Programming | While I Compile

Nov 20, 2013 Posted by John MacIntyre

How to keep your Get & Post ViewModels DRY

I’ve been convinced that I should not be using the same view model class for both loading the view and the posted controller action parameter. The trouble is it allows data to be transferred back which may not be necessary and it needlessly increases our attack surface. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve always had unit tests specifically monitoring that only necessary view model properties are being pushed back to the entity model, but still, seperate viewmodels will allow me to eliminate that risk completely and even remove those tests. To be honest, the idea of having 2 view model classes that are nearly identical is not very appealing, especially given that if the structure deviates, the default model binder will no longer work with those properties which are out of sync with its partner view model. Don’t get me wrong, I’m very liberal when it comes to class quantities, but this was enough to make me uncomfortable. So I’m happy that I realized the post view model class can always be used as a base class for the get view model class. I mean it has to be in order for the default model binder to work. Using inheritance for these classes will a) keep these classes in sync so the default model binder will always work, b) follow the DRY principle and c) keep my sanity. In a nutshell, rather than having 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 public class FooViewModel { public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public FooStatusEnum Status { get; set; } public DateTime CreateDate { get; set; } }public class FooViewModel { public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public FooStatusEnum Status { get; set; } public DateTime CreateDate { get; set; } } We can instead have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 public class FooPostViewModel { public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } public class FooGetViewModel : FooPostViewModel { public FooStatusEnum Status { get; set; } public DateTime CreateDate { get; set; } }public class FooPostViewModel { public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } public class FooGetViewModel : FooPostViewModel { public FooStatusEnum Status { get; set; } public DateTime CreateDate { get; set; } } So FooGetViewModel is loaded and passed into the view.... read more

Jun 25, 2012 Posted by John MacIntyre

A simple proposal to rule out obvious software patents

I just read the EFF’s new website (https://defendinnovation.org/) about how to change the patent system to prevent the patent trolls from stifling innovation. I like some of the ideas, but question how realistic others are (i.e. #3? – C’mon; How many implementations in how many languages will you need to write to cover all your bases?) I realize this is an extremely naive statement to make, but I’m going to make it anyway; solving the ‘non-obvious’ aspect of a software patent is simple. … and it doesn’t involve judges learning to code. Here’s my proposal: Software patent proposals should include a unit test suite and a single solution implementation. The test suite would be made public immediately, without the implemented solution. The public would take a crack at making the test suite pass. If there are no successful passes, then it could be deemed as a difficult problem with a non-obvious solution. If the patent office is bombarded with working solutions, then it unquestionably fails the ‘non-obvious’ test. It’s debatable what to do if a relative few brilliant developers solve it, while most fail. But this would definitely eliminate laughable patents like Amazon’s 1-Click which would have bombarded the patent office in less than an... read more

Mar 1, 2012 Posted by John MacIntyre

My take on identifier semantics (Id vs No vs Code vs Key)

My simple conventions for these popular identifier names. I don’t believe they’re all the same, and should be used under different circumstances.

Discovering Typemock

Frustration mocking static methods, the ridiculous hoops I was forced to jump through, and the clean implementation I was finally able to do with Typemock.

The UI programmers (not so) secret weapon

An Example: Suppose you had software which matches buyers and sellers, and new users are created via a ‘new user’ wizard[1]. Let’s say the wizard has 4 pages for Basic User Info, Review, Processing, and Completion Status Report. And there are 5 buttons; Cancel, Previous, Next, Run, and Finish. Cancel is displayed from the Basic User Info, Review, and Processing pages. Previous is displayed from the Review page. Next is displayed from the Basic User Info page. Run is displayed from the Review page. Finish is displayed from the Completion Status Report page. This isn’t difficult to manage the display from the events[2] right? Well … in reality, it doesn’t take much of a change for your simple display functionality to become … The Problem Manipulating application display during events quickly turns into a complex, bug riddled, difficult to maintain, mess. It may not seem like that big of a deal when you have only a few controls and a very simple (or no) workflow. Actually, you may argue, managing visual display in the events may even seem like the most efficient strategy. After all, you will never display, disable, or otherwise needlessly manipulate a control, but as your application grows more complex, this approach can leave you tearing your hair out[3]. This is especially true when you have multiple execution paths leading to the same event handlers with different state. What if you received a change request for the above requirements, where additional info is required for buyers or sellers, resulting in a new wizard page for each, and in addition to that, business sellers require a page to gather Tax Information? Your complexity has started to grow, resulting in buyers have a workflow of Basic User Info -> Buyer Info -> Review -> Processing -> Completion Status Report Individual sellers have a workflow of Basic User Info -> Individual Seller Info -> Review -> Processing -> Completion Status Report And commercial sellers have a workflow of Basic User Info -> Commercial Seller Info -> Tax Info -> Review -> Processing -> Completion Status Report Notice how these changes lead to different execution paths all arriving at the Review page. The question then, is; where does the back button on the Review page send the user? The back button requires logic to know which wizard page to display. It’s not difficult to imagine the need for logic to be added in more than one place[4], which can result... read more

Sep 14, 2010 Posted by John MacIntyre

What is too simple and small to refactor? (Clean Code Experience No. 2)

Shortly after reading Clean Code, I refactored the data access layer from a project I was working on, and was amazed by how much the code improved. It really was night and day. My first clean code refactoring experience was an obvious improvement.

I was still on that clean code high, when a little function entered my life that I was compelled to refactor. This one left me questioning the limits of what I should refactor and if my refactor even qualified as clean.

I’d like to share that second experience with you in this post.

Procedure Like Object Oriented Programming

In a previous post What’s wrong with the Nouns/Adjective/Verb object oriented design strategy, I talked about how verbs should be implemented in their own separate class instead of as a method strapped onto an entity class. In my opinion, it’s an appropriate way to work with processes and pass those processes around, while keeping code flexible, testable, and highly maintainable. But it has led to comments on Twitter and a link to one of Steve Yegge’s post Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns. Basically, Steve said that turning verbs into nouns was a bad idea (at least that’s what I think he was getting at, there were a lot of metaphors in there :-). It’s easy to see Yegge’s point of view, if you just leave it at that. After all turning your single line of code accessing those actions 1 commentData.Insert(cn);commentData.Insert(cn); into multiple lines of calling code, when you move the logic into its own class, 1 2 3 4 using (CommentInsertCommand insCmd = new CommentInsertCommand(cn)) { insCmd.Execute(commentData); }using (CommentInsertCommand insCmd = new CommentInsertCommand(cn)) { insCmd.Execute(commentData); } definitely sucks. So why not add a static method to the process class so you can access it with a single, procedural like, call? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 public class CommentInsertCommand : IDisposable { .... public static void Execute(CommentData commentData, int userId, SqlConnection cn) { ValidateCommentParameter(commentData); using (CommentInsertCommand insCmd = new CommentInsertCommand(cn)) { commentData.CommentId = insCmd.Execute(commentData, userId); } } protected static void ValidateCommentParameter(CommentData commentData) {...} }public class CommentInsertCommand : IDisposable { .... public static void Execute(CommentData commentData, int userId, SqlConnection cn) { ValidateCommentParameter(commentData); using (CommentInsertCommand insCmd = new CommentInsertCommand(cn)) { commentData.CommentId = insCmd.Execute(commentData, userId); } } protected static void ValidateCommentParameter(CommentData commentData) {...} } This way your call is reduced to 1 CommentInsertCommand.Execute(data, cn);CommentInsertCommand.Execute(data, cn); I think this has merit and is a clean way to manage your classes. It brings your object oriented code back to a more procedural level. One problem I haven’t quite figured out yet is the naming. To be honest, I’m a little uneasy about it. I should probably name it ‘Insert’, but that’s redundant with the class name and I’m not crazy about naming it ‘Execute’ or ‘Run’ either. I chose ‘Execute’ in this example so all XXXXCommand classes would be consistent across the application, and the name is consistent with the SqlCommand naming which is important since this class kind of emulates... read more

Aug 24, 2010 Posted by John MacIntyre

My Clean Code Experience No. 1 (with before and after code examples)

Public Code Review Robert C. Martin was kind enough to review the code in this post at on his new blog Clean Coder. Be sure to read his review when you finish reading this post. Introduction After expressing an interest in reading Robert C Martin‘s books, one of my Twitter followers was kind enough to give me a copy of Uncle Bob’s book Clean Code as a gift*. This post is about my first refactoring experience after reading it and the code resulting from my first Clean Code refactor. Sample code The code used in this post is based on the data access layer (DAL) used in a side project I’m currently working on. Specifically, my sample project is based on a refactor on the DAL classes for comment data. The CommentData class and surrounding code was simplified for the example, in order to focus on the DAL’s refactoring, rather than the comment functionality. Of course; the comment class could be anything. Download the my clean code refactor sample project (VS2008) Please notice: 1. The database can be generated from the script in the SQL folder 2. This code will probably make the most sense if you step through it 3. This blog post is about 1,700 words, so if you aren’t into reading, you will still get the jist of what I’m saying just from examining the source code. What Clean Code isn’t about Before starting, I want to point out that Clean Code is not about formatting style. While we all have our curly brace positioning preferences, it really is irrelevant. Clean Code strikes at a much deeper level, and although your ‘style’ will be affected tremendously, you won’t find much about formatting style. My original code My original comment DAL class is in the folder called Dirty.Dal, and contains one file called CommentDal.cs containing the CommentDal class. This class is very typical of how I wrote code before reading this book**. The original CommentDal class is 295 lines of code all together and has a handful of well named methods. Now, 295 lines of code is hardly awful, it doesn’t seem very complex relatively speaking, and really, we’ve all seen (and coded) worse. Although the class interface does seem pretty simple, the simplicity of its class diagram hides its code complexity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25... read more