Skip to main content

Reducing Conditional Logic to a Single Location

My Anti If Campaign post still generates a lot of questions and discussion. In summary:

  • Conditional statements are not bad. They are a core programming construct.
  • If you are working in an OO language, type checks are probably not the best solution to your problem. Rely on polymorphism.
  • You need to perform conditional checks somewhere. In my first example the conditional check was pushed into routing. The conditional statement in this case had been offloaded to the consumer.

A recent real world example was refactored which highlighted the points previously, but inverts the problem and solution. How do you remove conditional statements if your system itself has to make the decisions internally?

Example

The simplified example shows the result of invoking a third party service. This result contained a flag indicating either success or failure. Effectively there were two hidden types here. Finally the result was returned based on the HTTP status code.

After the result of the third party call, the domain would decide how to respond.

Both the client and the domain logic was split over multiple source files. This made noticing the duplication tricky. Both the client and the domain also knew the fact that the result of the third party call can succeed or fail.

Sadly the domain violates the SRP at a method level. While not a requirement yet, if further status codes are required or the contents of responses controlled flow, we are in trouble. The type flag would need to evolve from a boolean to something more complex. The contents of the responses may also need to be provided. This solution could leak HTTP details down into the domain unless careful.

Solution

Recognise the boolean flag is actually hidden two types. Remove the flag and introduce a concrete type for each path. Each concrete type performs the right operation. In this case executing the relevant methods within the domain.

Each concrete type is easy to test, change or throw away. In this example an interface is provided. This contains just the necessary methods that the process requires. The domain is now simplified. The domain instance itself is simply provided as an argument. The concrete instance of each result will perform the right operation.

Benefits

  • Now possible to add and remove additional redemption handling easily.
  • The procedural code remains on the boundary of the system. There is no need to try an use OO concepts here. Keep it simple.
  • The domain becomes flexible and removes the procedural checks. OO concepts can be applied as much as you like here.
  • The redemption service works with anything that can play the role of a redeemer. Open to refactoring.

Closing

Stick the procedural code on the edge of your system and be done with it. Just ensure that you only perform such checks once.

Just because you are not performing explicit type checks, the use of boolean flags usually indicates at least two hidden types.

The anti if campaign is not the removal of all conditional checks. They need to happen somewhere. Just try to limit them.

Comments

  1. Great stuff. I really like the "Anti if campaign" articles. Keep the articles coming.

    Thanks,
    Anders

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi, it would be nice to have some code examples in the topic. I am looking forward to seeing next post about "Anti if campaign"

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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 …