Skip to main content

Consistency

Striving for consistency within a codebase is a good thing. I'm very much someone who believes in applying a consistent formatting style, patterns and practices. However there are two sides to this view.

One colleague used to hate different apps that used different frameworks, styles and conventions. This is a fair point, it made switching between them harder. In their eyes, a change to the development process should cascade across all applications.

Another colleague used to state that without breaking consistency then improvements and progress would never happen. An equally fair point. However this lead to scenarios where some of the code would be in differing states of consistency, or improvements were avoided because they were too large to implement safely.

Like most things in software development, there is rarely a true answer. The best of both worlds is to apply both concepts at varying levels.

Applying consistency at package/assembly/module/namespace level works well from my experience. Different boundaries can have different consistency rules.

This approach allows incremental evolution, but still keeps consistency within a boundary. This enables both benefits of favouring consistency, while still allowing the code to evolve over time. Ratcheting can be used to ensure future work is aligned consistently. Rather than big bang implementation, you can perform larger, long term changes steadily.

Remember; software development is like gardening, it takes time to see the results sometimes and blindly applying a coding convention to conform to consistency requires thought.

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…