Meta-Abstraction -- You Ain't Gonna Need It!
Posted by bsstahl on 2020-05-18 and Filed Under: development
When we look at the abstractions in our applications, we should see a description of the capabilities of our applications, not the capabilities of the abstraction
Let’s start this discussion by looking at an example of a simple repository.
public interface IMeetingReadRepository
IEnumerable<Meeting> GetMeetings(DateTime start, DateTime end);
It is easy to see the capability being described by this abstraction – any implementation of this interface will have the ability to load a collection of Meeting objects that occur within a given timeframe. There are still some unknown details of the implementation, but the capabilities are described reasonably well.
Now let’s look at a different implementation of the Repository pattern.
public interface IReadRepository<T>
IEnumerable<T> Get(Func<T, bool> predicate);
We can still see that something is going to be loaded using this abstraction, we just don’t know what, and we don’t know what criteria will be used.
This 2nd implementation is a more flexible interface. That is, we can use this interface to describe many different repositories that do many different things. All we have described in this interface is that we have the ability to create something that will load an entity. In other words, we have described our abstraction but said very little about the capabilities of the application itself. In this case, we have to look at a specific implementation to see what it loads, but we still have no idea what criteria can be used to load it.
public class MeetingReadRepository : IReadRepository<Meeting>
IEnumerable<Meeting> Get(Func<Meeting, bool> predicate);
We could extend this class with a method that specifically loads meetings by start and end date, but then that method is not on the abstraction so it cannot be used without leaking the details of the implementation to the application. The only way to implement this pattern in a way that uses the generic interface, but still fully describes the capabilities of the application is to use both methods described above. That is, we implement the specific repository, using the generic repository – layering abstraction on top of abstraction, as shown below.
public interface IMeetingReadRepository : IReadRepository<Meeting>
IEnumerable<Meeting> GetMeetings(DateTime start, DateTime end);
public class MeetingReadRepository : IMeetingReadRepository
IEnumerable<Meeting> GetMeetings(DateTime start, DateTime end)
=> Get(m => m.Start >= start && m.Start < end)
// TODO: Implement
IEnumerable<Meeting> Get(Func<Meeting, bool> predicate)
=> throw new NotImplementedException();
Is this worth the added complexity? It seems to me that as application developers we should be concerned about describing and building our applications in the simplest, most maintainable and extensible way possible. To do so, we need seams in our applications in the form of abstractions. However, we generally do not need to build frameworks on which we build those abstractions. Framework creation is an entirely other topic with an entirely different set of concerns.
I think it is easy to see how quickly things can get overly-complex when we start building abstractions on top of our own abstractions in our applications. Using Microsoft or 3rd party frameworks is fine when appropriate, but there is generally no need to build your own frameworks, especially within your applications. In the vast majority of cases, YAGNI.
Did I miss something here? Do you have a situation where you feel it is worth it to build a framework, or even part of a framework, within your applications. Please let me know about it on Twitter @bsstahl.
The Value of Flexibility
Posted by bsstahl on 2019-02-14 and Filed Under: development
Have you ever experienced that feeling you get when you need to extend an existing system and there is an extension point that is exactly what you need to build on?
For example, suppose I get a request to extend a system so that an additional action is taken whenever a new user signs-up. The system already has an event message that is published whenever a new user signs-up that contains all of the information I need for the new functionality. All I have to do is subscribe a new microservice to this event message, and have that service take the new action whenever it receives a message. Boom! Done.
Now think about the converse. The many situations we’ve all experienced where there is no extension point. Or maybe there is an extension mechanism in place but it isn’t quite right; perhaps an event that doesn’t fire on exactly the situation you need, or doesn’t contain the data you require for your use case and you have to build an entirely new data support mechanism to get access to the bits you need.
