Skip to main content

Object Discovery

Recently we had @kevinrutherford in to talk about object discovery. While TDD is a great tool, it is no excuse for some sort of design process. If you don't, you'll most likely end up with a mess. This session was based around this principle.

One point that was discussed what that the first few seconds of a test for a new class is the most important part of the TDD process. It is here where you will decide whether to take a state or interaction based approach to testing. This first test will dictate the structure of the new class. Once you start with tests, it becomes difficult to evolve or change the design of a class without friction.

There is generally two types of code at Codeweavers.

The trick comes from the fact that just because you use C#/Java/etc.. most of the time you aren't actually writing OO code. You often end up writing procedural code in a rather obtuse manner. A takeaway from this afternoon was to try and perform more CRC (class-responsibility-collaborator) sessions.

CRC (Object Cube)

During this session we performed a modified version of a CRC. One thing I always find with CRC sessions is how useful they are. The problem I and others find is when it comes to day to day development, I'm too eager to start coding without performing some sort of up front design.

Events

In order to write flexible OO code, you need to hide as much state as possible. While this is great in practice it turns out to be very difficult to achieve in the real world. One method of getting around this is to make use of events aka the observer pattern.

Kevin used a wiki as an example. Consider a page that is updated. If this page was to fire a changed event, then anything that is listening for these events would be notified. The observers could then react once the event was received. The nice thing about this approach is that the code obeys the open/closed principle. New features can be added without the need for the change to have a large, rippling effect.

Nouns and Namespaces

When I was first exposed to object oriented programming, apart from believing that inheritance was the coolest aspect of OO, I was also led to believe that using nouns when designing classes can be useful. It turned out that this was a fallacy. If you follow this advice you'll end up with a small collection of classes that do everything. The biggest revelation I had during the session came from the importance of namespaces. Using nouns for up front design can be extremely useful if you remember that the noun can potentially be a namespace. This means you'll end up with a handful of namespaces that are relevant to the domain in question. Inside these namespaces you will have one or more classes that do one thing, and one thing well.

Closing

At the end of the session I was left with many questions and new ideas to test and try out. Using events to hide state, yet allow other objects to interact when required was a real eye opener. However it turns out that when actually trying to implement these ideas in code, it is actually quite difficult due to my current thinking. The plan for the next month will be to explore these ideas in more detail and see what affect it has on my day to day development.

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…