DaedTech

Stories about Software

By

Exploring the Tech Debt In Your Codebase

Editorial note: I originally wrote this for the NDepend blog.  You can check out the original here, at their site.  While you’re there, check out the tech debt features in the newest version of NDepend.

Recently, I posted about how the new version of NDepend lets you compute tech debt.  In that post, I learned that I had earned a “B” out of the box.  With 40 minutes of time investment, I could make that an “A.”  Not too shabby!

In that same post, I also talked about the various settings in and around “debt settings.”  With debt settings, you can change units of debt (time, money), thresholds, and assumptions of working capacity.  For folks at the intersection of tech and business, this provides an invaluable way to communicate with the business.

But I really just scratched the surface with that mention.  You’re probably wondering what this looks like in more detail.  How does this interact with the NDepend features you already know and love?  Well, today, I’d like to take a look at just that.

To start, let’s look at the queries and rules explorer in some detail.

Introducing Quality Gates

Take a look at this screenshot, and you’ll notice some renamed entries, some new entries, and some familiar ones.

In the past, “Code Smells” and “Code Regressions” had the names “Code Quality” and “Code Quality Regression,” respectively.  With that resolved, the true newcomers sit on top: Quality Gates and Hot Spots.  Let’s talk about quality gates.

Read More

By

Ghost Doc Says the Damndest Things

Editorial Note: I originally wrote this post for the SubMain blog.  You can check out the original here, at their site.  While you’re there, have a look at GhostDoc, which can help both with code comment maintenance and the generation of help documentation.

Some years ago, I was doing work for some client or another.  Honestly, I have no recollections of specifics with the exception of a preference for exhaustive commenting.  Every class, every method, every property, and every field.

Of course, I didn’t learn this at first.  I didn’t even learn it in a reasonable time frame.  Instead, I learned it close to handover time.  And so things got a little desperate.

Enter GhostDoc, My Salvation

Now, depending on your perspective, you might scold me for not diligently commenting all along.  I will offer the explanation that the code had no public component and no intended APIs or extensions.  It also required no “why” types of explanations; this was simple stuff.

The client cited policy.  “We comment everything, and we’re taking over this code, so we want you to do the same.”  Okie dokie.

Now, I knew that in a world of code generation and T4 templates, someone must have invented a tool that would generate some sort of comments or another.  At the time, a quick Google search brought me to a saving grace: the free tool GhostDoc.

While it did not allow me to carpet bomb my code with comments in a single click (and understandably so), it did allow me to do it for entire files at a time.  Good enough.  I paid my non-commenting penance by spending an hour or so commenting this way.

And do you know what?  It generated pretty respectable comments.  I recall feeling impressed because I expected empty template comments.  Instead, GhostDoc figured out how to string some verbs and nouns together.

Read More

By

Detecting Performance Bottlenecks with NDepend

Editorial Note: I originally wrote this post for the NDepend blog.  You can check out the original here, at their site.  While you’re there, take a look at NDepend and see what it can tell you about your code.

In the past, I’ve talked about the nature of static code analysis.  Specifically, static analysis involves analyzing programs’ source code without actually executing them.  Contrast this with runtime analysis, which offers observations of runtime behavior, via introspection or other means.

This creates an interesting dynamic regarding the idea of detecting performance issues with static analysis.  This is because performance is inherently a runtime concern.  Static analysis tends to do its best, most direct work with source code considerations.  It requires a more indirect route to predict runtime issues.

For example, consider something simple.

With a static analyzer, we can easily look at this method and say, “you’re dereferencing ‘theService’ without a null check.”  However, it gets a lot harder to talk definitively about runtime behavior.  Will this method ever generate an exception?  We can’t know that with only the information present.  Maybe the only call to this in the entire codebase happens right after instantiating a service.  Maybe no one ever calls it.

Today, I’d like to talk about using NDepend to sniff out possible performance issues.  But my use of possible carries significant weight because definitive gets difficult.  You can use NDepend to inform reasoning about your code’s performance, but you should do so with an eye to probabilities.

That said, how can you you use NDepend to identify possible performance woes in your code?  Let’s take a look at some ideas.

Read More

By

CodeIt.Right Rules Explained, Part 2

Editorial Note: I originally wrote this post for the SubMain blog.  You can check out the original here, at their site.  While you’re there, have a look at CodeIt.Right to help with automated code review.

A little while back, I started a post series explaining some of the CodeIt.Right rules.  I led into the post with a narrative, which I won’t retell.  But I will reiterate the two rules that I follow when it comes to static analysis tooling.

  • Never implement a suggested fix without knowing what makes it a fix.
  • Never ignore a suggested fix without understanding what makes it a fix.

Because I follow these two rules, I find myself researching every fix suggested to me by my tooling.  And, since I’ve gone to the trouble of doing so, I’ll save you that same trouble by explaining some of those rules today.  Specifically, I’ll examine 3 more CodeIt.Right rules today and explain the rationale behind them.

Mark assemblies CLSCompliant

If you develop in .NET, you’ve no doubt run across this particular warning at some point in your career.  Before we get into the details, let’s stop and define the acronyms.  “CLS” stands for “Common Language Specification,” so the warning informs you that you need to mark your assemblies “Common Language Specification Compliant” (or non-compliant, if applicable).

Okay, but what does that mean?  Well, you can easily forget that many programming languages target the .NET runtime besides your language of choice.  CLS compliance indicates that any language targeting the runtime can use your assembly.  You can write language specific code, incompatible with other framework languages.  CLS compliance means you haven’t.

Want an example?  Let’s say that you write C# code and that you decide to get cute.  You have a class with a “DoStuff” method, and you want to add a slight variation on it.  Because the new method adds improved functionality, you decide to call it “DOSTUFF” in all caps to indicate its awesomeness.  No problem, says the C# compiler.

And yet, if you you try to do the same thing in Visual Basic, a case insensitive language, you will encounter a compiler error.  You have written C# code that VB code cannot use.  Thus you have written non-CLS compliant code.  The CodeIt.Right rule exists to inform you that you have not specified your assembly’s compliance or non-compliance.

To fix, go specify.  Ideally, go into the project’s AssemblyInfo.cs file and add the following to call it a day.

But you can also specify non-compliance for the assembly to avoid a warning.  Of course, you can do better by marking the assembly compliant on the whole and then hunting down and flagging non-compliant methods with the attribute.

Specify IFormatProvider

Next up, consider a warning to “specify IFormatProvider.”  When you encounter this for the first time, it might leave you scratching your head.  After all, “IFormatProvider” seems a bit… technician-like.  A more newbie-friendly name for this warning might have been, “you have a localization problem.”

For example, consider a situation in which some external supplies a date.  Except, they supply the date as a string and you have the task of converting it to a proper DateTime so that you can perform operations on it.  No problem, right?

That should work, provided provincial concerns do not intervene.  For those of you in the US, “03/02/1995” corresponds to March 2nd, 1995.  Of course, should you live in Iraq, that date string would correspond to February 3rd, 1995.  Oops.

Consider a nightmare scenario wherein you write some code with this parsing mechanism.  Based in the US and with most of your customers in the US, this works for years.  Eventually, though, your sales group starts making inroads elsewhere.  Years after the fact, you wind up with a strange bug in code you haven’t touched for years.  Yikes.

By specifying a format provider, you can avoid this scenario.

Nested types should not be visible

Unlike the previous rule, this one’s name suffices for description.  If you declare a type within another type (say a class within a class), you should not make the nested type visible outside of the outer type.  So, the following code triggers the warning.

To understand the issue here, consider the object oriented principle of encapsulation.  In short, hiding implementation details from outsiders gives you more freedom to vary those details later, at your discretion.  This thinking drives the rote instinct for OOP programmers to declare private fields and expose them via public accessors/mutators/properties.

To some degree, the same reasoning applies here.  If you declare a class or struct inside of another one, then presumably only the containing type needs the nested one.  In that case, why make it public?  On the other hand, if another type does, in fact, need the nested one, why scope it within a parent type and not just the same namespace?

You may have some reason for doing this — something specific to your code and your implementation.  But understand that this is weird, and will tend to create awkward, hard-to-discover code.  For this reason, your static analysis tool flags your code.

Until Next Time

As I said last time, you can extract a ton of value from understanding code analysis rules.  This goes beyond just understanding your tooling and accepted best practice.  Specifically, it gets you in the habit of researching and understanding your code and applications at a deep, philosophical level.

In this post alone, we’ve discussed language interoperability, geographic maintenance concerns, and object oriented design.  You can, all too easily, dismiss analysis rules as perfectionism.  They aren’t; they have very real, very important applications.

Stay tuned for more posts in this series, aimed at helping you understand your tooling.

By

Customizing Generated Method Header Comments

Editorial note: I originally wrote this post for the SubMain blog.  You can check out the original here, at their site.  While you’re there, have a look at GhostDoc, the subject of this post.

Last month, I wrote a post introducing you to T4 templates.  Near the end, I included a mention of GhostDoc’s use of T4 templates in automatically generating code comments.  Today, I’d like to expand on that.

To recap very briefly, recall that Ghost Doc allows you to generate things like method header comments.  I recommend that, in most cases, you let it do its thing.  It does a good job.  But sometimes, you might have occasion to want to tweak the result.  And you can do that by making use of T4 Templates.

Documenting Chess TDD

To demonstrate, let’s revisit my trusty toy code base, Chess TDD.  Because I put this code together for instructional purposes and not to release as a product, it has no method header comments for Intellisense’s benefit.  This makes it the perfect candidate for a demonstration.

If I had released this as a library, I’d have started the documentation with the Board class.  Most of the client interaction would happen via Board, so let’s document that.  It offers you a constructor and a bunch of semantics around placing and moving pieces.  Let’s document the conceptually simple “MovePiece” method.

Read More