Search Results

Search found 674 results on 27 pages for 'refactor'.

Page 14/27 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

• How to drastically improve code coverage?

  - by Peter Kofler

  I'm tasked with getting a legacy application under unit test. First some background about the application: It's a 600k LOC Java RCP code base with these major problems massive code duplication no encapsulation, most private data is accessible from outside, some of the business data also made singletons so it's not just changeable from outside but also from everywhere. no business model, business data is stored in Object[] and double[][], so no OO. There is a good regression test suite and an efficient QA team is testing and finding bugs. I know the techniques how to get it under test from classic books, e.g. Michael Feathers, but that's too slow. As there is a working regression test system I'm not afraid to aggressively refactor the system to allow unit tests to be written. How should I start to attack the problem to get some coverage quickly, so I'm able to show progress to management (and in fact to start earning from safety net of JUnit tests)? I do not want to employ tools to generate regression test suites, e.g. AgitarOne, because these tests do not test if something is correct.

  Read the article

• Handy Tool for Code Cleanup: Automated Class Element Reordering

  - by Geertjan

  You're working on an application and this thought occurs to you: "Wouldn't it be cool if I could define rules specifying that all static members, initializers, and fields should always be at the top of the class? And then, whenever I wanted to, I'd start off a process that would actually do the reordering for me, moving class elements around, based on the rules I had defined, automatically, across one or more classes or packages or even complete code bases, all at the same time?" Well, here you go: That's where you can set rules for the ordering of your class members. A new hint (i.e., new in NetBeans IDE 7.3), which you need to enable yourself because by default it is disabled, let's the IDE show a hint in the Java Editor whenever there's code that isn't ordered according to the rules you defined: The first element in a file that the Java Editor identifies as not matching your rules gets a lightbulb hint shown in the left sidebar: Then, when you click the lightbulb, automatically the file is reordered according to your defined rules. However, it's not much fun going through each file individually to fix class elements as shown above. For that reason, you can go to "Refactor | Inspect and Transform". There, in the "Inspect and Transform" dialog, you can choose the hint shown above and then specify that you'd like it to be applied to a scope of your choice, which could be a file, a package, a project, combinations of these, or all of the open projects, as shown below: Then, when Inspect is clicked, the Refactoring window shows all the members that are ordered in ways that don't conform to your rules: Click "Do Refactoring" above and, in one fell swoop, all the class elements within the selected scope are ordered according to your rules.

  Read the article

• Working with fubar/refuctored code

  - by Keyo

  I'm working with some code which was written by a contractor who left a year ago leaving a number of projects with buggy, disgustingly bad code. This is what I call cowboy PHP, say no more. Ideally I'd like to leave the project as is and never touch it again. Things break, requirements change and it needs to be maintained. Part A needs to be changed. There is a bug I cannot reproduce. Part A is connect to parts B D and E. This kind of work gives me a headache and makes me die a little inside. It kills my motivation and productivity. To be honest I'd say it's affecting my mental health. Perhaps being at the start of my career I'm being naive to think production code should be reasonably clean. I would like to hear from anyone else who has been in this situation before. What did you do to get out of it? I'm thinking long term I might have to find another job. Edit I've moved on from this company now, to a place where idiots are not employed. The code isn't perfect but it's at least manageable and peer reviewed. There are a lot of people in the comments below telling me that software is messy like this. Sure I don't agree with the way some programmers do things but this code was seriously mangled. The guy who wrote it tried to reinvent every wheel he could, and badly. He stopped getting work from us because of his bad code that nobody on the team could stand. If it were easy to refactor I would have. Eventually after many 'just do this small 10minute change' situations had ballooned into hours of lost time (regardless of who on the team was doing the work) my boss finally caved in it was rewritten.

  Read the article

• How to determine which source files are required for an Eclipse run configuration

  - by isme

  When writing code in an Eclipse project, I'm usually quite messy and undisciplined in how I create and organize my classes, at least in the early hacky and experimental stages. In particular, I create more than one class with a main method for testing different ideas that share most of the same classes. If I come up with something like a useful app, I can export it to a runnable jar so I can share it with friends. But this simply packs up the whole project, which can become several megabytes big if I'm relying on large library such as httpclient. Also, if I decide to refactor my lump of code into several projects once I work out what works, and I can't remember which source files are used in a particular run configuration, all I can do it copy the main class to a new project and then keep copying missing types till the new project compiles. Is there a way in Eclipse to determine which classes are actually used in a particular run configuration?

