Skip to main content

Object Calisthenics

Recently I ran a session on Object Calisthenics. I was first exposed to this challenge a few years ago and personally found it a fun, yet difficult experience. This is intentional as the challenge is designed to push the boundaries of best practices. The instructions are simple, there are nine rules to follow that must be obeyed during a traditional kata. We chose the Checkout Kata as the backdrop for this session. The teams feedback is as follows.

  1. Use only one level of indentation per method

    The team found this easy, and we discussed that following this to some degree in day to day development would be beneficial. Limiting the amount of nested code you have can improve readability quite substantially.

  2. Don't use the else keyword

    At first this seemed a no brainier, until people realised it meant to favour polymorphism and not simply relying on an early return (implicit else).

  3. Wrap all primitives and strings

    The team managed well with this, one example would be a pair introduced an SKU (Stock Keeping Unit) to encapsulate a string and price. We do this well in day to day development at Codeweavers for domain objects, however we tend to fail in other areas such as data access code. This is one concept we need to try and improve at.

  4. Use only one dot per line

    The Law of Demeter in action. Once we cleared up the ideas behind this it was pretty easy for the teams to follow. This is not a dot counting exercise, so it is worth being familiar with the "law". Much of our code would satisfy this requirement.

  5. Don't abbreviate

    One controversial point that came up from this was regarding the team who chose SKU as a class name. Some of the team disagreed with this naming, though in terms of the domain (a supermarket) this is a perfectly valid name, therefore this did not break the rule. On the whole our code is named well, though our legacy codebases have many abbreviations that can confuse and obfuscate the intent of the code.

  6. Keep all entities small

    For new code, this is not an issue, however we find legacy code is given less treatment in regards to the size of our entities. This is something we should try to improve, though the teams found this easy enough during the kata.

  7. Don't use any classes with more than two instance variables

    Personally I find this an odd requirement, providing you keep your classes small as per the previous requirement this tends to be a less relevant task. Of all the rules to follow, this is the one I could not advocate during day to day development providing you keep your classes small.

  8. Use first-class collections

    My personal favourite of the rules to abide by, and one I have since adopted into day to day coding. First class collections can simplify, and make code easier to understand as well as maintain and optimize. We have numerous examples of this at play at Codeweavers, and we should try to increase the amount of custom collections we have, as opposed to relying on primitive collections. For example, quotes is a better object than a array of quote.

  9. Don't use any getters/setters/properties

    The hardest of all the rules to follow. Most of the teams tried to get past this rule by simply naming their getters/setters slightly differently. At the end of the day, there were still exposing state unnecessarily. We would never try to enforce such a rule for general development, but for core business logic this principle actually makes sense. The areas where this falls down, is on the boundary of the system, for example user input or output would be such scenarios where getters/setters are the easiest, cleanest solutions. Each team found this requirement the hardest to work with, which mimics my first expose to the object calisthenics challenge.


Popular posts from this blog

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…

Coding In the Real World

As a student when confronted with a problem, I would end up coding it and thinking - how do the professionals do this?For some reason I had the impression that once I entered the industry I would find enlightenment. Discovering the one true way to write high quality, professional code.It turns out that code in industry is not too far removed from the code I was writing back when I knew very little.Code in the real world can be:messy or cleanhard or easy to understandsimple or complexeasy or hard to changeor any combination of the aboveVery rarely will you be confronted with a problem that is difficult. Most challenges typically are formed around individuals and processes, rather than day to day coding. Years later I finally have the answer. Code in the real world is not that much different to code we were all writing when we first started out.If I could offer myself some advice back in those early days it would be to follow KISS, YAGNI and DRY religiously. The rest will fall into plac…

Feature Toggles

I'm a fan of regular releasing. My background and experience leads me to release as regularly as possible. There are numerous benefits to regular releases; limited risk, slicker release processes and the ability to change as requirements evolve.The problem with this concept is how can you release when features are not functionally complete?SolutionIf there is still work in progress, one solution to allow frequent releases is to use feature toggles. Feature toggles are simple conditional statements that are either enabled or disabled based on some condition.This simple example shows a feature toggle for an "Edit User" feature. If the boolean condition is false, then we only show the "New User" feature and the "Admin" feature. This boolean value will be provided by various means, usually a configuration file. This means at certain points we can change this value in order to demonstrate the "Edit User" functionality. Our demo environment could …

Reused Abstraction Principle

This is the second part of my series on abstractions.Part 1 - AbstractionsPart 3 - Dependency Elimination PrincipleThe Reused Abstraction Principle is a simple in concept in practice, but oddly rarely followed in typical enterprise development. I myself have been incredibly guilty of this in the past.Most code bases have a 1:1 mapping of interfaces to implementations. Usually this is the sign of TDD or automated testing being applied badly. The majority of these interfaces are wrong. 1:1 mappings between interfaces and implementations is a code smell.Such situations are usually the result of extracting an interface from an implementation, rather than having the client drive behaviour.These interfaces are also often bad abstractions, known as "leaky abstractions". As I've discussed previously, these abstractions tend to offer nothing more than simple indirection.ExampleApply the "rule of three". If there is only ever one implementation, then you don't need …