Related
I'm making a method inside a Ruby on Rails app called "print" that can take any string and converts it into a png. I've been told it's not good to make class methods for base ruby classes like String or Array or Hash, etc. so "some string to print".print is probably not something I should do.
I was thinking about making a subclass of String called Print (class Print < String) and storing it in my lib/assets folder. So it would look like: Print.new("some string to print"). So my question is, am I on the right track by 1) creating a sub-class from String and 2) storing it in lib/assets?
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!
Answers to your question will necessarily be subjective because there are always be many answers to "where should I put functionality?", according to preference, principle, habit, customs, etc. I'll list a few and describe them, maybe add some of my personal opinions, but you'll ultimately have to choose and accept the consequences.
Note: I'll commonly refer to the common degenerate case of "losing namespacing scope" or "as bad as having global methods".
Monkeypatch/Extend String
Convenient and very "OO-message-passing" style at the cost of globally affecting all String in your application. That cost can be large because doing so breaks an implicit boundary between Ruby core and your application and it also scatters a component of "your application" in an external place. The functionality will have global scope and at worst will unintentionally interact with other things it shouldn't.
Worthy mention: Ruby has a Refinements feature that allows you to do do "scoped monkeypatching".
Worthy mention 2: Ruby also lets you includes modules into existing classes, like String.class_eval { include MyCustomization } which is slightly better because it's easier to tell a customization has been made and where it was introduced: "foo".method(:custom_method).owner will reveal it. Normal Monkeypatching will make it as if the method was defined on String itself.
Utils Module
Commonly done in all programming languages, a Util module is simply a single namespace where class methods/static methods are dumped. This is always an option to avoid the global pollution, but if Util ends up getting used everywhere anyways and it gets filled to the brim with unrelated methods, then the value of namespacing is lost. Having a method in a Util module tends to signify not enough thought was put into organizing code, since without maintenance, at it's worst, it's not much better than having global methods.
Private Method
Suppose you only need it in one class -- then it's easy to just put it into one private method. What if you need it in many classes? Should you make it a private method in a base class? If the functionality is inherent to the class, something associated with the class's identity, then Yes. Used correctly, the fact that this message exists is made invisible to components outside of that class.
However, this has the same downfall as the Rails Helper module when used incorrectly. If the next added feature requires that functionality, you'll be tempted to add the new feature to the class in order to have access to it. In this way the class's scope grows over time, eventually becoming near-global in your application.
Helper Module
Many Rails devs would suggest to put almost all of these utility methods inside rails Helper modules. Helper modules are kind of in between Utils Module and Private Method options. Helpers are included and have access to private members like Private Methods, and they suggest independence like Utils Modules (but do not guarantee it). Because of these properties, they tend to end up appearing everywhere, losing namespacing, and they end up accessing each other's private members, losing independence. This means it's more powerful, but can easily become much worse than either free-standing class/static methods or private methods.
Create a Class
If all the cases above degenerate into a "global scope", what if we forcibly create a new, smaller scope by way of a new class? The new class's purpose will be only to take data in and transform it on request on the way out. This is the common wisdom of "creating many, small classes", as small classes will have smaller scopes and will be easier to handle.
Unfortunately, taking this strategy too far will result in having too many tiny components, each of which do almost nothing useful by themselves. You avoid the ball of mud, but you end up with a chunky soup where every tiny thing is connected to every other tiny thing. It's just as complicated as having global methods all interconnected with each other, and you're not much better off.
Meta-Option: Refactor
Given the options above all have the same degenerate case, you may think there's no hope and everything will always eventually become horribly global -- Not True! It's important to understand they all degenerate in different ways.
Perhaps functionality 1, 2, 3, 4... 20 as Util methods are a complete mess, but they work cohesively as functionality A.1 ~ A.20 within the single class A. Perhaps class B is a complete mess and works better broken apart into one Util method and two private methods in class C.
Your lofty goal as an engineer will be to organize your application in a configuration that avoids all these degenerate cases for every bit of functionality in the system, making the system as a whole only as complex as necessary.
My advice
I don't have full context of your domain, and you probably won't be able to communicate that easily in a SO question anyways, so I can't be certain what'll work best for you.
However, I'll point out that it's generally easier to combine things than it is to break them apart. I generally advise starting with class/static methods. Put it in Util and move it to a better namespace later (Printer?). Perhaps in the future you'll discover many of these individual methods frequently operate on the same inputs, passing the same data back and forth between them -- this may be a good candidate for a class. This is often easier than starting off with a class or inheriting other class and trying to break functionality apart, later.
Say I defined a private function in a dart file hello.dart:
_hello() {
return "world";
}
I want to test it in another file mytest.dart:
library mytest;
import 'dart:unittest/unittest.dart';
main() {
test('test private functions', () {
expect(_hello(), equals("world"));
}
}
But unfortunately, the test code can't be compiled. But I do need to test that private _hello function. Is there any solution?
While I agree that private methods/classes shouldn't be part of your tests, the meta package does provide an #visibleForTesting attribute, and the analyzer will give you a warning if you attempt to use the member outside of its original library or a test. You can use it like this:
import 'package:meta/meta.dart';
#visibleForTesting
String hello() {
return "world";
}
Your tests will now be able to use it without error or warning, but if someone else tries to use it they'll get a warning.
Again, as to the wisdom of doing this is another question - usually if it's something worth testing, it's something that's worth being public (or it'll get tested through your public interfaces and that's what really matters anyway). At the same time, you might just want to have rigorous tests or test driven principles even for your private methods/classes so - Dart lets you this way.
Edit to add: If you're developing a library and your file with #visibleForTesting will be exported, you are essentially adding public API. Someone can consume that with the analyzer turned off (or just ignore the warning), and if you remove it later you may break them.
Several people believe we shouldn't test private directly: it should be tested through the public interface.
An advantage of following this guidance, is that your test won't depend on your implementation. Said differently: if you want to change your private without changing what you expose to the world, then you won't have to touch your tests.
According to this school of though, if your private is important enough to justify a unit test, then it might make sense to extract it in a new class.
Putting all this together, what you could do here, is:
Create a kind of helper class with this hello method as public. You can then easily unit test it
Let your current class use an instance of this helper class
Test the public methods of your current class which relies on _hello: if this private has a bug, it should be catch by those higher level tests
I don't like either of the above answers. dart's private variable test design is very bad. dart's private visibility is based on library, and each .dart file is a library by default, similar language is rust, but rust can write test code directly in the file, there is no private visibility problem, while dart does not allow this.
Again, I don't think #visibleForTesting is a valid solution,
Because #visibleForTesting can only be used to decorate public declarations, it serves as a mere analysis reminder that developers cannot invoke these declarations in other files,
But from a syntax point of view, developers can't use the _ prefix either, so the form, public, private, becomes confusing. and violates dart's own naming rules.
The argument that one should not test private, or that they should be separated into other classes, is like a justification that is completely unacceptable.
First, private exist because they belong to a business logic/model etc. in a contextual relationship, and it does not make logical sense to separate it into another class.
Second, if you must do this, it will greatly increase the complexity of the code, for example, you move to other classes will lose access to the context variables, or you have to pass a separate reference, or have to create an instance of the class, indeed, then you can finally do some mocks, but you also add a layer of abstraction,
It's hard to imagine that if you were to do this for the whole project, you'd probably double your entire code layers.
For now, If you want your dart package to get more than 90% coverage,
you should not define any private.
It sounds harsh, but that's the real story.
[Alternative] No one seems to have mentioned this yet,
Using part / part of to expose the privates, you can define a test-specific .dart file as the public interface to the library(file) to be tested, and use it to expose all the private declarations that need to be tested. you can name them xxx.fortest.dart
But this is more of a psychological solution, since you are still essentially exposing all private variables/methods
But at least, it's better than splitting class,
Also, if one day dart finally solves this problem, we can simply delete these .fortest.dart files.
A suggestion would be to NOT make methods/classes private but to move code, where you want to hide implementation details, to the lib/src folder.
This folder is considered private.
I found this approach on the fuchsia.dev page in this section under "Testing".
If you want to expose those private methods/classes, that are located in the src folder, to the public, you could export them inside your lib/main file.
I tried to import one of my libraries A (projects are libraries) into another library B and couldn't import code that was in the src folder of library A.
According to this StackOverflow answer it could still be possible to access the src folder from A in library B.
From the dart documentation
As you might expect, the library code lives under the lib directory and is public to other packages. You can create any hierarchy under lib, as needed. By convention, implementation code is placed under lib/src. Code under lib/src is considered private; other packages should never need to import src/.... To make APIs under lib/src public, you can export lib/src files from a file that’s directly under lib.
I am trying to use Dart to tersely define entities in an application, following the idiom of code = configuration. Since I will be defining many entities, I'd like to keep the code as trim and concise and readable as possible.
In an effort to keep boilerplate as close to 0 lines as possible, I recently wrote some code like this:
// man.dart
part of entity_component_framework;
var _man = entity('man', (entityBuilder) {
entityBuilder.add([TopHat, CrookedTeeth]);
})
// test.dart
part of entity_component_framework;
var man = EntityBuilder.entities['man']; // null, since _man wasn't ever accessed.
The entity method associates the entityBuilder passed into the function with a name ('man' in this case). var _man exists because only variable assignments can be top-level in Dart. This seems to be the most concise way possible to use Dart as a DSL.
One thing I wasn't counting on, though, is lazy initialization. If I never access _man -- and I had no intention to, since the entity function neatly stored all the relevant information I required in another data structure -- then the entity function is never run. This is a feature, not a bug.
So, what's the cleanest way of using Dart as a DSL given the lazy initialization restriction?
So, as you point out, it's a feature that Dart doesn't run any code until it's told to. So if you want something to happen, you need to do it in code that runs. Some possibilities
Put your calls to entity() inside the main() function. I assume you don't want to do that, and probably that you want people to be able to add more of these in additional files without modifying the originals.
If you're willing to incur the overhead of mirrors, which is probably not that much if they're confined to this library, use them to find all the top-level variables in that library and access them. Or define them as functions or getters. But I assume that you like the property that variables are automatically one-shot. You'd want to use a MirrorsUsed annotation.
A variation on that would be to use annotations to mark the things you want to be initialized. Though this is similar in that you'd have to iterate over the annotated things, which I think would also require mirrors.
For recursion in F#, existing documentation is clear about how to do it in the special case where it's just one function calling itself, or a group of physically adjacent functions calling each other.
But in the general case where a group of functions in different modules need to call each other, how do you do it?
I don't think there is a way to achieve this in F#. It is usually possible to structure the application in a way that doesn't require this, so perhaps if you described your scenario, you may get some useful comments.
Anyway, there are various ways to workaround the issue - you can declare a record or an interface to hold the functions that you need to export from the module. Interfaces allow you to export polymorphic functions too, so they are probably a better choice:
// Before the declaration of modules
type Module1Funcs =
abstract Foo : int -> int
type Module2Funcs =
abstract Bar : int -> int
The modules can then export a value that implements one of the interfaces and functions that require the other module can take it as an argument (or you can store it in a mutable value).
module Module1 =
// Import functions from Module2 (needs to be initialized before using!)
let mutable module2 = Unchecked.defaultof<Module2Funcs>
// Sample function that references Module2
let foo a = module2.Bar(a)
// Export functions of the module
let impl =
{ new Module1Funcs with
member x.Foo(a) = foo a }
// Somewhere in the main function
Module1.module2 <- Module2.impl
Module2.module1 <- Module1.impl
The initializationcould be also done automatically using Reflection, but that's a bit ugly, however if you really need it frequently, I could imagine developing some reusable library for this.
In many cases, this feels a bit ugly and restructuring the application to avoid recursive references is a better approach (in fact, I find recursive references between classes in object-oriented programming often quite confusing). However, if you really need something like this, then exporting functions using interfaces/records is probably the only option.
This is not supported. One evidence is that, in visual stuido, you need to order the project files correctly for F#.
It would be really rare to recursively call two functions in two different modules.
If this case does happen, you'd better factor the common part of the two functions out.
I don't think that there's any way for functions in different modules to directly refer to functions in other modules. Is there a reason that functions whose behavior is so tightly intertwined need to be in separate modules?
If you need to keep them separated, one possible workaround is to make your functions higher order so that they take a parameter representing the recursive call, so that you can manually "tie the knot" later.
If you were talking about C#, and methods in two different assemblies needed to mutually recursively call each other, I'd pull out the type signatures they both needed to know into a third, shared, assembly. I don't know however how well those concepts map to F#.
Definetely solution here would use module signatures. A signature file contains information about the public signatures of a set of F# program elements, such as types, namespaces, and modules.
For each F# code file, you can have a signature file, which is a file that has the same name as the code file but with the extension .fsi instead of .fs.
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.