The cost to “go live” is only a small percentage of the lifetime total cost of ownership. – Andy Kyte for Gartner Research, 30 March 2010
There are some conflicting principles at work here, but for me, these situations expose the critical importance of flexibility and extensibility in our application architectures. After all, maintenance and extension are the two greatest costs in a typical application’s life-cycle. I don’t want to build things that I don’t yet need because the likelihood is that I will never need them (see YAGNI). However, I don’t want to preclude myself from building things in the future by making decisions that cripple flexibility. I certainly don’t want to have to do a full system redesign ever time I get a new requirement.
For me, this leads to a principle that I like to follow:
I value Flexibility over Optimization
As with the principles described in the Agile Manifesto that this is modeled after, this does not eliminate the item on the right in favor of the item on the left, it merely states that the item on the left is valued more highly. This makes a ton of sense to me in this case because it is much easier to scale an application by adding instances, especially in these heady days of cloud computing, than it is to modify and extend it. I cannot add a feature by adding another instance of a service, but I can certainly overcome a minor or even moderate inefficiency by doing so. Of course, there is a cost to that as well, but typically that cost is far lower, especially in the short term, than the cost of maintenance and extension.
So, how does this manifest (see what I did there?) in practical terms?
For me, it means that I allow seams in my applications that I may not have a functional use for just yet. I may not build anything on those seams, but they exist and are available for use as needed. These include:
- Separating the tiers of my applications for loose-coupling using the Strategy and Repository patterns
- Publishing events in event-driven systems whenever it makes sense, regardless of the number of subscriptions to that event when it is created
- Including all significant data in event messages rather than just keys
There are, of course, dangers here as well. It can be easy to fire events whenever we would generally issue a logging message. Events should be limited to those in the problem domain (Domain Events), not application events. We can also reach a level of absurdity with the weight of each message. As with all things, a balance needs to be struck. In determining that balance, I value Flexibility over Optimization whenever it is reasonable and possible to do so.
Do you feel differently? If so, let me know on Twitter @bsstahl.
No More Collection Objects
Posted by bsstahl on 2015-10-27 and Filed Under: development
I don't create collection objects anymore.
I know, I know. I was they guy always preaching that every entity that was being collected had to have its own collection object. It was the right thing at the time; if you needed to take an action on an enumeration or list of objects, those actions needed to be done within a strongly-typed collection object to maintain encapsulation. Even if all that was happening was that an inherited List<T> function was being called, that functionality needed to be called on the TCollection object because, if it wasn't, it was likely that the next time logic needed to be performed on the collection, there wouldn't be a place to put it. Collection logic would end up being spread-out around your code rather than encapsulated in the collection. It was also possible that the implementation might change and need to be updated everywhere, instead of in one place.
Today however, that has all changed. Extension methods now allow us, at any time, to add functionality to ICollection<T>, IList<T>, IEnumerable<T> or any other interface or class. We can attach our list or enumeration based actions directly to the list or enumeration class, and do so at any time, since the methods appear the same to the developer as methods directly on the collection type. Thus, the "no place to put it" fear no longer exists. I've even started using this technique for my factory methods to make it clear that what I am creating is, in fact, an IEnumerable<T>, as in this example.
var stations = (null as IEnumerable<Station>).Create();
var localStations = stations.GetNearby(currentLocation);
In this example, both the Create and GetNearby methods are extension methods found in a static class called StationExtensions.
So, the big advantage here is that these methods can be added anytime, meaning we don't need to create an object that we MAY need in the future. This is better adherence to the YAGNI principle so it is a better pattern to follow. But what about disadvantages? Does it hurt us in any way to perform our collection actions this way? I'm not comfortable answering that question with an absolute "no" yet because I don't think I've been using this technique long enough to have covered enough ground with it, but I can certainly say that I haven't found any disadvantages yet. It seems like these extension methods are basically perfect for this type of activity. These methods do everything that the methods of a collection object do, can (and should) be put in a separate module to keep the code together, can be navigated to by Visual Studio in the same way as other methods, and have the same access (private, internal, public) restrictions that collection objects have. About the only thing I can say that is not 100% positive about using these techniques is that the (null as IEnumerable<T>) syntax to create a local variable instance to call the class factory from is not quite as elegant as I'd like it to be.
