Skip to main content

Code refactoring - Create base class/interface when is needed

When I made the last code review on a project I found the following lines of code:
Original version
public abstract class FooBase
{
Person _person;
public void string PersonId()
{
if(_person is Student)
{
return ((Student)_person).Id;
}
if(_person is Worker)
{
return ((Worker)_person).Id;
}

return _someDefaultValue;
}
public void string ScreenName()
{
if(_screen is MainScreen)
{
return ((MainScreen)_screen).Name;
}
if(_screen is SettingsScreen)
{
return ((SettingsScreen)_screen).Name;
}

((DefaultScreen)_screen).Name ;
}
}

After some new functionality was added:
public abstract class FooBase
{
Person _person;
public void string PersonId()
{
if(_person is Student)
{
return ((Student)_person).Id;
}
if(_person is Worker)
{
return ((Worker)_person).Id;
}
if(_person is Vampire)
{
return ((Vampire)_person).Id;
}

return _someDefaultValue;
}
public void string ScreenName()
{
if(_screen is MainScreen)
{
return ((MainScreen)_screen).Name;
}
if(_screen is SettingsScreen)
{
return ((SettingsScreen)_screen).Name;
}
if(_screen is TimeScreen)
{
return ((TimeScreen)_screen).Name;
}

((DefaultScreen)_screen).Name;
}
}
If you ask you’re self if the Person class contains the Id property, the response is not. The original team didn’t look over the code and add common items to the base class.
What we can observe in the above code?
First of all, the screens and persons could have a base class or at least a base interface.
The changes are made without trying to improve the code and design. Extracting a base class (interface) is a mandatory think to do before marking a task as done.
There are times when the developer don’t want to make changes to the code because is afraid that he can brake something. Maybe, if the code is covered with strong unit tests than the developer would feel more comfortable to make changes. If you are a developer and see that the code is not covered with test and because of this you cannot improve the design that you should begin to write some test first. After that you should refac. this methods.
After we make the refac our FooBase class should look something similar to this:
public abstract class FooBase
{
// Add the Id property to the base class (Person)
Person _person;
public void string PersonId()
{
if(_person == null)
{
return _someDefaultValue;
}
return _person.Id
}
public void string ScreenName()
{
// Define a base Screen class that contains the Name property
return _screen.Name;
}
}
As a developer, don’t be afraid to improve the code. If the first team that implemented this class would made the refac. we would never had this problem. But in the same time, the second developer that made the changes should look over the code and try to improve it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to audit an Azure Cosmos DB

In this post, we will talk about how we can audit an Azure Cosmos DB database. Before jumping into the problem let us define the business requirement: As an Administrator I want to be able to audit all changes that were done to specific collection inside my Azure Cosmos DB. The requirement is simple, but can be a little tricky to implement fully. First of all when you are using Azure Cosmos DB or any other storage solution there are 99% odds that you’ll have more than one system that writes data to it. This means that you have or not have control on the systems that are doing any create/update/delete operations. Solution 1: Diagnostic Logs Cosmos DB allows us activate diagnostics logs and stream the output a storage account for achieving to other systems like Event Hub or Log Analytics. This would allow us to have information related to who, when, what, response code and how the access operation to our Cosmos DB was done. Beside this there is a field that specifies what was th...

Cloud Myths: Cloud is Cheaper (Pill 1 of 5 / Cloud Pills)

Cloud Myths: Cloud is Cheaper (Pill 1 of 5 / Cloud Pills) The idea that moving to the cloud reduces the costs is a common misconception. The cloud infrastructure provides flexibility, scalability, and better CAPEX, but it does not guarantee lower costs without proper optimisation and management of the cloud services and infrastructure. Idle and unused resources, overprovisioning, oversize databases, and unnecessary data transfer can increase running costs. The regional pricing mode, multi-cloud complexity, and cost variety add extra complexity to the cost function. Cloud adoption without a cost governance strategy can result in unexpected expenses. Improper usage, combined with a pay-as-you-go model, can result in a nightmare for business stakeholders who cannot track and manage the monthly costs. Cloud-native services such as AI services, managed databases, and analytics platforms are powerful, provide out-of-the-shelve capabilities, and increase business agility and innovation. H...

Cloud Myths: Migrating to the cloud is quick and easy (Pill 2 of 5 / Cloud Pills)

The idea that migration to the cloud is simple, straightforward and rapid is a wrong assumption. It’s a common misconception of business stakeholders that generates delays, budget overruns and technical dept. A migration requires laborious planning, technical expertise and a rigorous process.  Migrations, especially cloud migrations, are not one-size-fits-all journeys. One of the most critical steps is under evaluation, under budget and under consideration. The evaluation phase, where existing infrastructure, applications, database, network and the end-to-end estate are evaluated and mapped to a cloud strategy, is crucial to ensure the success of cloud migration. Additional factors such as security, compliance, and system dependencies increase the complexity of cloud migration.  A misconception regarding lift-and-shits is that they are fast and cheap. Moving applications to the cloud without changes does not provide the capability to optimise costs and performance, leading to ...