Skip to main content

Log Everything

This post was originally conceived back in mid 2011, starting a new project made me think back to this event, hence the post.

Any developer worth their salt will know what logging is. You could argue there are two types of logging, either developer logging or auditing. Developer logging would be what we log when something goes wrong. Using the results of this logging we can track down what went wrong, and put fixes in place to stop this event from occurring again. If this logging fails, or logs the incorrect thing it is not the end of the world. Due to this, I generally do not care for testing such scenarios. The code should behave the same with our without this logging.

Auditing would come under logging which as part of the application needs to be carried out at all times. Consider visiting a cash machine. When withdrawing fifty pounds, you want to make sure your bank logs this in case anything goes wrong. This sort of logging is crucial, and must work and must log the correct data. This is considered a feature, therefore this should be tested as it is part of the behavior of the application.

When I think back to my first few years of programming my code was littered with logging. In the early days after each statement, variable and function I would print out what happened, along with any errors that happened. In fact I'd say that everyone starts out like this. The strange thing is as we get better, the logging becomes less and less. Rather than the first class citizen we relied on in the early days, logging is seen as boring. The problem with treating logging code as a second class citizen is that when things go wrong, it can be very difficult or near impossible to track down what has happened. When you realise you need logging, its often too late. You will need to redeploy the application and wait for the problem to expose itself again.

Back in 2011 we had a difficult problem to track down. The dreaded "OutOfMemoryException". Being the cocky developers we were, we decided to add the logging last. After all, it was there for when things went wrong. We never planned things would go wrong, after all it "worked on my machine". After redeploying the application with logging we managed to track down roughly what was going wrong, and in turn began to resolve the problem. Had we added this logging initially, we could have resolved this problem in half the time.

The lesson I learned here was simple. Any time you have an error, log it. If the logging is not in place, we add it. Creating a new application? In the first iteration(s) make sure some form of logging is in place. I believe by following this simple rule any future issues can be handled easier. Logging should be a first class citizen regardless of purpose.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…