Say, I have a Rails model with a method:
class Order < ApplicationRecord
def process
do_some
do_some_more
do_even_more_here
end
end
Its purpose is solely Rails-model based, meaning its actions are performed on the object itself. What would be the best design pattern to adapt if I'd want to refactor this method and move it out somewhere else?
What I've found so far is that a Decorator shouldn't be the answer as they are more view related. ServiceObject is meant to only perform calculations without the ActiveRecord object and Concerns are mixins that divide responsibilities over several (ActiveRecord) objects.
What I've found so far is that a Decorator shouldn't be the answer as
they are more view related.
Yes, the decorator pattern is most often used in Rails apps to decorate models with view specific behavior. That does not necessarily mean that you can't use the pattern for other purposes.
Rather what you should consider is that models even with no code instead are already fat objects due to the insane amount of features that they get from ActiveModel and ActiveRecord:
validations
persistence
dirty tracking
type casting
querying
etc
A decorator may just add more fat even through the code is neatly tucked away in a separate class.
ServiceObject is meant to only perform calculations without the
ActiveRecord object
Stop listening to whoever told you this. The ServiceObject pattern is really just about creating single purpose objects that do one single job and do it well.
ActiveJob is an example of the ServiceObject pattern. And yes it even has an API for passing in ActiveRecord objects. What you are describing sound like a prime candidate for a ServiceObject or ActiveJob.
Concerns are mixins that divide responsibilities over several
(ActiveRecord) objects.
Mixins don't divide responsibilities. They share behaviors between classes. Its basically like copy-pasting the same methods between a set of classes.
Service object is the one you are looking for.
Mixins and concerns are just a bunches of code you want to mix and share, they can be anywhere.
Make a service object, design it’s public and private interfaces. If you are thinking it’s coming too fat just separate them, easy as that. It might worth reading about SOLID.
If the end_user cannot access the source code of the app, why we still need to make some methods private?
I'm reading the Pragmatic Agile Web Development with Rails and I couldn't understand why we need to make the following method private (even after reading the explanation):
private
def current_cart Cart.find(session[:cart_id])
rescue ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound
cart = Cart.create
session[:cart_id] = cart.id
cart
end
end
It says that it will never allow Rails to make it available as an action, but as a coder, why would I ever do that myself?
As you say there may be no external reason to make it private. However, it also prevents you — or somebody else using your code — from accidentally making use of the method where you're not supposed to.
See it as a sanity check on your own future behaviour if you will.
It aims to encourage good practices and good code.
The idea is that you have two separate parts to your code:
"Above the line" (Public). This is the interface to the rest of the world. This is the API, where calls are made when using instances of the object. Once created, you know that THIS is the area where changes can affect current usages of the code.
"Below the line (Private). This is where detailed logic resides. This code can be changed and refactored freely without any affect to the public interface.
It may help guide your test writing
Private methods may or may not be (unit) tested.
Public methods are more encouraging of both unit and integrated tests as the fact that is is public means that it is serving as the public face for that code and as it is public it might be called from any other point in the future, so having good tests to make sure it continues to work as advertised is essential.
It may help with security as you have greater control who calls private methods (i.e. only public methods in the same class calling them).
It may help reduce name collisions as you have less names in the public space.
End user might not be able to access your code but someone else in your team can definitely access it and they might change it.
The other benefit of encapsulation is that it allows one class ("server") to make a contract with another class ("client") to provide some service with only a very few things being required to be known about the "server" class such as method signature and return type. The benefit is only realized if the contract of what is required and what is returned remains the same. So, in your example, there is no benefit since the contract was broken by Class A.
Instead of class A changing int type to float, class A should create another new variable of type float for other classes to use so that class B is not "broken" or that contract is not broken between them. Class C could refer to new float variable and Class B could still refer to old int variable and everyone is happy. Better yet, methods would used to retrieve values such as: "getUsersAddress" and "getUSersPhoneNumber" depending on what was wanted.
The real benefit of good encapsulation is that Class A can be completely re-written from top to bottom and as long as the contract is honored as to what Class A is expected to do(have methods "getUsersAddress" and "getUSersPhoneNumber"), then everything in Class B and C works the same. Think carefully about what is exposed and how it is exposed. Things that will change often and break other classes need to be considered carefully before exposing. Good encapsulation means hiding things that are expected to change often so to avoid breaking other classes.
It says that it will never allow Rails to make it available as an action,
Hmm, is this in a Rails Conroller class? And is the book you are working through written for Rails 2.x?
In Rails 2.x, by default any public method in a Controller can be triggered by someone accessing the url /name_of_controller/name_of_method .
But there are some methods in your controller that you don't want anyone on the web to trigger, they weren't intended as 'action methods'. So in Rails 2.x, you mark those as protected or private, something not public. "action method" means a method you intend to be directly triggered via a URL.
In Rails 3.x, routing has generally changed such that only certain methods you explicitly route to are available to be triggered via a URL. However, it might still make sense to mark non-action-methods in a Controller as protected or private so:
It's more clear from skimming the source which methods are action methods and which aren't
As a precaution in case someone changes the routing in such a way that would allow a URL to trigger those methods not intended as action methods
Or for general reasons of code organization that other answers mention, that are not specific to Rails controller classes.
There are several reasons as mentioned above. The interesting thing about this encapsulation in ruby is that it can be violated.
See the "send" method and its brother "public_send".
And for a very common metaprogramming technique that uses this method see:
dynamic finders
I'm currently working on a Rails project, and have found times where it's easiest to do
if object.class == Foo
...
else if object.class == Bar
...
else
...
I started doing this in views where I needed to display different objects in different ways, but have found myself using it in other places now, such as in functions that take objects as arguments. I'm not precisely sure why, but I feel like this is not good practice.
If it's not good practice, why so?
If it's totally fine, when are times that one might want to use this specifically?
Thanks!
Not sure why that works for you at all. When you need to test whether object is instance of class Foo you should use
object.is_a? Foo
But it's not a good practice in Ruby anyway. It'd much better to use polymorphism whenever it's possible. For example, if somewhere in the code you can have object of two different classes and you need to display them differently you can define display method in both classes. After that you can call object.display and object will be displayed using method defined in the corresponding class.
Advantage of that approach is that when you need to add support for the third class or a whole bunch of new classes all you'll need to do is define display method in every one of them. But nothing will change in places where you actually using this method.
It's better to express type specific behavior using subtyping.
Let the objects know how they are displays. Create a method Display() and pass all you need from outside as parameter. Let "Foo" know to display foo and "Bar" know how to display bar.
There are many articles on replacing conditionals with polymorphism.
It’s not a good idea for several reasons. One of them is duck typing – once you start explicitly checking for object class in the code, you can no longer simply pass an instance of a different class that conforms to a similar interface as the original object. This makes proxying, mocking and other common design tricks harder. (The point can be also generalized as breaking encapsulation. It can be argued that the object’s class is an implementation detail that you as a consumer should not be interested in. Broken encapsulation ≈ tight coupling ≈ pain.)
Another reason is extensibility. When you have a giant switch over the object type and want to add one more case, you have to alter the switch code. If this code is embedded in a library, for example, the library users can’t simply extend the library’s behaviour without altering the library code. Ideally all behaviour of an object should be a part of the object itself, so that you can add new behaviour just by adding more object types.
If you need to display different objects in a different way, can’t you simply make the drawing code a part of the object?
The problem is whether an instance method should in anyway alter the object that contains the method or should it return a new instance? I'm new to F# and the concept of full mmutability that is suggested for F#.
Just using psuedo code for now unless I need to be more specific.
First thought is just add the message to the message list on the object:
class Something
ctr(messages)
_messages.Add(messages)
AddMessage(message)
_messages.Add(message)
Second is to construct a new list that joins the old list and the new message. Then I would create a new instance altogther and send back.
class Something
ctr(messages)
_messages.Add(messages)
AddMessage(message)
newMessageList = _messages.Join(message)
return new Something(newMessageList)
Am I overthinking immutability?
In my opinion, the answer depends on your requirements. The immutable style is probably more idiomatic, and would be a sensible default. However, one nice thing about F# is that you can choose what to do based on your needs; there's nothing inherently wrong with code that uses mutation. Here are some things to consider:
Sometimes the mutable approach leads to better performance, particularly when used in a single-threaded context (but make sure to measure realistic scenarios to be sure!)
Sometimes the immutable approach lends itself better to use in multi-threaded scenarios
Sometimes you want to interface with libraries that are easier to use with imperitave code (e.g. an API taking a System.Action<_>).
Are you working on a team? If so, are they experienced C# developers? Experienced F# developers? What kind of code would they find easiest to read (perhaps the mutable style)? What kind of code will you find easiest to maintain (probably the immutable style)?
Are you just doing this as an exercise? Then practicing the immutable style may be worthwhile.
Stepping back even further, there are a few other points to consider:
Do you really even need an instance method? Often, using a let-bound function in a module is more idiomatic.
Do you really even need a new nominal type for what you're doing? If it's just a thin wrapper around a list, you might consider just using lists directly.
As you are doing "class based" programming which is one of the way (rather unfortunate) to do object oriented programming, you would be doing in place state modification rather than returning a new state (as that's what would be expected when you are doing OO).
In case you really want to go towards immutability then I would suggest you need to use more FP concepts like Modules, Functions (not methods which have you have in class based programming), recursive data types etc.
My answer is way too general and the appropriate answer lies in the fact that how this class of your will fit in the big picture of your application design.
I've been a bad programmer because I am doing a copy and paste. An example is that everytime i connect to a database and retrieve a recordset, I will copy the previous code and edit, copy the code that sets the datagridview and edit. I am aware of the phrase code reuse, but I have not actually used it. How can i utilize code reuse so that I don't have to copy and paste the database code and the datagridview code.,
The essence of code reuse is to take a common operation and parameterize it so it can accept a variety of inputs.
Take humble printf, for example. Imagine if you did not have printf, and only had write, or something similar:
//convert theInt to a string and write it out.
char c[24];
itoa(theInt, c, 10);
puts(c);
Now this sucks to have to write every time, and is actually kind of buggy. So some smart programmer decided he was tired of this and wrote a better function, that in one fell swoop print stuff to stdout.
printf("%d", theInt);
You don't need to get as fancy as printf with it's variadic arguments and format string. Even just a simple routine such as:
void print_int(int theInt)
{
char c[24];
itoa(theInt, c, 10);
puts(c);
}
would do the trick nickely. This way, if you want to change print_int to always print to stderr you could update it to be:
void print_int(int theInt)
{
fprintf(stderr, "%d", theInt);
}
and all your integers would now magically be printed to standard error.
You could even then bundle that function and others you write up into a library, which is just a collection of code you can load in to your program.
Following the practice of code reuse is why you even have a database to connect to: someone created some code to store records on disk, reworked it until it was usable by others, and decided to call it a database.
Libraries do not magically appear. They are created by programmers to make their lives easier and to allow them to work faster.
Put the code into a routine and call the routine whenever you want that code to be executed.
Check out Martin Fowler's book on refactoring, or some of the numerous refactoring related internet resources (also on stackoverflow), to find out how you could improve code that has smells of duplication.
At first, create a library with reusable functions. They can be linked with different applications. It saves a lot of time and encourages reuse.
Also be sure the library is unit tested and documented. So it is very easy to find the right class/function/variable/constant.
Good rule of thumb is if you use same piece three times, and it's obviously possible to generalize it, than make it a procedure/function/library.
However, as I am getting older, and also more experienced as a professional developer, I am more inclined to see code reuse as not always the best idea, for two reasons:
It's difficult to anticipate future needs, so it's very hard to define APIs so you would really use them next time. It can cost you twice as much time - once you make it more general just so that second time you are going to rewrite it anyway. It seems to me that especially Java projects of late are prone to this, they seem to be always rewritten in the framework du jour, just to be more "easier to integrate" or whatever in the future.
In a larger organization (I am a member of one), if you have to rely on some external team (either in-house or 3rd party), you can have a problem. Your future then depends on their funding and their resources. So it can be a big burden to use foreign code or library. In a similar fashion, if you share a piece of code to some other team, they can then expect that you will maintain it.
Note however, these are more like business reasons, so in open source, it's almost invariably a good thing to be reusable.
to get code reuse you need to become a master of...
Giving things names that capture their essence. This is really really important
Making sure that it only does one thing. This is really comes back to the first point, if you can't name it by its essence, then often its doing too much.
Locating the thing somewhere logical. Again this comes back to being able to name things well and capturing its essence...