So you tell me, do you still create collection objects? Have you found any reason why using extension methods in this way is not as good as putting those methods into a strongly-typed collection? Sound off on Twitter @bsstahl and let's talk about it.
Remove Any Code Your Users Don't Care About
Posted by bsstahl on 2015-09-28 and Filed Under: development
Code Coverage has been the topic of a number of conversations lately, most recently after the last Southeast Valley .NET User Group meeting where Jeremy Clark presented his great talk, Unit Testing Makes Me Faster. During this presentation, Jeremy eponymized, on my behalf, something I've been saying for a while, that the part of an application that you don't need to test is the part that your users don't care about. That is, if your users care about something in your application, you should be writing tests that ensure that the users' needs are fulfilled by your code. This has never really been a controversial statement, just one that sometimes gets lost in the myriad of information about unit testing and test driven development.
Where the conversation got really interesting was when we started discussing what should happen if you decide that a piece of code really isn't important to your users. It is my assertion that code which is deemed unimportant enough to the user that it might not be tested, should be removed from the project, even if is part of a standard implementation. I will attempt to justify this assertion by using the example of a property implementation that supports the INotifyPropertyChanged interface.
A visualization of the results of Code Coverage analysis on a typical property implementation. The blue highlights represent code that is covered by tests, the red highlights represent code that is NOT covered by tests.
In this example, we have a property getter and setter. The getter simply returns the value stored in the internal member. However the setter holds some actual logic. In this case, the new value being set is compared to the current value of the property. If the property value is changing, the update is made and a method called that fires a notification event indicating that the value of the property has changed. This is a fairly common implementation, especially for View-Model layer code.
Decision: Do my users care about this feature?
The conditional in this code is designed to skip the assignment and the change notification if the property value is not really changing. If we were to eliminate the conditional, it would impact the users of this code in the following ways?
- A few CPU cycles may be wasted on an assignment that isn't doing anything
- An event indicating the property was changed would fire incorrectly
In the vast majority of cases, the performance hit from item 1 is trivial and can be ignored. Item 2 however is a bit more complicated. Unless I know for certain that firing the event when the property is not really changing isn't a problem, I have to assume it is a problem, since there are any number of things that could happen as a result of having an event fire. Often, when this event fires it will cause a refresh of the bound data to the UI elements. This may have a significant impact on performance, or it may not. There may also be additional actions taken by the programmers of this event client that may not be foreseeable when designing this layer. If the circumstances are such that I know there will be no problems if the event fires more often than it should, then I can probably conclude that my users don't care about this code. In all other circumstances, I should probably conclude that they do.
Decision: Should I remove this code?
If I have concluded that my users care about the code, then my path is clear, I should leave the code in place and write tests to make sure that the event fires when it should, and only when it should. However, if I have concluded that my users don't care about this particular code, then I have another decision to make. I need to decide if I should leave the code untested but in place, remove the code from my project, or leave it in and write tests for it anyway.
If the feature is not important to the users and there is no likelihood that the feature will become important to the users in the future, then the code should not be there. Period. We cannot waste time and effort supporting code that our users will not need. Scope-creep is a real danger to any project and should be avoided at all costs, even on the small stuff. Lots of small stuff adds up to big stuff, especially over the lifespan of any non-trivial application.
So, if the features are important to the users, we test them, if they are unimportant to the users, we remove them. No controversy here. The questions come in when there is a likelihood that the feature could become important in the future, or if the feature is important to someone other than the users, such as the developers.
Suppose we decide that the users are likely to request this feature in the future. Wouldn't it be easier just to implement the feature now, when we are already in the code and familiar with it? My answer to this is to fall back on YAGNI. You Ain't Gonna Need It, has proven itself a valuable principal for preventing scope-creep. Even if you think it is pretty likely that you'll need something later, the reality is that you probably won’t. Based on this principal, we should not be putting features into our projects that are not needed right now.
But what about the situation where code is important to someone other than the users, for example, the developers? In this case, we have to decide if the code really is important, or is it just another case where the YAGNI principal should be applied. Technical requirements can be legitimate, but any requirement that is not directly in support of the user's needs is a smell that should be investigated. In the case of our property setter, saying that standardization is important and using that logic to make standardization a requirement sounds a lot like saying "I think this feature may be important someday" and it probably falls to YAGNI to keep it out of our code. That being said, if there is a technical requirement that is truly needed, it should be tested like any other important requirement. For a little more information on this, see my earlier analysis Conflict of Interest: Yagni vs. Standardization.
How About we Leave It and Just Don't Test It?
It is important to remember that we shouldn't simply leave code untested in our production code, even if the users don't really care about it right now. If we do so, and the feature becomes important in the future, we will almost certainly end up with code that is important to our users, but is untested and therefore at-risk. We are unlikely to go back into an application and just add tests for a feature that already exists simply because that feature is now important when it wasn't earlier. We'd like to think we would, but the fact is that we won't. No, leaving the code in the application, but untested, is not an option.
The Case for 100% Code Coverage
So, we want to remove any code that is not currently required by our users, and test all code that is truly needed. If you have come along with me on this you may now realize that 100% code coverage is actually a reasonable goal, since that would be the result of removing all unneeded code and testing all needed code. This is not to say that it is reasonable to use Code Coverage as a metric with which to judge a development team, but instead it should be considered as a tool that can help identify scope-creep and missing tests. Since we are testing all code that our users care about, and not adding any code that the users don't care about, we should expect to approach 100% code coverage in order to have a good chance of producing well-tested, maintainable code that gives us the flexibility and confidence to refactor ruthlessly.
Code Coverage sometimes gets a bad reputation because it can be easy to game. That is, it is not a good metric of success for a development team. However, it is a magnificenttool to help you identify places where tests are missing. It won't tell you where your tests are not doing what they need to do, but it will tell you when you have a piece of code that is not exercised by any tests. If you are a TDD (Test-Driven-Development) practitioner, as I am, Code Coverage will tell you when you’ve gotten ahead of yourself and written code before writing a test for it. This is especially valuable for those who are just learning TDD, but never loses its value no matter how experienced you are at TDD.
Continue the Conversation
How do you feel about this logic? Did I miss something critical in this analysis? Have you found something different in your experience? Let's keep this conversation going on Twitter. Tweet me @bsstahl with your comments, or post on your blog and tweet me the link.
Conflict of Interest -- YAGNI vs. Standardization
Posted by bsstahl on 2014-07-28 and Filed Under: development
While working on the OSS project mentioned in my previous post, I have run across a dilemma where two of the principles I try to work by are in conflict. The two principles in question are:
- YAGNI - You aint gonna need it, which prescribes not coding anything unless the need already exists. This principle is a core of Test Driven Development of which I am a practitioner and a strong proponent.
- Standardization - Where components, especially those built for use by other developers, are implemented in a common way in order to shorten the learning curve of future developers who will use the component and to reduce implementation bugs.
I have run across this type of decision many times before and have noted the following:
- YAGNI is usually correct, if you don't need it now, you are unlikely to need it in the future.
- Standard implementations which are built incompletely tend to be implemented badly later because there tends to be more time pressure further along into projects, and because it is often implemented by someone other than the original programmer who may not be as familiar with the pattern.
- The fact that there is less time pressure early in projects is another great reason to respect YAGNI because if we are always writing unnecessary code early in projects, a project can quickly become late.
- Implementing code that is not currently required by the use-cases being built requires the addition of unit tests that are specific to the underlying functionality rather than user requested features. While often valuable, the very fact that we are writing such tests is a code smell.
- Since I use FxCop Code Analysis built-in to Visual Studio, not supplying all features of a standard implementation may require overriding one or more analysis rules.
Taking all of this into account, the simplest solution (which is usually the best) is to override the FxCop rules in the code, and continue without implementing the unneeded, albeit standard features.
Do you disagree with my decision? Tell me why on Twitter @bsstahl.