Skip to main content

Dependency Elimination Principle

This is the third, and final part of my series on abstractions.

I've wrote about what good dependencies are before, and the benefits if you can limit and remove them where possible.

You can take this idea further though, by applying concepts from functional programming such as "depend on values rather than dependencies".

A wise colleague started me down this path of passing values, rather than dependencies on collaborators after we repeatedly found ourselves depending on implementation details. This meant our high level domain logic was tightly coupled to low level implementation details.

Brian Geihsler reminded me of this concept with an excellent demonstration of this in practice and has allowed me to put a name to this practice.

Additionally J.B. Rainsberger's example is with a virtual clock, another common dependency we often need. In this case, ask for the time, not how you get the time. The example also highlights another common problem with conventions when using a framework or library.

Here we can handle commands but only those that match the signature of taking a single command, and returning no response. In order to apply the Dependency Elimination Principle (DEP) and remove the clock wrapper we can introduce an overload. Our tests will be expressed using the overload, while the production code will make use of the standard method. If the class in question has a relevant set of interfaces, the overload would be omitted from this to ensure that consumers have a clean, focused API to consume.

When the DEP is applied to other dependencies such as configuration details, flexibility is achieved by the ability to provide these values from any source. As a side effect, coupling has been reduced, while also removing an unnecessary abstraction from the codebase.

Try to apply the DEP where possible. Remove as many dependencies as possible for flexible, maintainable code. Not all dependencies can be eliminated, but unless the dependency is a valid abstraction it may be worth considering removing or reducing use.

Comments

  1. Looks good, but in your last Handle() function, I'd rename timeNow to asOf or asOfInstant, in order to emphasise that that function doesn't rely on what the instant of time means. Calling that parameter timeNow provides a good example of a leaky abstraction: an irrelevant detail creeps in only because of how *one client* intends to use the function.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the feedback.

      I mentioned in the gist (now updated) that a better name should be used. asOfInstant is pretty nice the more I think about it, especially given your second point about how a single client uses the method. Another client would be your tests, at which point timeNow may be future, past, present. Great point.

      Delete

Post a Comment

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…