Search Results

Search found 1030 results on 42 pages for 'refactoring'.

Page 6/42 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

• How can I refactor client side functionality to create a product line-like generic design?

  - by Nupul

  Assume the following situation similar to that of Stack Overflow: I have a system with a front-end that can perform various manipulations on the data (by sending messages to REST back-end): Posting Editing and deleting Adding labels and tags Now in the first version we created it well modularized but the need as of now for 'evolving' the system similar to Stack Overflow. My question is how best to separate the commonality and how to incorporate the variability with respect to the following: Commonality: The above 'functionalities' and sending/receiving the data from the server Look and feel (also a variability as explained below) HTTP verbs associated with the above actions Variability: The RESTful URLs where the requests are sent The text/style of the UI (the commonality is analogous to Stack Overflow - the functionality of upvotes, posting a question remains the same, but the words, the icons, the look and feel is still different across sites) I think this is entirely a client-side code organization/refactoring issue. I'm heavily using jQuery, javascript and backbone for front-end development. My question is how best should I isolate the same to be able to create multiple such aspects to the tool we are currently working on?

  Read the article

• Refactor or Concentrate on Completing App

  - by Jiew Meng

  Would you refactor your app as you go or focus on completing app first? Refactoring will mean progress of app app will slow down. Completing app will mean you get a possibly very hard to maintain app later on? The app is a personal project. I don't really know how to answer "What drives the functionality and design", but I guess it's to solve inefficiencies in current software out there. I like minimal easy to use software too. So I am removing some features and add some that I feel will help.

  Read the article

• BDD: Getting started

  - by thom

  I'm starting with BDD and this is my story: Feature: Months and days to days In order to see months and days as days As a date conversion fan I need a webpage where users can enter days and months and convert them to days. I have some doubts ... Should I write my scenarios before coding anything or should I first write a scenario and then write code, write a scenario again and then write code, and so on ... ? If I should write my scenarios before, can my steps be approved and production code still does not get done? When should I do refactoring on my code? After the feature is done or after each scenario implementation?

  Read the article

• Self-documenting code vs Javadocs?

  - by Andiaz

  Recently I've been working on refactoring parts of the code base I'm currently dealing with - not only to understand it better myself, but also to make it easier for others who are working on the code. I tend to lean on the side of thinking that self-documenting code is nice. I just think it's cleaner and if the code speaks for itself, well... That's great. On the other hand we have documentation such as javadocs. I like this as well, but there's a certain risk that comments here gets outdated (as well as comments in general of course). However, if they are up-to-date they can be extremely useful of say, understanding a complex algorithm. What are the best practices for this? Where do you draw the line between self-documenting code and javadocs?

  Read the article

• Good way to extract strings to resource

  - by Bart Friederichs

  I am using Visual Studio 2010 and we just decided to get started on localization of our code. We want to use the per-form resource file in combination with a separate resource file for static strings, called strings.resx. I was wondering if there is a good way to extra static strings (we already have quite some code we need to translate) to the strings.resx file? I have tried this plugin: Resource Refactoring 2010, but it doesn't work completely. It creates the correct new resource, but the strings aren't refactored in the code. Also, the tool seems to be abandoned by its developer. Is there a good plugin that can do this?

  Read the article

• Is there a PHP refactoring tool to tell what functions are never called?

  - by ae

  I have a large codebase which has suffered many changes over the years. I would like to remove the functions that are no longer called or relevant. Is there a tool that will analysis the codebase and determine if a method is ever used? I'm also using phpunit/xdebug which reports which functions have not been run for the unit tests, however coverage is only at 55% and will require a massive amount of work to bring it up to 100% (I'm working on it!). Anything that was a command line tool would be extra good as I could hook it into hudson (CI).

  Read the article

• How to take advantage of an auto-property when refactoring this .Net 1.1 sample?

  - by Hamish Grubijan

  I see a lot of legacy .Net 1.1-style code at work like in example below, which I would like to shrink with the help of an auto-property. This will help many classes shrink by 30-40%, which I think would be good. public int MyIntThingy { get { return _myIntThingy; } set { _myIntThingy = value; } } private int _myIntThingy = -1; This would become: public int MyIntThingy { get; set; } And the only question is - where do I set MyIntThingy = -1;? If I wrote the class from the start, then I would have a better idea, but I did not. An obvious answer would be: put it in the constructor. Trouble is: there are many constructors in this class. Watching the initialization to -1 in the debugger, I see it happen (I believe) before the constructor gets called. It is almost as if I need to use a static constructor as described here: http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/uploadfile/cupadhyay/staticconstructors11092005061428am/staticconstructors.aspx except that my variables are not static. Java's static initializer comes to mind, but again - my variables are not static. http://www.glenmccl.com/tip_003.htm I want to make stylistic but not functional changes to this class. As crappy as it is, it has been tested and working for a few years now. breaking the functionality would be bad. So ... I am looking for shorter, sweeter, cuter, and yet EQUIVALENT code. Let me know if you have questions.

  Read the article

• Is it possible to create a domain model for legacy code without refactoring?

  - by plaureano

  I currently have a client that wants me to 'abstract' out a domain model from the existing code but they specifically said that I shouldn't refactor the existing code itself. My question is 1) whether or not this is advisable and 2) what techniques would you apply in this scenario if you can't refactor the code yet they expect you to come up with a model for it? (EDIT: I can't quite put my finger on it, but somehow, not being able to refactor in this case just feels wrong. Has anyone else run into this type of scenario?)

  Read the article

• Refactoring code/consolidating functions (e.g. nested for-loop order)

  - by bmay2

  Just a little background: I'm making a program where a user inputs a skeleton text, two numbers (lower and upper limit), and a list of words. The outputs are a series of modifications on the skeleton text. Sample inputs: text = "Player # likes @." (replace # with inputted integers and @ with words in list) lower = 1 upper = 3 list = "apples, bananas, oranges" The user can choose to iterate over numbers first: Player 1 likes apples. Player 2 likes apples. Player 3 likes apples. Or words first: Player 1 likes apples. Player 1 likes bananas. Player 1 likes oranges. I chose to split these two methods of outputs by creating a different type of dictionary based on either number keys (integers inputted by the user) or word keys (from words in the inputted list) and then later iterating over the values in the dictionary. Here are the two types of dictionary creation: def numkey(dict): # {1: ['Player 1 likes apples', 'Player 1 likes...' ] } text, lower, upper, list = input_sort(dict) d = {} for num in range(lower,upper+1): l = [] for i in list: l.append(text.replace('#', str(num)).replace('@', i)) d[num] = l return d def wordkey(dict): # {'apples': ['Player 1 likes apples', 'Player 2 likes apples'..] } text, lower, upper, list = input_sort(dict) d = {} for i in list: l = [] for num in range(lower,upper+1): l.append(text.replace('#', str(num)).replace('@', i)) d[i] = l return d It's fine that I have two separate functions for creating different types of dictionaries but I see a lot of repetition between the two. Is there any way I could make one dictionary function and pass in different values to it that would change the order of the nested for loops to create the specific {key : value} pairs I'm looking for? I'm not sure how this would be done. Is there anything related to functional programming or other paradigms that might help with this? The question is a little abstract and more stylistic/design-oriented than anything.

  Read the article

• Can I improve performance by refactoring SQL commands into classes?

  - by Matthew Jones

  Currently, my entire website does updating from SQL parameterized queries. It works, we've had no problems with it, but it can occasionally be very slow. I was wondering if it makes sense to refactor some of these SQL commands into classes so that we would not have to hit the database so often. I understand hitting the database is generally the slowest part of any web application For example, say we have a class structure like this: Project (comprised of) Tasks (comprised of) Assignments Where Project, Task, and Assignment are classes. At certain points in the site you are only working on one project at a time, and so creating a Project class and passing it among pages (using Session, Profile, something else) might make sense. I imagine this class would have a Save() method to save value changes. Does it make sense to invest the time into doing this? Under what conditions might it be worth it?

  Read the article

• Can I improve performance by refactoring SQL commands into C# classes?

  - by Matthew Jones

  Currently, my entire website does updating from SQL parameterized queries. It works, we've had no problems with it, but it can occasionally be very slow. I was wondering if it makes sense to refactor some of these SQL commands into classes so that we would not have to hit the database so often. I understand hitting the database is generally the slowest part of any web application For example, say we have a class structure like this: Project (comprised of) Tasks (comprised of) Assignments Where Project, Task, and Assignment are classes. At certain points in the site you are only working on one project at a time, and so creating a Project class and passing it among pages (using Session, Profile, something else) might make sense. I imagine this class would have a Save() method to save value changes. Does it make sense to invest the time into doing this? Under what conditions might it be worth it?

  Read the article

• How do I disable automatic save after refactoring in Eclipse?

  - by Michael Hackner

  When I ran the Inline and Extract Local Variable refactorings, Eclipse saved my file immediately after. Also, Undoing/Redoing these refactorings resaved the file each time. How can I disable this behavior? Secondary question: Running Extract Method didn’t automatically save the file. Why the inconsistent behavior?

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection: What's wrong with good old-fashioned refactoring?

  - by Chuck

  DI creates an extra layer of abstraction so that if your implementation class ever changes you can simply plug in a different class with the same interface. But why not simply refactor when you want to use a different implementation class? Other languages like Python and Ruby work fine this way. Why not Java?

  Read the article

• How would you rewrite/refactor this ?

  - by frostings

  Old application that is used by 50-60.000 paying customers. Company is several hundred people big. Application has a lot of business critical code (30% of all code) written in classic asp. Application has a lot more .net code. Application has a COM+ bridge for enabling asp to "talk" to .net Organization lacks some/a lot knowledge on what is causing the 10-20% server-reset per day (might be due to COM+ ?) There is no red line through the application; no architecture, no real patterns etc. The application has been like this for at least 5 years. The asp code base is increasing, slowly but certainly. I have read refactoring stories and I have knowledge on why you some of the times should not re-write a system. I would love for the old asp code to vanish as well as the COM+ component. But the pain is that no one really knows what is going on inside the asp classic code and the attitude inside all the teams are "this is just how it is". Down the line, this causes a lot of other issues like recruiting, dev effeciency, business needs that cannot be met, scale etc. With these little facts, does that justify a re-write of the asp code and the removal of the COM+ component ? How would you go about it ?

  Read the article

• What can be the cause of new bugs appearing somewhere else when a known bug is solved?

  - by MainMa

  During a discussion, one of my colleagues told that he has some difficulties with his current project while trying to solve bugs. "When I solve one bug, something else stops working elsewhere", he said. I started to think about how this could happen, but can't figure it out. I have sometimes similar problems when I am too tired/sleepy to do the work correctly and to have an overall view of the part of the code I was working on. Here, the problem seems to be for a few days or weeks, and is not related to the focus of my colleague. I can also imagine this problem arising on a very large project, very badly managed, where teammates don't have any idea of who does what, and what effect on other's work can have a change they are doing. This is not the case here neither: it's a rather small project with only one developer. It can also be an issue with old, badly maintained and never documented codebase, where the only developers who can really imagine the consequences of a change had left the company years ago. Here, the project just started, and the developer doesn't use anyone's codebase. So what can be the cause of such issue on a fresh, small-size codebase written by a single developer who stays focused on his work? What may help? Unit tests (there are none)? Proper architecture (I'm pretty sure that the codebase has no architecture at all and was written with no preliminary thinking), requiring the whole refactoring? Pair programming? Something else?

  Read the article

• Naming a class that processes orders

  - by p.campbell

  I'm in the midst of refactoring a project. I've recently read Clean Code, and want to heed some of the advice within, with particular interest in Single Responsibility Principle (SRP). Currently, there's a class called OrderProcessor in the context of a manufacturing product order system. This class is currently performs the following routine every n minutes: check database for newly submitted + unprocessed orders (via a Data Layer class already, phew!) gather all the details of the orders mark them as in-process iterate through each to: perform some integrity checking call a web service on a 3rd party system to place the order check status return value of the web service for success/fail email somebody if web service returns fail constantly log to a text file on each operation or possible fail point I've started by breaking out this class into new classes like: OrderService - poor name. This is the one that wakes up every n minutes OrderGatherer - calls the DL to get the order from the database OrderIterator (? seems too forced or poorly named) - OrderPlacer - calls web service to place the order EmailSender Logger I'm struggling to find good names for each class, and implementing SRP in a reasonable way. How could this class be separated into new class with discrete responsibilities?

  Read the article

• How to refactor a myriad of similar classes

  - by TobiMcNamobi

  I'm faced with similar classes A1, A2, ..., A100. Believe it or not but yeah, there are roughly hundred classes that almost look the same. None of these classes are unit tested (of course ;-) ). Each of theses classes is about 50 lines of code which is not too much by itself. Still this is way too much duplicated code. I consider the following options: Writing tests for A1, ..., A100. Then refactor by creating an abstract base class AA. Pro: I'm (near to totally) safe by the tests that nothing goes wrong. Con: Much effort. Duplication of test code. Writing tests for A1, A2. Abstracting the duplicated test code and using the abstraction to create the rest of the tests. Then create AA as in 1. Pro: Less effort than in 1 but maintaining a similar degree of safety. Con: I find generalized test code weird; it often seems ... incoherent (is this the right word?). Normally I prefer specialized test code for specialized classes. But that requires a good design which is my goal of this whole refactoring. Writing AA first, testing it with mock classes. Then inheriting A1, ..., A100 successively. Pro: Fastest way to eliminate duplicates. Con: Most Ax classes look very much the same. But if not, there is the danger of changing the code by inheriting from AA. Other options ... At first I went for 3. because the Ax classes are really very similar to each other. But now I'm a bit unsure if this is the right way (from a unit testing enthusiast's perspective).

  Read the article

• Which approach is the most maintainable?

  - by 2rs2ts

  When creating a product which will inherently suffer from regression due to OS updates, which of these is the preferable approach when trying to reduce maintenance cost and the likelihood of needing refactoring, when considering the task of interpreting system state and settings for a lay user? Delegate the responsibility of interpreting the results of inspecting the system to the modules which perform these tasks, or, Separate the concerns of interpretation and inspection into two modules? The first obviously creates a blob in which a lot of code would be verbose, redundant, and hard to grok; the second creates a strong coupling in which the interpretation module essentially has to know what it expects from inspection routines and will have to adapt to changes to the OS just as much as the inspection will. I would normally choose the second option for the separation of concerns, foreseeing the possibility that inspection routines could be re-used, but a developer updating the product to deal with a new OS feature or something would have to not only write an inspection routine but also write an interpretation routine and link the two correctly - and it gets worse for a developer who has to change which inspection routines are used to get a certain system setting, or worse yet, has to fix an inspection routine which broke after an OS patch. I wonder, is it better to have to patch one package a lot or two packages, each somewhat less so?

  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

• How to implement isValid correctly?

  - by Songo

  I'm trying to provide a mechanism for validating my object like this: class SomeObject { private $_inputString; private $_errors=array(); public function __construct($inputString) { $this->_inputString = $inputString; } public function getErrors() { return $this->_errors; } public function isValid() { $isValid = preg_match("/Some regular expression here/", $this->_inputString); if($isValid==0){ $this->_errors[]= 'Error was found in the input'; } return $isValid==1; } } Then when I'm testing my code I'm doing it like this: $obj = new SomeObject('an INVALID input string'); $isValid = $obj->isValid(); $errors=$obj->getErrors(); $this->assertFalse($isValid); $this->assertNotEmpty($errors); Now the test passes correctly, but I noticed a design problem here. What if the user called $obj->getErrors() before calling $obj->isValid()? The test will fail because the user has to validate the object first before checking the error resulting from validation. I think this way the user depends on a sequence of action to work properly which I think is a bad thing because it exposes the internal behaviour of the class. How do I solve this problem? Should I tell the user explicitly to validate first? Where do I mention that? Should I change the way I validate? Is there a better solution for this? UPDATE: I'm still developing the class so changes are easy and renaming functions and refactoring them is possible.

  Read the article

• Dealing with bilingual(spoken language) code?

  - by user1525

  So I've got to work with this set of code here for a re-write, and it's written by people who speak both English and French. Here's a snapshot of what I'm talking about (only, about 4000 lines of this) function refreshDest(FormEnCours,dest,hotel,duration) { var GateEnCours; GateEnCours = FormEnCours.gateway_dep.options[FormEnCours.gateway_dep.selectedIndex].value; if (GateEnCours == "") { FormEnCours.dest_dep.length = 0 } else if (FormEnCours.dest_dep != null && FormEnCours.dest_dep.type && FormEnCours.dest_dep.value != "ALL") { if (Destinations[GateEnCours] == null || Destinations[GateEnCours].length == 0) { RetreiveDestinations(FormEnCours,GateEnCours,dest,hotel,duration); } else { refreshDestSuite(FormEnCours,GateEnCours,dest,hotel,duration); } } } function refreshDuration(FormEnCours,GateEnCours,DestEnCours,hotel,duration) { // Refresh durations var FlagMoinsDe5Jours = ""; var Flag5a10jours = ""; var Flag11a16jours = ""; var FlagPlusDe16Jours = ""; ....... Is there any approach that I, as a speaker of only one of these languages, can use to make this entire process a lot less painful for both figuring out what everything does, and then refactoring it?

  Read the article

• What to do when you inherit an unmaintainable codebase?

  - by GordonM

  I'm currently working at a company with 2 other PHP developers aside from me, and 1 junior developer. The senior developer who originally built the system we're all working on has resigned and will only be here for a matter of weeks. The other developer, who is the only other guy who knows anything about the system, is unhappy here and is looking for a new job. I'm very real danger of being left behind as the only experienced developer on this codebase. Since I've joined this company I've tried to push for better coding standards, project documentation, etc and I do think I've made some headway, but the vast majority of the code is simply unmaintainable and uncommented. A lot of this has to do with the need to get things done fast at points in the project before I joined, but now the technical debt is enormous, even with the two developers who do understand the system on board. Without them, it will simply be impossible to do anything with it. The senior developer is working on trying to at least comment all his code before he leaves but I think the codebase is simply too vast to properly document in the remaining time. Besides, when he does comment it still doesn't make things as clear as it could. If the system was better organized and documented I could probably start refactoring it incrementally, but the whole thing is so tightly coupled that it's very difficult to make any changes in one module without having unintended knock-on effects in other modules. Naturally, there's no unit tests either, and I honestly don't think this codebase could possibly be unit tested anyway given how it's implemented. There also never seems to be enough time to get things done even with 3 developers and 1 junior developer. With one developer and one junior, neither of which had significant input into the early design of the system, I don't see how we could possibly get anything done with keeping the current system working, implementing new features as needed and developing a replacement for the current codebase that is better organized. Is there an approach I can take to cope with this situation, or should I be getting my own CV in order as well at this point? If it was just me and the junior designer who would be left I'd go for the latter option almost without question. However, there's a team of front-end developers and content managers as well, and I'm worried what would become of them if I left and put them in a position where there would be no developers at all. The department might just be closed down altogether under such circumstances, and then I'd have their unemployment on my conscience as well!

  Read the article

• How to refactor a method which breaks "The law of Demeter" principle?

  - by dreza

  I often find myself breaking this principle (not intentially, just through bad design). However recently I've seen a bit of code that I'm not sure of the best approach. I have a number of classes. For simplicity I've taken out the bulk of the classes methods etc public class Paddock { public SoilType Soil { get; private set; } // a whole bunch of other properties around paddock information } public class SoilType { public SoilDrainageType Drainage { get; private set; } // a whole bunch of other properties around soil types } public class SoilDrainageType { // a whole bunch of public properties that expose soil drainage values public double GetProportionOfDrainage(SoilType soil, double blockRatio) { // This method does a number of calculations using public properties // exposed off SoilType as well as the blockRatio value in some conditions } } In the code I have seen in a number of places calls like so paddock.Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(paddock.Soil, paddock.GetBlockRatio()); or within the block object itself in places it's Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(this.Soil, this.GetBlockRatio()); Upon reading this seems to break "The Law of Demeter" in that I'm chaining together these properties to access the method I want. So my thought in order to adjust this was to create public methods on SoilType and Paddock that contains wrappers i.e. on paddock it would be public class Paddock { public double GetProportionOfDrainage() { return Soil.GetProportionOfDrainage(this.GetBlockRatio()); } } on the SoilType it would be public class SoilType { public double GetProportionOfDrainage(double blockRatio) { return Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(this, blockRatio); } } so now calls where it used would be simply // used outside of paddock class where we can access instances of Paddock paddock.GetProportionofDrainage() or this.GetProportionOfDrainage(); // if used within Paddock class This seemed like a nice alternative. However now I have a concern over how would I enforce this usage and stop anyone else from writing code such as paddock.Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(paddock.Soil, paddock.GetBlockRatio()); rather than just paddock.GetProportionOfDrainage(); I need the properties to remain public at this stage as they are too ingrained in usage throughout the code block. However I don't really want a mixture of accessing the method on DrainageType directly as that seems to defeat the purpose altogether. What would be the appropiate design approach in this situation? I can provide more information as required to better help in answers. Is my thoughts on refactoring this even appropiate or should is it best to leave it as is and use the property chaining to access the method as and when required?

  Read the article

• Ruby refactoring in VIM

  - by fregas

  Hi, I'm a big fan of Resharper in visual studio. It has some awesome refactoring tools, similar to what you get in Ecplipse for Java. Is there anything like this for Ruby? Better yet, is there a plugin or something into VIM that does refactoring for Ruby code like renaming all instances of a method or variable, renaming classes sitewide, etc? thanks, craig

  Read the article

• how to evaluate own project

  - by gruszczy

  I am working on a open source project in pure C, that I have started some time ago, but only recently found time to add some features. I can clearly some weaknesses of my old design, so I am trying to refactor my old code. I have no idea however, how to evaluate properly my new code. Do you know about any techniques or tools for code evaluation? I am pretty good with object oriented design, but for about three years I had no contact with purely structural one. Therefore I don't have enough experience, to be able to discern between good and bad design choices.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >