Skip to main content

POODR Highlights Part 1

Practical Object-Oriented Design in Ruby or POODR is clearly a book about Ruby development, however the odd aspect is much of the concepts apply to other languages. In fact I've taken these ideas and used them both before and after reading the book in other dynamic languages and even static languages such as C#. In summary the book is well worth a read, even if you don't do Ruby development full-time.

A few of the highlights for me will be spread out across the following posts.


The author takes a firm stance on dependencies. Anything that cannot be controlled by the class itself should be protected from change. In other words a message sent to self/this is preferred than directly interacting with a dependency.

I've followed this pattern in the past, but the seeing the justifications for the benefit of this has made me realise the importance of such a practice. In the first example the publish method directly knows about the twitter feed it must interact with. In the second example the class sends a message to itself, while the class internally will still know how to interact with the dependency this is hidden. The private method has this responsibility.

With a single use you could argue there is not much difference, but the PostPublished method is a nice seam for both testing and changes. We could easily add assertions or make changes within the PostPublished method without fear of changing anything else. Finally if the PostPublished method is used in multiple places this abstraction pays for itself straight away.


Arguments are another key area that can change. Just like dependencies, the book focuses on the idea that making small changes up front can lead to flexible code that can handle change in the future. While you could argue that the order of arguments changing in the future may never happen, using named arguments has a great side effect on readability.

In static languages your IDE will most likely have a automated method of adding these in, so the C# example below can easily add named arguments with the press of a keyboard shortcut.

Named arguments provide increased readability with very little effort. Tests often benefit from the use of named arguments as you can remove the need for temporary variables, and instead in-line them to the location of use. While the third example is more wordy, they can safely be re-ordered without fear of compilation or runtime errors.


  • Wrap dependencies even if they are only used once. A message to self/this is preferred. Easier to change and provides seams for future work.
  • Use named arguments for improved readability and the ability to reduce temporary variables. Named variables can be dropped if there is only one argument or the variable is well named.


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…