Grouping it with things that build on a central concept. Same as above, but said differntly :-)
The first thing to note is that by using copy-and-paste, you are reusing code - albeit not in the most efficient way.
You have recognised a situation where you have come up with a solution previously.
There are two main scopes that you need to be aware of when thinking about code reuse. Firstly, code reuse within a project and, secondly, code reuse between projects.
The fact that you have a piece of code that you can copy and paste within a project should be a cue that the piece of code that you're looking at is useful elsewhere. That is the time to make it into a function, and make it available within the project.
Ideally you should replace all occurrances of that code with your new function, so that it (a) reduces redundant code and (b) ensures that any bugs in that chunk of code only need to be fixed in one function instead of many.
The second scope, code reuse across projects, requires some more organisation to get the maximum benefit. This issue has been addressed in a couple of other SO questions eg. here and here.
A good start is to organise code that is likely to be reused across projects into source files that are as self-contained as possible. Minimise the amount of supporting, project specific, code that is required as this will make it easier to reuse entire files in a new project. This means minimising the use of project specific data-types, minimising the use project specific global variables, etc.
This may mean creating utility files that contain functions that you know are going to be useful in your environment. eg. Common database functions if you often develop projects that depend on databases.
I think the best way to answer your problem is that create a separate assembly for your important functions.. in this way you can create extension methods or modify the helper assemble itself.. think of this function..
ExportToExcel(List date, string filename)
this method can be use for your future excel export functions so why don't store it in your own helper assembly.. i this way you just add reference to these assemblies.
Depending on the size of the project can change the answer.
For a smaller project I would recommend setting up a DatabaseHelper class that does all your DB access. It would just be a wrapper around opening/closing connections and execution of the DB code. Then at a higher level you can just write the DBCommands that will be executed.
A similar technique could be used for a larger project, but would need some additional work, interfaces need to be added, DI, as well as abstracting out what you need to know about the database.
You might also try looking into ORM, DAAB, or over to the Patterns and Practices Group
As far as how to prevent the ole C&P? - Well as you write your code, you need to periodically review it, if you have similar blocks of code, that only vary by a parameter or two, that is always a good candidate for refactoring into its own method.
Now for my pseudo code example:
Function GetCustomer(ID) as Customer
Dim CMD as New DBCmd("SQL or Stored Proc")
CMD.Paramaters.Add("CustID",DBType,Length).Value = ID
Dim DHelper as New DatabaseHelper
DR = DHelper.GetReader(CMD)
Dim RtnCust as New Customer(Dx)
Return RtnCust
End Function
Class DataHelper
Public Function GetDataTable(cmd) as DataTable
Write the DB access code stuff here.
GetConnectionString
OpenConnection
Do DB Operation
Close Connection
End Function
Public Function GetDataReader(cmd) as DataReader
Public Function GetDataSet(cmd) as DataSet
... And So on ...
End Class
For the example you give, the appropriate solution is to write a function that takes as parameters whatever it is that you edit whenever you paste the block, then call that function with the appropriate data as parameters.
Try and get into the habit of using other people's functions and libraries.
You'll usually find that your particular problem has a well-tested, elegant solution.
Even if the solutions you find aren't a perfect fit, you'll probably gain a lot of insight into the problem by seeing how other people have tackled it.
I'll do this at two levels. First within a class or namespace, put that code piece that is reused in that scope in a separate method and make sure it is being called.
Second is something similar to the case that you are describing. That is a good candidate to be put in a library or a helper/utility class that can be reused more broadly.
It is important to evaluate everything that you are doing with an perspective whether it can be made available to others for reuse. This should be a fundamental approach to programming that most of us dont realize.
Note that anything that is to be reused needs to be documented in more detail. Its naming convention be distinct, all the parameters, return results and any constraints/limitations/pre-requisites that are needed should be clearly documented (in code or help files).
It depends somewhat on what programming language you're using. In most languages you can
Write a function, parameterize it to allow variations
Write a function object, with members to hold the varying data
Develop a hierarchy of (function object?) classes that implement even more complicated variations
In C++ you could also develop templates to generate the various functions or classes at compile time
Easy: whenever you catch yourself copy-pasting code, take it out immediately (i.e., don't do it after you've already CP'd code several times) into a new function.