  Read the article

• A new tool in beta: Conflict Alert

  - by Alex Davies

  You know that manual merges are a real pain? Well, I’ve just released a Visual Studio extension that makes manual merges a thing of the past. No source control system can automatically merge two edits to the same line of code. Conflict Alert solves this by warning you that you are heading down a path that will cause a manual merge later down the line. You choose whether you want to carry on, or talk to your teammate and find out what they are doing. Have you ever warned your teammates that you are doing a big refactor, and that they should ‘keep out of class X’? Conflict Alert tells them for you automatically by highlighting the sections of code that you have edited.   It doesn’t need to connect to your source control system, so it works no matter which you use. Its a first release, and I hope it is useful. Any feedback would be gratefully received. Grab a teammate and try it now.

  Read the article

• Inheritance vs composition in this example

  - by Gerenuk

  I'm wondering about the differences between inheritance and composition examined with concrete code relevant arguments. In particular my example was Inheritance: class Do: def do(self): self.doA() self.doB() def doA(self): pass def doB(self): pass class MyDo(Do): def doA(self): print("A") def doB(self): print("B") x=MyDo() vs Composition: class Do: def __init__(self, a, b): self.a=a self.b=b def do(self): self.a.do() self.b.do() x=Do(DoA(), DoB()) (Note for composition I'm missing code so it's not actually shorter) Can you name particular advantages of one or the other? I'm think of: composition is useful if you plan to reuse DoA() in another context inheritance seems easier; no additional references/variables/initialization method doA can access internal variable (be it a good or bad thing :) ) inheritance groups logic A and B together; even though you could equally introduce a grouped delegate object inheritance provides a preset class for the users; with composition you'd have to encapsule the initialization in a factory so that the user does have to assemble the logic and the skeleton ... Basically I'd like to examine the implications of inheritance vs composition. I heard often composition is prefered, but I'd like to understand that by example. Of course I can always start with one and refactor later to the other.

  Read the article

• How to rename everything matching a certain string in a folder

  - by lostiniceland

  Hello Everyone I am running Linux and I have some basic console knowledge but my current problem is quite difficult and I dont know how to achieve this. I want/need to rename everything within a folder that matches a given string. By everything I mean folders/files content within a file content in hidden files Basically I want to refactor a Java-project. Sure, I could use Eclipse to handle the replacing, but this leaves out the folders or resources outside of my workspace. I was thinking of a script that could do the job for me but this seems rather tricky. For instance when it comes to folder-/file-rename I want to replace only the part of the name that matches my string, the rest should remain untouched. Maybe someone already has something like this in his/her script-collection :-) Thanks in advance Marc

  Read the article

• How to rename everything matching a certain string in a folder

  - by lostiniceland

  Hello Everyone I am running Linux and I have some basic console knowledge but my current problem is quite difficult and I dont know how to achieve this. I want/need to rename everything within a folder that matches a given string. By everything I mean folders/files content within a file content in hidden files Basically I want to refactor a Java-project. Sure, I could use Eclipse to handle the replacing, but this leaves out the folders or resources outside of my workspace. I was thinking of a script that could do the job for me but this seems rather tricky. For instance when it comes to folder-/file-rename I want to replace only the part of the name that matches my string, the rest should remain untouched. Maybe someone already has something like this in his/her script-collection :-) Thanks in advance Marc

  Read the article

• Implementing Circle Physics in Java

  - by Shijima

  I am working on a simple physics based game where 2 balls bounce off each other. I am following a tutorial, 2-Dimensional Elastic Collisions Without Trigonometry, for the collision reactions. I am using Vector2 from the LIBGDX library to handle vectors. I am a bit confused on how to implement step 6 in Java from the tutorial. Below is my current code, please note that the code strictly follows the tutorial and there are redundant pieces of code which I plan to refactor later. Note: refrences to this refer to ball 1, and ball refers to ball 2. /* * Step 1 * * Find the Normal, Unit Normal and Unit Tangential vectors */ Vector2 n = new Vector2(this.position[0] - ball.position[0], this.position[1] - ball.position[1]); Vector2 un = n.normalize(); Vector2 ut = new Vector2(-un.y, un.x); /* * Step 2 * * Create the initial (before collision) velocity vectors */ Vector2 v1 = this.velocity; Vector2 v2 = ball.velocity; /* * Step 3 * * Resolve the velocity vectors into normal and tangential components */ float v1n = un.dot(v1); float v1t = ut.dot(v1); float v2n = un.dot(v2); float v2t = ut.dot(v2); /* * Step 4 * * Find the new tangential Velocities after collision */ float v1tPrime = v1t; float v2tPrime = v2t; /* * Step 5 * * Find the new normal velocities */ float v1nPrime = v1n * (this.mass - ball.mass) + (2 * ball.mass * v2n) / (this.mass + ball.mass); float v2nPrime = v2n * (ball.mass - this.mass) + (2 * this.mass * v1n) / (this.mass + ball.mass); /* * Step 6 * * Convert the scalar normal and tangential velocities into vectors??? */

  Read the article

• How to write PowerShell code part 2 (Using function)

  - by ybbest

  In the last post, I have showed you how to use external configuration file in your PowerShell script. In this post, I will show you how to create PowerShell function and call external PowerShell script.You can download the script here. 1. In the original script, I create the site directly using New-SPSite command. I will refactor it so that I will create a new function to create the site using New-SPSite. The PowerShell function is quite similar to a C# method. You put your function parameters in () and separate each parameter by a comma (,). Then you put your method body in {}. function add ([int] $num1 , [int] $num2){ $total=$num1+$num2 #Return $total $total } 2. The difference is you do not need semi-colon (;) at the end of each statement and when calling the method you do not need comma (,) to separate each parameter. function add ([int] $num1 , [int] $num2){ $total=$num1+$num2 #Return $total $total } #Calling the function [int] $num1=3 [int] $num2=4 $d= add $num1 $num2 Write-Host $d 3. If you like to return anything from the function, you just need to type in the object you like to return, not need to type return .e.g. $ObjectToReturn not return $ObjectToReturn

  Read the article

• design in agile process

  - by ying

  Recently I had an interview with dev team in a company. The team uses agile + TDD. The code exercise implements a video rental store which generates statement to calc total rental fee for each type of video (new release, children, etc) for a customer. The existing code use object like: Statement to generate statement and calc fee where big switch statement sits to use enum to determine how to calc rental fee customer holds a list of rentals movie base class and derived class for each type of movie (NEW, CHILDREN, ACTION, etc) The code originally doesn't compile as the owner was assumed to be hit by a bus. So here is what I did: outlined the improvement over object model to have better responsibility for each class. use strategy pattern to replace switch statement and weave them in config But the team says it's waste of time because there is no requirement for it and UAT test suite works and is the only guideline goes into architecture decision. The underlying story is just to get pricing feature out and not saying anything about how to do it. So the discussion is focused on why should time be spent on refactor the switch statement. In my understanding, agile methodology doesn't mean zero design upfront and such code smell should be avoided at the beginning. Also any unit/UAT test suite won't detect such code smell, otherwise sonar, findbugs won't exist. Here I want to ask: is there such a thing called agile design in the agile methodology? Just like agile documentation. how to define agile design upfront? how to know enough is enough? In my understanding, ballpark architecture and data contract among components should be defined before/when starting project, not the details. Am I right? anyone can explain what the team is really looking for in this kind of setup? is it design aspect or agile aspect? how to implement minimum viable product concept in the agile process in the real world project? Is it must that you feel embarrassed to be MVP?

  Read the article

• How to write PowerShell code part 2 (Using function)

  - by ybbest

  In the last post, I have showed you how to use external configuration file in your PowerShell script. In this post, I will show you how to create PowerShell function and call external PowerShell script.You can download the script here. 1. In the original script, I create the site directly using New-SPSite command. I will refactor it so that I will create a new function to create the site using New-SPSite. The PowerShell function is quite similar to a C# method. You put your function parameters in () and separate each parameter by a comma (,). Then you put your method body in {}. function add ([int] $num1 , [int] $num2){ $total=$num1+$num2 #Return $total $total } 2. The difference is you do not need semi-colon (;) at the end of each statement and when calling the method you do not need comma (,) to separate each parameter. function add ([int] $num1 , [int] $num2){ $total=$num1+$num2 #Return $total $total } #Calling the function [int] $num1=3 [int] $num2=4 $d= add $num1 $num2 Write-Host $d 3. If you like to return anything from the function, you just need to type in the object you like to return, not need to type return .e.g. $ObjectToReturn not return $ObjectToReturn

  Read the article

• Why is math taught "backwards"? [closed]

  - by Yorirou

  A friend of mine showed me a pretty practical Java example. It was a riddle. I got excited and quickly solved the problem. After it, he showed me the mathematical explanation of my solution (he proved why is it good), and it was completely clear for me. This seems like natural approach for me: solve problems, and generalize. This is very familiar to me, I do it all the time when I am programming: I write a function. When I have to write a similar function, I generalize the problem, grab the generic parts, and refactor them to a function, and solve the original problems as a specialization of the general function. At the university (or at least where I study), things work backwards. The professors shows just the highest possible level of the solutions ("cryptic" mathematical formulas). My problem is that this is too abstract for me. There is no connection of my previous knowledge (== reality in my sense), so even if I can understand it, I can't really learn it properly. Others are learning these formulas word-by-word, and get good grades, since they can write exactly the same to the test, but this is not an option for me. I am a curious person, I can learn interesting things, but I can't learn just text. My brain is for storing toughts, not strings. There are proofs for the theories, but they are also really hard to understand because of this, and in most of the cases they are omitted. What is the reason for this? I don't understand why is it a good idea to show the really high level of abstraction and then leave the practical connections (or some important ideas / practical motivations) out?

  Read the article

• Adjusting the rate of movement of different objects on the same timer

  - by theUg

  I have a series of objects moving along the straight lines. I want to implement slight changes of velocity of each of the object. Constraint is existing model of animation. I am new to this, and not sure if it is the best way to accommodate varying speeds, but what do I know? It is a Java application that repaints the panel every time the timer expires. Timer is set via swing.Timer object that is set by timer delay constant. Every time the game is stepped objects’ coordinates advanced by an increment constant. Most of the objects are of the same class. Is there fairly easy way to refactor existing system to allow changing velocity for an individual object? Is there some obvious common solution I am not aware about? Idea I am having right now is to set timer delay fairly small, and only move objects every so many cycles of animation so that the apparent speed can be adjusted by varying how often they get moved. But that seems fairly involved, and I do not think it is the most elegant solution in terms of performance what with repainting the whole frame every 3-5 milliseconds. Can it be done by advancing the objects so many (varying) times during the certain interval (let’s say 35ms for something like 28fps), and use repaint() method to redraw just individual object? Do I need to mess with pausing animation for smoothness at higher redraw rates? Is it common practise to check for collision at larger step interval, but draw animation a lot more frequently?

  Read the article

• Best Architecture for ASP.NET WebForms Application

  - by stack man

  I have written an ASP.NET WebForms portal for a client. The project has kind of evolved rather than being properly planned and structured from the beginning. Consequently, all the code is mashed together within the same project and without any layers. The client is now happy with the functionality, so I would like to refactor the code such that I will be confident about releasing the project. As there seems to be many differing ways to design the architecture, I would like some opinions about the best approach to take. FUNCTIONALITY The portal allows administrators to configure HTML templates. Other associated "partners" will be able to display these templates by adding IFrame code to their site. Within these templates, customers can register and purchase products. An API has been implemented using WCF allowing external companies to interface with the system also. An Admin section allows Administrators to configure various functionality and view reports for each partner. The system sends out invoices and email notifications to customers. CURRENT ARCHITECTURE It is currently using EF4 to read/write to the database. The EF objects are used directly within the aspx files. This has facilitated rapid development while I have been writing the site but it is probably unacceptable to keep it like that as it is tightly coupling the db with the UI. Specific business logic has been added to partial classes of the EF objects. QUESTIONS The goal of refactoring will be to make the site scalable, easily maintainable and secure. 1) What kind of architecture would be best for this? Please describe what should be in each layer, whether I should use DTO's / POCO / Active Record pattern etc. 2) Is there a robust way to auto-generate DTO's / BOs so that any future enhancements will be simple to implement despite the extra layers? 3) Would it be beneficial to convert the project from WebForms to MVC?

  Read the article

• Code Clone Analysis on Rawr &ndash; Part 1

  - by Dylan Smith

  In this post we’ll take a look at the first result from the Code Clone Analysis, and do some refactoring to eliminate the duplication.  The first result indicated that it found an exact match repeated 14 times across the solution, with 18 lines of duplicated code in each of the 14 blocks.   Net Lines Of Code Deleted: 179     In this case the code in question was a bunch of classes representing the various Bosses.  Every Boss class has a constructor that initializes a whole bunch of properties of that boss, however, for most bosses a lot of these are simply set to 0’s.     Every Boss class inherits from the class MultiDiffBoss, so I simply moved all the initialization of the various properties to the base class constructor, and left it up to the Boss subclasses to only set those that are different than the default values. In this case there are actually 22 Boss subclasses, however, due to some inconsistencies in the code structure Code Clone only identified 14 of them as identical blocks.  Since I was in there refactoring the 14 identified already, it was pretty straightforward to identify the other 8 subclasses that had the same duplicated behavior and refactor those also.   Note: Code Clone Analysis is pretty slow right now.  It takes approx 1 min to build this solution, but it takes 9 mins to run Code Clone Analysis.  Personally, if the results are high quality I’m OK with it taking a long time to run since I don’t expect it’s something I would be running all that often.  However, it would be nice to be able to run it as part of a nightly build, but at this time I don’t believe it’s possible to run outside of Visual Studio due to a dependency on the meta-data available in the VS environment.

  Read the article

• Views : ViewControllers, many to one, or one to one?

  - by conor

  I have developed an Android application where, typically, each view (layout.xml) displayed on the screen has it's own corresponding fragment (for the purpose of this question I may refer to this as a ViewController). These views and Fragments/ViewControllers are appropriately named to reflect what they display. So this has the effect of allowing the programmer to easily pinpoint the files associated with what they see on any given screen. The above refers to the one to one part of my question. Please note that with the above there are a few exceptions where very similar is displayed on two views so the ViewController is used for two views. (Using a simple switch (type) to determine what layout.xml file to load) On the flip side. I am currently working on the iOS version of the same app, which I didn't develop. It seems that they are adopting more of a one-to-many (ViewController:View) approach. There appears to be one ViewController that handles the display logic for many different types of views. In the ViewController are an assortment of boolean flags and arrays of data (to be displayed) that are used to determine what view to load and how to display it. This seems very cumbersome to me and coupled with no comments/ambiguous variable names I am finding it very difficult to implement changes into the project. What do you guys think of the two approaches? Which one would you prefer? I'm really considering putting in some extra time at work to refactor the iOS into a more 1:1 oriented approach. My reasoning for 1:1 over M:1 is that of modularity and legibility. After all, don't some people measure the quality of code based on how easy it is for another developer to pick up the reigns or how easy it is to pull a piece of code and use it somewhere else?

  Read the article

• Designing and refactoring of payment logic

  - by jokklan

  Im currently working on an application that helps users to coordinate dinner clubs and all related accounting. (A dinner club is where people in a group, take turns to cook for the rest and then you pay a small amount to participate. This is pretty normal in dorms and colleges where im from). However there is some different models that all have a price and the accounting aspect is therefore a little spread. We both have DinnerClub, ShoppingItem and are about to implement the third Payment when users pay their debts (or get refunded for expenses). Each of these have a "price" attribute and a users expense (that he or she needs refunded) is calculated by the total of these "prices" minus what other users have bought and he or she have used/participated in. My question is then if someone have some hints to refactor this bring all this behavior together in one place? For now have i thought about a Transaction class that are responsible for this behaviour, but I'm a little worried about the performance impact on having to query for another polymorphic record each time i want to show the price on dinner clubs and shopping items (i have a standard index page with a list for both so it's a lot of extra records being queried)...

  Read the article

• Breaking up classes and methods into smaller units

  - by micahhoover

  During code reviews a couple devs have recommended I break up my methods into smaller methods. Their justification was (1) increased readability and (2) the back trace that comes back from production showing the method name is more specific to the line of code that failed. There may have also been some colorful words about functional programming. Additionally I think I may have failed an interview a while back because I didn't give an acceptable answer about when to break things up. My inclination is that when I see a bunch of methods in a class or across a bunch of files, it isn't clear to me how they flow together, and how many times each one gets called. I don't really have a good feel for the linearity of it as quickly just by eye-balling it. The other thing is a lot of people seem to place a premium of organization over content (e.g. 'Look at how organized my sock drawer is!' Me: 'Overall, I think I can get to my socks faster if you count the time it took to organize them'). Our business requirements are not very stable. I'm afraid that if the classes/methods are very granular it will take longer to refactor to requirement changes. I'm not sure how much of a factor this should be. Anyway, computer science is part art / part science, but I'm not sure how much this applies to this issue.

  Read the article

• Good design for class with similar constructors

  - by RustyTheBoyRobot

  I was reading this question and thought that good points were made, but most of the solutions involved renaming one of the methods. I am refactoring some poorly written code and I've run into this situation: public class Entity { public Entity(String uniqueIdentifier, boolean isSerialNumber) { if (isSerialNumber) { this.serialNumber = uniqueIdentifier; //Lookup other data } else { this.primaryKey = uniqueIdentifier; // Lookup other data with different query } } } The obvious design flaw is that someone needed two different ways to create the object, but couldn't overload the constructor since both identifiers were of the same type (String). Thus they added a flag to differentiate. So, my question is this: when this situation arises, what are good designs for differentiating between these two ways of instantiating an object? My First Thoughts You could create two different static methods to create your object. The method names could be different. This is weak because static methods don't get inherited. You could create different objects to force the types to be different (i.e., make a PrimaryKey class and a SerialNumber class). I like this because it seems to be a better design, but it also is a pain to refactor if serialNumber is a String everywhere else.

  Read the article

• Looking for a better Factory pattern (Java)

  - by Sam Goldberg

  After doing a rough sketch of a high level object model, I am doing iterative TDD, and letting the other objects emerge as a refactoring of the code (as it increases in complexity). (That whole approach may be a discussion/argument for another day.) In any case, I am at the point where I am looking to refactor code blocks currently in an if-else blocks into separate objects. This is because there is another another value combination which creates new set of logical sub-branches. To be more specific, this is a trading system feature, where buy orders have different behavior than sell orders. Responses to the orders have a numeric indicator field which describes some event that occurred (e.g. fill, cancel). The combination of this numeric indicator field plus whether it is a buy or sell, require different processing buy the code. Creating a family of objects to separate the code for the unique handling each of the combinations of the 2 fields seems like a good choice at this point. The way I would normally do this, is to create some Factory object which when called with the 2 relevant parameters (indicator, buysell), would return the correct subclass of the object. Some times I do this pattern with a map, which allows to look up a live instance (or constructor to use via reflection), and sometimes I just hard code the cases in the Factory class. So - for some reason this feels like not good design (e.g. one object which knows all the subclasses of an interface or parent object), and a bit clumsy. Is there a better pattern for solving this kind of problem? And if this factory method approach makes sense, can anyone suggest a nicer design?

  Read the article

• ReSharper 7.1 update

  - by TATWORTH

  Jet Brains have announced ReSharper 7.1: a considerable update to the powerful .NET developer productivity tool for Visual Studio. They invite you to download ReSharper 7.1 and take it for a free 30-day trial. I urge you to try this excellent Visual Studio add-on. Here is their announcement: Following this update, ReSharper 7 brings even more value to all .NET developers, such as more ways to refactor, inspect, clean up, review and generate code. Feature highlights of ReSharper 7 now include: Full integration with Visual Studio 2012 while maintaining support for Visual Studio 2005, 2008, and 2010.Performance and bug fixes: Since releasing version 7.0 this summer, we have fixed over 300 performance problems and bugs.New code inspections and contract annotations for a more robust .NET code quality analysis. Sharing ReSharper code inspection results with teammates has been streamlined as well for the purposes of code review.Improved tooling for .NET code maintenance including the top requested Extract Class refactoring that helps decrease code complexity, as well as a way to remove unused assembly references across the entire solution.Enhanced code formatter: We have implemented some of the most demanded code formatter improvements so far. For example, ReSharper 7.1 is able to format XML doc comments and chained method calls.Additional code exploration features helping visualize hierarchies of polymorphic members and CSS styles.An extended and fine-tuned code generation toolset. In terms of support for specific technologies and frameworks, ReSharper 7 is on the cutting edge as well, providing: Support for VB.NET refined with the Extract Class refactoring, new quick-fixes and improved IntelliSense.XAML support considerably enhanced in terms of code completion, typing assistance, naming style control, and code generation.An extensive pack of functionality for developers looking to create Windows Store applications for Windows 8.INotifyPropertyChanged interface support pack to improve productivity of Windows Forms, WPF and Silverlight application developers.Extended web development toolset, including improvements to JavaScript support, and initial support for ASP.NET 4.5 and ASP.NET MVC 4.Addition of two previously unsupported Microsoft development technologies: LightSwitch and SharePoint. For details on features and improvements in ReSharper 7 and a 30-day free trial, please read What's New in ReSharper 7.

  Read the article

• How do you track existing requirements over time?

  - by CaptainAwesomePants

  I'm a software engineer working on a complex, ongoing website. It has a lot of moving parts and a small team of UI designers and business folks adding new features and tweaking old ones. Over the last year or so, we've added hundreds of interesting little edge cases. Planning, implementing, and testing them is not a problem. The problem comes later, when we want to refactor or add another new feature. Nobody remembers half of the old features and edge cases from a year ago. When we want to add a new change, we notice that code does all sorts of things in there, and we're not entirely sure which things are intentional requirements and which are meaningless side effects. Did someone last year request that the login token was supposed to only be valid for 30 minutes, or did some programmers just pick a sensible default? Can we change it? Back when the product was first envisioned, we created some documentation describing how the site worked. Since then we created a few additional documents describing new features, but nobody ever goes back and updates those documents when new features are requested, so the only authoritative documentation is the code itself. But the code provides no justification, no reason for its actions: only the how, never the why. What do other long-running teams do to keep track of what the requirements were and why?

  Read the article

• How should I start refactoring my mostly-procedural C++ application?

  - by oob

  We have a program written in C++ that is mostly procedural, but we do use some C++ containers from the standard library (vector, map, list, etc). We are constantly making changes to this code, so I wouldn't call it a stagnant piece of legacy code that we can just wrap up. There are a lot of issues with this code making it harder and harder for us to make changes, but I see the three biggest issues being: Many of the functions do more (way more) than one thing We violate the DRY principle left and right We have global variables and global state up the wazoo. I was thinking we should attack areas 1 and 2 first. Along the way, we can "de-globalize" our smaller functions from the bottom up by passing in information that is currently global as parameters to the lower level functions from the higher level functions and then concentrate on figuring out how to removing the need for global variables as much as possible. I just finished reading Code Complete 2 and The Pragmatic Programmer, and I learned a lot, but I am feeling overwhelmed. I would like to implement unit testing, change from a procedural to OO approach, automate testing, use a better logging system, fully validate all input, implement better error handling and many other things, but I know if we start all this at once, we would screw ourselves. I am thinking the three I listed are the most important to start with. Any suggestions are welcome. We are a team of two programmers mostly with experience with in-house scripting. It is going to be hard to justify taking the time to refactor, especially if we can't bill the time to a client. Believe it or not, this project has been successful enough to keep us busy full time and also keep several consultants busy using it for client work.

  Read the article

• How to cut the line between quality and time?

  - by m3th0dman

  On one hand, I have been taught by various software engineering books ([1] as example) that my job as a programmer is to make the best possible software: great design, flexibility, to be easily maintained etc. One the other hand although I realize that I actually write software for money and not for entertainment, although is very nice to write good code and plan ahead and refactor after writing and ... I wonder if it is always best for the business (after all we should be responsible). Is the business always benefiting from a best code? Maybe I'm over-engineering something, and it's not always useful? So how should I know when to stop in the process to achieving the best possible code? I am sure that experience is something that makes a difference here, but I believe this cannot be the only answer. [1] Uncle Bob's in Clean Code says at page 6 about the fact that: They [managers] may defend the schedule and requirements with passion; but that’s their job. It’s your job to defend the code with equal passion.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >