Search Results

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

Page 9/27 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

• Automatically add links to class source files under a specified directory of an another project in V

  - by Binary255

  I want to share some class source files between two projects in Visual Studio 2008. I can't create a project for the common parts and reference it (see my comment if you are curious to why). I've managed to share some source files, but it could be a lot more neat. I've created a test solution called Commonality. The Solution Explorer of the Commonality solution which contains project One and Two: What I like: All class files under the Common folder of project One are automatically added to project Two by linking. It's mostly the same as if I would have chosen Add / Existing Item... : Add As Link on each new class source file. It's clear that these files have been linked in. The shortcut arrow symbol is marking each file icon. What I do not like: The file and folder tree structure under Common of project One isn't included. It's all flat. The linked source files are shown under the project root of project Two. It would look much less cluttered if they were located under Common like in project One. The file tree structure of the Commonality solution which contains project One and Two: $ tree /F /A Folder PATH listing for volume Cystem Volume serial number is 0713370 1337:F6A4 C:. | Commonality.sln | +---One | | One.cs | | One.csproj | | | +---bin | | \---Debug | | One.vshost.exe | | One.vshost.exe.manifest | | | +---Common | | | Common.cs | | | CommonTwo.cs | | | | | \---SubCommon | | CommonThree.cs | | | +---obj | | \---Debug | | +---Refactor | | \---TempPE | \---Properties | AssemblyInfo.cs | \---Two | Two.cs | Two.csproj | Two.csproj.user | Two.csproj~ | +---bin | \---Debug +---obj | \---Debug | +---Refactor | \---TempPE \---Properties AssemblyInfo.cs And the relevant part of project Two's project file Two.csproj: <ItemGroup> <Compile Include="..\One\Common\**\*.cs"> </Compile> <Compile Include="Two.cs" /> <Compile Include="Properties\AssemblyInfo.cs" /> </ItemGroup> How do I address what I do not like, while keeping what I like?

  Read the article

• Practical refactoring using unit tests

  - by awhite

  Having just read the first four chapters of Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code, I embarked on my first refactoring and almost immediately came to a roadblock. It stems from the requirement that before you begin refactoring, you should put unit tests around the legacy code. That allows you to be sure your refactoring didn't change what the original code did (only how it did it). So my first question is this: how do I unit-test a method in legacy code? How can I put a unit test around a 500 line (if I'm lucky) method that doesn't do just one task? It seems to me that I would have to refactor my legacy code just to make it unit-testable. Does anyone have any experience refactoring using unit tests? And, if so, do you have any practical examples you can share with me? My second question is somewhat hard to explain. Here's an example: I want to refactor a legacy method that populates an object from a database record. Wouldn't I have to write a unit test that compares an object retrieved using the old method, with an object retrieved using my refactored method? Otherwise, how would I know that my refactored method produces the same results as the old method? If that is true, then how long do I leave the old deprecated method in the source code? Do I just whack it after I test a few different records? Or, do I need to keep it around for a while in case I encounter a bug in my refactored code? Lastly, since a couple people have asked...the legacy code was originally written in VB6 and then ported to VB.NET with minimal architecture changes.

  Read the article

• Refactoring exercise with generics

  - by Berryl

  I have a variation on a Quantity (Fowler) class that is designed to facilitate conversion between units. The type is declared as: public class QuantityConvertibleUnits<TFactory> where TFactory : ConvertableUnitFactory, new() { ... } In order to do math operations between dissimilar units, I convert the right hand side of the operation to the equivalent Quantity of whatever unit the left hand side is in, and do the math on the amount (which is a double) before creating a new Quantity. Inside the generic Quantity class, I have the following: protected static TQuantity _Add<TQuantity>(TQuantity lhs, TQuantity rhs) where TQuantity : QuantityConvertibleUnits<TFactory>, new() { var toUnit = lhs.ConvertableUnit; var equivalentRhs = _Convert<TQuantity>(rhs.Quantity, toUnit); var newAmount = lhs.Quantity.Amount + equivalentRhs.Quantity.Amount; return _Convert<TQuantity>(new Quantity(newAmount, toUnit.Unit), toUnit); } protected static TQuantity _Subtract<TQuantity>(TQuantity lhs, TQuantity rhs) where TQuantity : QuantityConvertibleUnits<TFactory>, new() { var toUnit = lhs.ConvertableUnit; var equivalentRhs = _Convert<TQuantity>(rhs.Quantity, toUnit); var newAmount = lhs.Quantity.Amount - equivalentRhs.Quantity.Amount; return _Convert<TQuantity>(new Quantity(newAmount, toUnit.Unit), toUnit); } ... same for multiply and also divide I need to get the typing right for a concrete Quantity, so an example of an add op looks like: public static ImperialLengthQuantity operator +(ImperialLengthQuantity lhs, ImperialLengthQuantity rhs) { return _Add(lhs, rhs); } The question is those verbose methods in the Quantity class. The only change between the code is the math operator (+, -, *, etc.) so it seems that there should be a way to refactor them into a common method, but I am just not seeing it. How can I refactor that code? Cheers, Berryl

  Read the article

• A C# Refactoring Question...

  - by james lewis

  I came accross the following code today and I didn't like it. It's fairly obvious what it's doing but I'll add a little explanation here anyway: Basically it reads all the settings for an app from the DB and the iterates through all of them looking for the DB Version and the APP Version then sets some variables to the values in the DB (to be used later). I looked at it and thought it was a bit ugly - I don't like switch statements and I hate things that carry on iterating through a list once they're finished. So I decided to refactor it. My question to all of you is how would you refactor it? Or do you think it even needs refactoring at all? Here's the code: using (var sqlConnection = new SqlConnection(Lfepa.Itrs.Framework.Configuration.ConnectionString)) { sqlConnection.Open(); var dataTable = new DataTable("Settings"); var selectCommand = new SqlCommand(Lfepa.Itrs.Data.Database.Commands.dbo.SettingsSelAll, sqlConnection); var reader = selectCommand.ExecuteReader(); while (reader.Read()) { switch (reader[SettingKeyColumnName].ToString().ToUpper()) { case DatabaseVersionKey: DatabaseVersion = new Version(reader[SettingValueColumneName].ToString()); break; case ApplicationVersionKey: ApplicationVersion = new Version(reader[SettingValueColumneName].ToString()); break; default: break; } } if (DatabaseVersion == null) throw new ApplicationException("Colud not load Database Version Setting from the database."); if (ApplicationVersion == null) throw new ApplicationException("Colud not load Application Version Setting from the database."); }

  Read the article

• LINQ to objects: Is there

  - by Charles

  I cannot seem to find a way to have LINQ return the value from a specified accessor. I know the name of the accessors for each object, but am unsure if it is possible to pass the requested accessor as a variable or otherwise achieve the desired refactoring. Consider the following code snippet: // "value" is some object with accessors like: format, channels, language row = new List<String> { String.Join(innerSeparator, (from item in myObject.Audio orderby item.Key ascending select item.Value.format).ToArray()), String.Join(innerSeparator, (from item in myObject.Audio orderby item.Key ascending select item.Value.channels).ToArray()), String.Join(innerSeparator, (from item in myObject.Audio orderby item.Key ascending select item.Value.language).ToArray()), // ... } I'd like to refactor this into a method that uses the specified accessor, or perhaps pass a delegate, though I don't see how that could work. string niceRefactor(myObj myObject, string /* or whatever type */ ____ACCESSOR) { return String.Join(innerSeparator, (from item in myObject.Audio orderby item.Key ascending select item.Value.____ACCESSOR).ToArray()); } I have written a decent amount of C#, but am still new to the magic of LINQ. Is this the right approach? How would you refactor this?

  Read the article

• How strict should I be in the "do the simplest thing that could possible work" while doing TDD

  - by Support - multilanguage SO

  For TDD you have to Create a test that fail Do the simplest thing that could possible work to pass the test Add more variants of the test and repeat Refactor when a pattern emerge With this approach you're supposing to cover all the cases ( that comes to my mind at least) but I'm wonder if am I being too strict here and if it is possible to "think ahead" some scenarios instead of simple discover them. For instance, I'm processing a file and if it doesn't conform to a certain format I am to throw an InvalidFormatException So my first test was: @Test void testFormat(){ // empty doesn't do anything... processor.validate("empty.txt"); try { processor.validate("invalid.txt"); assert false: "Should have thrown InvalidFormatException"; } catch( InvalidFormatException ife ) { assert "Invalid format".equals( ife.getMessage() ); } } I run it and it fails because it doesn't throw an exception. So the next thing that comes to my mind is: "Do the simplest thing that could possible work", so I : public void validate( String fileName ) throws InvalidFormatException { if(fileName.equals("invalid.txt") { throw new InvalidFormatException("Invalid format"); } } Doh!! ( although the real code is a bit more complicated, I found my self doing something like this several times ) I know that I have to eventually add another file name and other test that would make this approach impractical and that would force me to refactor to something that makes sense ( which if I understood correctly is the point of TDD, to discover the patterns the usage unveils ) but: Q: am I taking too literal the "Do the simplest thing..." stuff?

  Read the article

• Is it OK to write code after [super dealloc]? (Objective-C)

  - by Richard J. Ross III

  I have a situation in my code, where I cannot clean up my classes objects without first calling [super dealloc]. It is something like this: // Baseclass.m @implmentation Baseclass ... -(void) dealloc { [self _removeAllData]; [aVariableThatBelongsToMe release]; [anotherVariableThatBelongsToMe release]; [super dealloc]; } ... @end This works great. My problem is, when I went to subclass this huge and nasty class (over 2000 lines of gross code), I ran into a problem: when I released my objects before calling [super dealloc] I had zombies running through the code that were activated when I called the [self _removeAllData] method. // Subclass.m @implementation Subclass ... -(void) deallloc { [super dealloc]; [someObjectUsedInTheRemoveAllDataMethod release]; } ... @end This works great, and It didn't require me to refactor any code. My question Is this: Is it safe for me to do this, or should I refactor my code? Or maybe autorelease the objects? I am programming for iPhone if that matters any.

  Read the article

• Best Functional Approach

  - by dbyrne

  I have some mutable scala code that I am trying to rewrite in a more functional style. It is a fairly intricate piece of code, so I am trying to refactor it in pieces. My first thought was this: def iterate(count:Int,d:MyComplexType) = { //Generate next value n //Process n causing some side effects return iterate(count - 1, n) } This didn't seem functional at all to me, since I still have side effects mixed throughout my code. My second thought was this: def generateStream(d:MyComplexType):Stream[MyComplexType] = { //Generate next value n return Stream.cons(n, generateStream(n)) } for (n <- generateStream(initialValue).take(2000000)) { //process n causing some side effects } This seemed like a better solution to me, because at least I've isolated my functional value-generation code from the mutable value-processing code. However, this is much less memory efficient because I am generating a large list that I don't really need to store. This leaves me with 3 choices: Write a tail-recursive function, bite the bullet and refactor the value-processing code Use a lazy list. This is not a memory sensitive app (although it is performance sensitive) Come up with a new approach. I guess what I really want is a lazily evaluated sequence where I can discard the values after I've processed them. Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• C++ and Dependency Injection in unit testing

  - by lhumongous

  Suppose I have a C++ class like so: class A { public: A() { } void SetNewB( const B& _b ) { m_B = _b; } private: B m_B; } In order to unit test something like this, I would have to break A's dependency on B. Since class A holds onto an actual object and not a pointer, I would have to refactor this code to take a pointer. Additionally, I would need to create a parent interface class for B so I can pass in my own fake of B when I test SetNewB. In this case, doesn't unit testing with dependency injection further complicate the existing code? If I make B a pointer, I'm now introducing heap allocation, and some piece of code is now responsible for cleaning it up (unless I use ref counted pointers). Additionally, if B is a rather trivial class with only a couple of member variables and functions, why introduce a whole new interface for it instead of just testing with an instance of B? I suppose you could make the argument that it would be easier to refactor A by using an interface. But are there some cases where two classes might need to be tightly coupled?

  Read the article

• What's the steps for SQL optimization and changes without reflect live system ?

  - by Space Cracker

  we have a big portal that build using SharePoint 2007 , asp.net 3.5 , SQL Server 2005 .. many developers work in it since 01/2008 and we are now doing huge analysis for current SQL Databases [not share-point DB ] to optimize and enhance it. The main db have about 330 table and 1720 stored procedure (SP) created from 01/2008 till now Many table names / Columns is very long and we want to short it we found SP names is written in 25 format :( , some of them are very complex and also we want to rename many SP parameters need to be renamed one of the biggest table is Registered user table, that will be spitted in more than one table for some optimization, many columns name will be changed I searched for the way that i can rename table names ,columns and i found SQL refactor tool but i still trying it .. my questions : Is SQl Refactor is the best tool for renaming ? or is there any other one ? if i want to make it manually, is there any references or best practice for that ? How can i do such changes in fast and stable way .. i search for recommendations and case studies if exist ?

  Read the article

• how to use q.js promises to work with multiple asynchronous operations

  - by kimsia

  Note: This question is also cross-posted in Q.js mailing list over here. i had a situation with multiple asynchronous operations and the answer I accepted pointed out that using Promises using a library such as q.js would be more beneficial. I am convinced to refactor my code to use Promises but because the code is pretty long, i have trimmed the irrelevant portions and exported the crucial parts into a separate repo. The repo is here and the most important file is this. The requirement is that I want pageSizes to be non-empty after traversing all the dragged'n dropped files. The problem is that the FileAPI operations inside getSizeSettingsFromPage function causes getSizeSettingsFromPage to be async. So I cannot place checkWhenReady(); like this. function traverseFiles() { for (var i=0, l=pages.length; i<l; i++) { getSizeSettingsFromPage(pages[i], calculateRatio); } checkWhenReady(); // this always returns 0. } This works, but it is not ideal. I prefer to call checkWhenReady just ONCE after all the pages have undergone this function calculateRatio successfully. function calculateRatio(width, height, filename) { // .... code pageSizes.add(filename, object); checkWhenReady(); // this works but it is not ideal. I prefer to call this method AFTER all the `pages` have undergone calculateRatio // ..... more code... } How do I refactor the code to make use of Promises in Q.js?

  Read the article

• How can I have a single helper work on different models passed to it?

  - by Angela

  I am probably going to need to refactor in two steps since I'm still developing the project and learning the use-cases as I go along since it is to scratch my own itch. I have three models: Letters, Calls, Emails. They have some similarilty, but I anticipate they also will have some different attributes as you can tell from their description. Ideally I could refactor them as Events, with a type as Letters, Calls, Emails, but didn't know how to extend subclasses. My immediate need is this: I have a helper which checks on the status of whether an email (for example) was sent to a specific contact: def show_email_status(contact, email) @contact_email = ContactEmail.find(:first, :conditions => {:contact_id => contact.id, :email_id => email.id }) if ! @contact_email.nil? return @contact_email.status end end I realized that I, of course, want to know the status for whether a call was made to a contact as well, so I wrote: def show_call_status(contact, call) @contact_call = ContactCall.find(:first, :conditions => {:contact_id => contact.id, :call_id => call.id }) if ! @contact_call.nil? return @contact_call.status end end I would love to be able to just have a single helper show_status where I can say show_status(contact,call) or show_status(contact,email) and it would know whether to look for the object @contact_call or @contact_email. Yes, it would be easier if it were just @contact_event, but I want to do a small refactoring while I get the program up and running, and this would make the ability to do a history for a given contact much easier. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Restart a single apache vhost

  - by snowflake

  I've got an Apache (2) server with several virtual hosts. I currently have mysql db locks problems on one virtual host. A common and practical way to easy release those locks and unlock the site (while the dev team refactor its application to avoid the locks), is to simply restart the apache server. I'm wondering if there is a way to restart the single vhost that is in trouble. Thank you for any comments

  Read the article

• Does anyone know of a program that can search database objects (i.e. StoredProcedures) for keywords?

  - by hcabnettek

  Hi All, Is there such a tool that would look through a group of stored procedures for source code keywords? A client has a lot of business logic coded into their database and I need to find where it is using certain strings of text? I.E. what procedure contains 'was applied to their balance', so I can refactor that out into business logic. Does anyone know of such a tool? perhaps something from Red-Gate? Thanks, ~ck in San Diego

  Read the article

• Tulsa SharePoint Interest Group – SharePoint 2010 Mini-Launch Event

  - by dmccollough

  Tulsa SharePoint Interest Group Presents a SharePoint 2010 Mini-Launch Event featuring Special guest speaker Eric Shupps, The SharePoint Cowboy A GREAT big Thank You to our sponsors for making this happen. Please take a minute and visit their websites.   Note: We have limited seating available for this event so please sign up now by clicking here. When: Thursday May 13th 2010 Where: Dave & Busters 6812 S. 105th East Ave Tulsa, Oklahoma 74133 Click here for directions Time: 6:00 PM Prizes, Prizes, Prizes We will be giving away some great prizes at this event, including: Studio for SharePoint (Enterprise license) valued at $6,500.00 Telerik Premium Collection valued at $1,299.00 Infragistics NetAdvantage for .NET Platform valued at $1,195.00 64 Bit Windows 7 Ultimate DevExpress CodeRush and Refactor! Pro valued at $250.00 JetBrains ReSharper valued at $199.00 Microsoft Arc Mouse Xbox 360 Game – Halo 3 ODST Xbox 360 Game – Forza Motorsport 3 Note: We have limited seating available for this event so please sign up now by clicking here.  

  Read the article

• Are there any language agnostic unit testing frameworks?

  - by Bringer128

  I have always been skeptical of rewriting working code - porting code is no exception to this. However, with the advent of TDD and automated testing it is much more reasonable to rewrite and refactor code. Does anyone know if there is a TDD tool that can be used for porting old code? Ideally you could do the following: Write up language agnostic unit tests for the old code that pass (or fail if you find bugs!). Run unit tests on your other code base that fail. Write code in your new language that passes the tests without looking at the old code. The alternative would be to split step 1 into "Write up unit tests in language 1" and "Port unit tests to language 2", which significantly increases effort required and is difficult to justify if the old code base is going to stop being maintained after the port (that is, you don't get the benefit of continuous integration on this code base). EDIT: It's worth noting this question on StackOverflow.

  Read the article

• Is it bad to have an "Obsessive Refactoring Disorder"?

  - by Rachel

  I was reading this question and realized that could almost be me. I am fairly OCD about refactoring someone else's code when I see that I can improve it. For example, if the code contains duplicate methods to do the same thing with nothing more than a single parameter changing, I feel I have to remove all the copy/paste methods and replace it with one generic one. Is this bad? Should I try and stop? I try not to refactor unless I can actually make improvements to the code performance or readability, or if the person who did the code isn't following our standard naming conventions (I hate expecting a variable to be local because of the naming standard, only to discover it is a global variable which has been incorrectly named)

  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

• Rapid prototyping and refactoring

  - by Puckl

  Sometimes when I start a small project (like an android app), I don´t know which approach will work out at the end, and I just go for one approach and give it a try. But if I never used this approach before (for a sort of application I´ve never programmed before) it is like stepping into unknown terrain. I don´t know which libraries to use (maybe I have to try out several libraries) and there are so many unkonwns (like: how to get raw audio data in android) So then my development process goes like this: Write a piece of code to see if the approach has a chance. (The more uncertain the approach is, the uglier the code gets) If it works, refactor a lot until it is beautiful I think it could be a waste of time if I planned my software design in detail at this point, it would be like planning a trip without a map. Is this part of aglie development? How do you deal with unknown terrain in software development?

  Read the article

• Gradual approaches to dependency injection

  - by JW01

  I'm working on making my classes unit-testable, using dependency injection. But some of these classes have a lot of clients, and I'm not ready to refactor all of them to start passing in the dependencies yet. So I'm trying to do it gradually; keeping the default dependencies for now, but allowing them to be overridden for testing. One approach I'm conisdering is just moving all the "new" calls into their own methods, e.g.: public MyObject createMyObject(args) { return new MyObject(args); } Then in my unit tests, I can just subclass this class, and override the create functions, so they create fake objects instead. Is this a good approach? Are there any disadvantages? More generally, is it okay to have hard-coded dependencies, as long as you can replace them for testing? I know the preferred approach is to explicitly require them in the constructor, and I'd like to get there eventually. But I'm wondering if this is a good first step.

  Read the article

• How should I log time spent on multiple tasks?

  - by xenoterracide

  In Joel's blog on evidence based scheduling he suggests making estimates based on the smallest unit of work and logging extra work back to the original task. The problem I'm now experiencing is that I'll have create object A with subtask method A which creates object B and test all of the above. I create tasks for each of these that seems to be resulting in ok-ish estimates (need practice), but when I go to log work I find that I worked on 4 tasks at once because I tweak method A and find a bug in the test and refactor object B all while coding it. How should I go about logging this work? should I say I spent, for example, 2 hours on each of the 4 tasks I worked on in the 8 hour day?

  Read the article

• Website where you can see how other programmers write their code

  - by CuiPengFei

  I remember seeing a website where people upload videos of themselves writing code. However, I can not find that site now. The purpose is to see how others code, to see how they refactor their code, to see how they use their paradigms, etc. Update: I remember that the video contains almost no audio, it's only one guy writing code, making mistakes, typos, fixing mistakes. If I read the final code, I can figure out how it works, but if I see how the code was wrote and what kind of mistakes were made along the way, then I can better understand it. I guess this is the main reason that they make this kind of video.

  Read the article

• Is it bad to have an "Obsessive Refactoring Disorder"?

  - by Rachel

  I was reading this question and realized that could almost be me. I am fairly OCD about refactoring someone else's code when I see that I can improve it. For example, if the code contains duplicate methods to do the same thing with nothing more than a single parameter changing, I feel I have to remove all the copy/paste methods and replace it with one generic one. Is this bad? Should I try and stop? I try not to refactor unless I can actually make improvements to the code performance or readability, or if the person who did the code isn't following our standard naming conventions (I hate expecting a variable to be local because of the naming standard, only to discover it is a global variable which has been incorrectly named)

  Read the article

• How do you dive into large code bases?

  - by miku

  What tools and techniques do you use for exploring and learning an unknown code base? I am thinking of tools like grep, ctags, unit-tests, functional test, class-diagram generators, call graphs, code metrics like sloccount and so on. I'd be interested in your experiences, the helpers you used or wrote yourself and the size of the codebase, with which you worked with. I realize, that this is also a process (happening over time) and that learning can mean "can give a ten minute intro" to "can refactor and shrink this to 30% of the size". Let's leave that open for now.

  Read the article

• Colleague unwilling to use unit tests "as it's more to code"

  - by m.edmondson

  A colleague is unwilling to use unit tests and instead opting for a quick test, pass it to the users, and if all is well it is published live. Needless to say some bugs do get through. I mentioned we should think about using unit tests - but she was all against it once it was realised more code would have to be written. This leaves me in the position of modifying something and not being sure the output is the same, especially as her code is spaghetti and I try to refactor it when I get a chance. So whats the best way forward for me?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >