension New behavior can be added in the future Closed to Modification Changes to source or binary code are not required Dr. Bertrand Meyer originated the OCP term in his 1988 book, ObjectOrientedSoftwareConstruction
- 48. Common Refactorings • Extract Interface / Apply Strategy Pattern • Parameterize Method • FormTemplate Method
- 49. OCP Fail
- 50. OCP OK
- 51. OCP Fail public bool IsSpecialCustomer(Customer c) { if(c.Country == “US” && c.Balance < 50) return false; if(c.Country == “DE” && c.Balance < 25) return false; if(c.Country == “UK” && c.Balance < 35) return false; if(c.Country == “FR” && c.Balance < 27) return false; if(c.Country == “BG” && c.Balance < 29) return false; if(c.Age < 18 || c.Age > 65) return false; if(c.Income < 50000 && c.Age < 30) return false; return true; }
- 52. OCP OK private IEnumerable<ICustomerRule> _rules; public bool IsSpecialCustomer(Customer customer) { foreach(var rule in _rules) { if(rule.Evaluate(customer) == false) return false; } return true; }
- 54. Liskov Substitution Principle The Liskov Substitution Principle states that Subtypes must be substitutable for their base types. Agile Principles, Patterns, and Practices in C# Named for Barbara Liskov, who first described the principle in 1988.
- 55. Common Refactorings • Collapse Hierarchy • Pull Up / Push Down Field • Pull Up / Push Down Method
- 56. Liskov Substitution Fail foreach(var employee in employees) { if(employee is Manager) { Helpers.PrintManager(employee as Manager); break; } Helpers.PrintEmployee(employee); }
- 57. Liskov Substitution OK foreach(var employee in employees) { employee.Print(); // or Helpers.PrintEmployee(employee); }
- 58. Nulls Break Polymorphism foreach(var employee in employees) { if(employee == null) { // print not found message break; } Helpers.PrintEmployee(employee); } http://ardalis.com/nulls-break-polymorphism
- 60. Interface Segregation Principle The Interface Segregation Principle states that Clients should not be forced to depend on methods they do not use. Agile Principles, Patterns, and Practices in C# Corollary: Prefer small, cohesive interfaces to “fat” interfaces
- 61. Common Refactorings • Extract Interface
- 62. Keep Interfaces Small and Focused
- 64. ISP Fail (sometimes) public IRepository<T> { T GetById(int id); IEnumerable<T> List(); void Create(T item); void Update(T item); void Delete(T item); }
- 65. ISP OK (i.e. to support CQRS) public IRepository<T> : IReadRepository<T>, IWriteRepository<T> { } public IReadRepository<T> { T GetById(int id); IEnumerable<T> List(); } public IWriteRepository<T> void Create(T item); void Update(T item); void Delete(T item); } Existing implementations of IRepository<T> are unaffected by pulling out smaller interfaces! No existing code breaks!
- 67. Dependency Inversion Principle High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should depend on abstractions. Abstractions should not depend on details. Details should depend on abstractions. Agile Principles, Patterns, and Practices in C#
- 68. Dependency Inversion Principle • Depend on Abstractions • Interfaces, not concrete types • Inject Dependencies into Classes • Structure Solution so Dependencies FlowToward Core • Onion Architecture (a.k.a. Ports and Adapters, a.k.a. Hexagonal Architecture)
- 69. DIP Architecture (aka Ports and Adapters)
- 70. Common Dependencies • Framework • Third Party Libraries • Database • File System • Email • Web Services • System Resources (Clock) • Configuration • The new Keyword • Static methods • Thread.Sleep • Random See also responsibilities: • Persistence • Validation • Notification • Error Handling • Logging • Class Selection / Construction • Formatting • Parsing • Mapping
- 71. Common Refactorings • Extract Class • Extract Interface / Apply Strategy Pattern • Extract Method • Introduce Service Locator / Container
- 72. DIP Fail
- 73. Hidden Dependencies • Checkout Depends on an available SMTP server, but the class doesn’t reflect this • Follow the Explicit Dependencies Principle • http://deviq.com/explicit-dependencies-principle/
- 75. DIP OK (Strategy Pattern / DI)
- 76. DIP OK (Strategy Pattern / DI)
- 77. Improving Quality Across the Industry
- 79. Self-Improvement and Quality • How fast can you produce: • Code you believe to be of high quality • Code that maybe gets the job done, but you believe to be of low quality • Which one can you produce more quickly? • Why? • How can we develop our skills and our tools so that building quality is natural and easier than not doing so?
- 80. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 User Stories Completed High Quality Low Quality
- 81. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 User Stories Completed High Quality Low Quality
- 82. Summary •Maintain / Improve Application Code •Follow DRY/SOLID Principles •Use CharacterizationTests to “fix” behavior •Apply Common Refactorings •Re-runTestsAfter (and during) Refactorings •Be Explicit About Class Dependencies •Train and Practice toWrite Better Code Faster
- 83. Learn More • DevIQ.com • Ardalis.com • WeeklyDevTips.com • Twitter: @ardalis • Pluralsight: • SOLID Principles of OO Design http://bit.ly/SOLID-OOP • N-Tier Architecture in C# http://bit.ly/PS-NTier1 • Refactoring Fundamentals http://bit.ly/PS-Refactoring • Domain-Driven Design Fundamentals http://bit.ly/ddd-fundamentals • Design Pattern Library http://bit.ly/PS-design-patterns • Pair Programming http://bit.ly/PS-PairProgramming
- 84. • New Coworking Space in Hudson,Ohio • Private offices / Flex desk spaces • Fiber internet • Complimentary coffee / tea / water • Great development community • @techhubhudson • Website online soon Tech Hub Hudson
- 85. Books Refactoring http://amzn.to/110tscA Refactoring to Patterns http://amzn.to/Vq5Rj2 Working Effectively with Legacy Code http://amzn.to/VFFYbn Code Complete http://amzn.to/Vq5YLv Clean Code http://amzn.to/YjUDI0
Hinweis der Redaktion
- ONE HOUR
- How? Duplication Excess Coupling Quick Fixes Hacks
- Over time, neglect can turn software from well-oiled machinery into heaps of useless junk.
- Typically the low quality code was left because of the need to meet deadlines, but once in place, the justification for having put it there no longer matters. Whenever you are forced to work around the hacks, bad code, etc, in your application, the decrease in your productivity represents interest on technical debt. If you spend time refactoring the code to improve its quality, you are paying down the principal of the technical debt (and thus reducing future interest costs). Sometimes principal of technical debt can grow, as when a lot of code is built on top of debt-ridden code. There isn’t a perfect metaphor for this that I’m aware of.
- Accidental vs. Deliberate decision to incur the debt. Reckless vs. Prudent kinds of debt incurred.
- Should we spend an iteration or a month just trying to improve the quality of the system, and pay down technical debt? What would you think if you went to your favorite restaurant, only to find that it was closed for a month, with a sign explaining that it needed to clean up things that had gotten out of hand due to neglect. Would you feel as confident about eating the product of that kitchen, knowing it had let things go so wrong that it now needed a month without producing food just to clean up the mess it had created. How do you think our customers should feel if we request time to clean up our code instead of fixing bugs or delivering new features?
- Building in quality becomes a habit. Working with well-crafted code is more enjoyable. Create a virtuous cycle. Help yourself and your team fall into the pit of success that is clean code.
- By definition, refactoring attempts to improve the quality of a software application without changing its behavior. If you’re changing behavior, you’re not refactoring, you’re fixing a bug or adding a feature (hopefully – or adding a bug).
- Only refactor code while your tests are passing. Make sure they still pass when you are done. Break large refactorings into small steps and test after each step.
- Note that characterization tests, though they should be automated, are often not what we would think of as unit tests, or perhaps even integration tests. For instance, you could dump a log file showing the relevant state of the application, and then use that as the basis for your characterization test by comparing against it after your changes.
- Avoid creating a big ball of mud system, where tracing through your code and its dependencies is like trying to unwind a tangled mess of spaghetti.
- Principles provide guidance for refactoring. They provide a consistent target to aim toward.
- A very common source of repetition of code is role checks. These often describe different scenarios in different circumstances. For instance, maybe administrators can do anything, but managers can access resources within their division, etc. Encapsulating the logic of CanView, CanCreate, CanEdit, etc. in privilege objects makes these rules explicit, easier to test, and gives them a single location to live in the application.
- Visual Studio can quickly analyze a project and show statistics for the classes and methods in the project. The maintainability index, cyclomatic complexity, and lines of code are all great metrics to pay attention to. The ideal maintainability index is 100, but don’t expect to hit that with any code that’s doing real work. However, you should certainly able to keep it above 50. Demo GildedRose.
- Using Excel
- I’m not a fan of regions. They mainly exist because at one time they were a reasonable means of hiding generated code, before we had support for partial classes and other language features to deal with this. The worst offense with regions is when they’re used within a method, like this: (click) They’re also bad when used at the class level for “standard” formatting of code, making it impossible to actually see what the code does, like this: (click) Can someone tell me what this class does? (click) I have a whole article devoted to why using regions is a bad habit, anti-pattern, code smell, whatever you prefer. It includes some survey results on the most common ways people use them as well. (click)
- Open-Closed Principle
- Software can only be open to extension in a few different axes, and each additional bit of flexibility adds complexity to the software. Thus, this flexibility should be added only when needed, not simply anticipated.
- What happens when we need to add another country? What happens when we must add another rule? How can we refactor this so this method no longer needs to change?
- Define a type to describe a rule. Move each rule into its own type. Create a collection of rules to apply and apply them. Pass the set of rules into the IsSpecialCustomer() method’s class (or even the method itself).
- Any time you find that you need to check the type of an object within a polymorphic block of code (such as a foreach), this is a sign that you are breaking LSP.
- Nulls break polymorphism and violate LSP just as much as other subtypes that aren’t substitutable! Try to avoid the possibility of dealing with nulls in polymorphic code like foreach loops – consider using Null Object Pattern to address.
- This is an extemely common example of the Repository design pattern. In fact, I use this exact pattern in quite a few production applications today. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this implementation on its own. However, sometimes it does violate ISP if you need to separate Commands from Queries
- You can create small interfaces and compose the larger interfaces from the smaller ones if you control all of the code and you can’t simply do away with the larger interfaces. In this case, the separation of interfaces would allow us to do something like implement caching only on the read operations, and implement delayed writes using some kind of queue or message bus for the write operations.
- “Legacy” N-Tier Logical Architecture
- Hidden Dependencies
- Extract interface Implement interface with tightly coupled original code
- Mention Explicit Dependencies Principle
- Water break
- Get them excited.