Currently, the developers of my team format their source code (C++, C+, stored in MS's TFS 2012) manually. We are now considering to use Visual Studio's auto formatting option (probably with Uncrustify as the pretty print engine). The idea would be to make sure that nobody has any outgoing changes, and then to format the whole code base and to commit the result. From then on, we would integrate automatic formatting into our workflow.
However, our fear is that we will afterwards not be able to easily find out who has done the last changes on a particular line of code using Source Control/Annotate (that information is often quite useful, e.g. for asking the according developer about that code).
So here are my two questions:
a) Does anybody have experience with introducing auto-formatting into a team's workflow (given an already existing and quite large code base)? Are there any best practices for this?
b) In particular: Is there any way to format our complete code base without loosing the history information? I could e.g. imagine a tool which would keep track of where each line has gone after formatting, and to adjust TFS's history such that that information is preserved. However, I haven't found anything like that by now.
Annotation will indeed be 'screwed up' by pretty-printing the whole project. There are no tools that I know of that can work around that.
A way to get the least amount of history issues is to have each developer prettify a method when he is making changes to it to add functionality or solve a bug, this will take time to propagate the whole code base, but it's the only way I know of.
Related
I've got an ASP.NET web application, that is essentially our intranet site. I made a lot of progress on the administration office's employee management pages. It ties into an SQL server database, and I'm using a three layered design (Objects, Logic, DataAccess). It was all reviewed and all of it was accepted, except! for the part that manages vacations and vacation histories.
My question, before I go into details is, how does one efficiently "untangle" code that is no longer necessary?
For example: previously I was treating each VacationDay as it's own entity with it's own history. Such that I could track the history of an individual day. To help in tracking, I have an enum called VacationDayAction, which includes options such as .Submitted, .RequestDenied, .CancellationRequested, and so on. This was in an attempt to provide meticulous detail for each day. It was then determined that we no longer need that. We do, however, still need VacationDays and all the basic functions of that (saving days, getting days, etc.), but now we no longer need any of the "history" related classes.
My problem is, when I right click a class that I no longer need in VS and go to "Show All References," I get a ton of results scattered across several pages. I need to get rid of all of them, without breaking the rest of the application. Is there not some kind of "smart" technique or method for easily untangling parts that are no longer necessary? This is particularly difficult because 90% of what I did was just fine, and needs to stay like it is. Yet scattered in that 90% is 10% of stuff that is no longer needed. I can't just go storming through with the delete key either, because with the removal of each reference, I need to be sure that any dependencies on that reference are also fixed in a way that they don't call stuff that isn't there anymore. And I still need the application is a compilable state, so that I can test along the way that the rest of the application didn't fall apart as a result of some deletion.
To give you an idea of my low level of experience, I started two years ago with having never used C#, ASP.Net, or Visual Studio. It blew my mind when, way after starting and as I was learning, someone taught me that I could use breakpoints. And then it really really blew my mind when I learned about multi-layered design. I'm wondering if there is not some technique or trick or feature that can help in scenarios like this, where you have to "untangle" and throw away unnecessary stuff.
This is not a simple question. In fact, I would say this is one of the major challenges for any systems developer; how to handle and get rid of old code which is not in use. There is lots of literature on this, and few really excellent answers. A good book may be "Working effectively with legacy code" by Michael Feathers, which deals with many related problems. It is no light read though, and will probably take some time to get through, but it will likely help you become a better coder, and better at these kinds of tasks in particular.
Maybe you can have a look at the Resharper tool? ( http://www.jetbrains.com/resharper/ ) It is a productivity tool which among other things shows "dead" code (unused code) in grey, and lets you remove it. It will also help you remove unused references from each class (again, they will be grayed out and let you remove them automatically).
Drawing diagrams where each major piece of code /component is a box with a line linking it to any related component might help you get a better overview; try to draw a hierarchy showing how different parts of the code are related and dependent.
The bottom line as far as I know, is that you just have to muddle through it, commenting out code a little at a time, then recompiling and testing it. If it still works, fine, now you can remove the commented out code completely. This would be easier if you had unit-tests covering your code, but I take it as a given that you don't, as is unfortunately often the case.
I just had a conversation with my manager relating to checkin\out policies on a project I'm currently working on. Basically I tried to edit a file that was already checked out by another developer and I couldn't - I asked my manager why we couldn't edit the same class at the same time and he gave this reason for turning that functionality off: We had a lot of problems with developers editing the same Form (or anything visual done in the designer) and then cheking it in. Merging the changes in the designer generated code was a lot of hassle...
As I'm writing this I'm struggling to see what problem they were having - surely they were getting the latest code before trying to check something in??
Have any of you come across problems with editing the same Form (or something in the designer) as another developer and then checking into TFS? If so how did your team get around the problem? Did you also turn off the ability for developers to work on the same class?
EDIT: The following post (found here) is exactly the problem my manager was describing. Anyone know of a simpler way to resolve the issue than the ones in that post?
I would argue that the solution to your problem would be to establish best practices for source code modification.
Discourage people from going into UI code and arbitrarily jiggling the components around in the designer. Any reasonable UI modifications should be easily mergeable. Your best bet is to try and educate people as to the best way to merge in any given source control system. Also, as helpful as the designer is, ignorance of what code is being automatically generated in the background will be significantly detrimental in the long-term.
People who insist on locking checked-out files for the reasons you stated in your post typically wait long periods of time to check their code in. Naturally, the more time passes, the more code gets modified, so it makes merging difficult for these people. Checking in early, often, and incrementally requires people to think about their changes in stages, and for some coders, this is a rather painful cultural/psychological adjustment.
I've just checked back through the histories of some of my .designer.cs files and I can't see any changes that would cause a merge problems. There were no wholesale rearrangements of code for example.
Another thing to consider is to make sure that everyone does a "get latest" at regular intervals then any individual merge/resolution isn't going to be that great thus minimising the chances of anything going wrong.
It might also be worth investigating a 3rd party merge tool. There are plenty around.
Now it could be that the changes I've done are simple compared to the ones you've got so you should take my anecdotal data with a pinch of salt.
It can cause problems (in general) when a lot of people are editing UI concurrently. The merge logic will do a fine job merging things, but in a lot of cases the UI is drawn according to how things are added to the form. Your UI can get messed up quickly.
I don't know if I would use this as an excuse to enforce exclusive checkouts across the board, though. I might go from a (non programmatic) policy standpoint that says shared checkout for business logic, but exclusive for UI changes.
I would couple that with a strong MVP, MVC, or MVVM approach, though, which should limit the number of people that have to touch the UI concurrently.
As others have alluded to, keep one of the seminal rules of SCM in mind: merge early and often, and your problems are reduced. (along with that is "always get latest before you start working on the code).
If it is possible to auto-format code before and after a source control commit, checkout, diff, etc. does a company really need a standard code style?
It feels like standard coding style debates that have been raging since programming began like "put the bracket on the following line" or "properly indent your (" are no longer essential.
I realize in languages where white space matters the diff will have to consider it but for languages where the style is a personal preference is there really a need to worry about it anymore?
Auto-format can really only address whitespace.
It wont address developers giving variables bizarre nonsensical names.
It won't address some developers having functions return null on an error vs throwing an exception.
I'm sure others can think of more examples.
This is what we do at my work:
We all use Eclipse. We don't have a policy for using Eclipse but somehow none of us is an IDEA/IntelliJ guy. We also think our code should be written with legacy in mind. This means our code has to be readable in a certain way even years after (#1) no matter who wrote it and if that person even is in the company anymore.
Eclipse has couple handy features, automatic format on save and a specific Formatter tool. As you can see from the linked screenshot, it can be configured with XML. Thus there's a bunch of premade XML:s available for every worker in our company so that when a new guy comes in, we walk him through of the whole process and configure their Eclipse for them (yes, it's slightly evil thing to do) so that it actually uses those formatting XML:s we have provided. We do not enforce automatic format on save, we don't want to be completely intrusive, we just want to push all our developers into the right directions. For even increased compatability, we mostly use rules defined in JCC.
Next comes the important part, the actual builds. We are those who embrace automatic builds and for that we use Hudson Continuous Integration Server. There's two important parts in our configurations beyond this:
We use CVS loginfo to trigger builds whenever something is committed.
We utilize several plugins available for Hudson, including Continuous Integration Game in conjuction with the most important one, Checkstyle.
The Checkstyle Plugin is the magician in our code style enforcement guide line:
After commiting code to CVS, Hudson build is triggered
After build has been completed succesfully (all unit tests pass etc.), Checkstyle inspects the actual source files
Checkstyle ranks the code based rules we have defined for it
Continuous Integration Game sees the result of Checkstyle and awards/takes away points for the person who has the ownership for the relevant part of the code
Leaderboard shows total points for every commiter in system
Basically this means that when anyone commits ugly code into our CVS, our build server automatically reduces that person's points.
This means that eventually any one of us can be ranked on the Leaderboard based on the general code quality in both look and OO principles such as Law of Demeter, Cyclomatic complexity etc. etc. Naturally this isn't a completely serious statistic, but it's a good indication you're doing something wrong when causing a build to be initiated in our CI won't reduce your points - most of our commits are worth between 1 and 5 points.
And is it working? Sort of, I don't think anyone of us at my work writes ugly or unmaintainable code and personally I love to hunt all kinds of scores so it's definitely motivating me to make code that looks nice and follows all the OO paradigms I know of.
And do we as a company really need it? I think we do as you should see from reading this entire answer, it can be considered a good practice for the advancements it brings.
#1: in a related note, I refactored legacy code from 2002 today which used those standards, didn't look "bad" at all even in its original form and certainly not worse in its new form
No, not really.
If you can actually get it to work consistently and not make it flag code has changed due to a different style of laying the code out.
However, this is just a small part of coding standards. It won't cover multiple return statements, the use or not of ternary operators, etc.
It is always nice if the coding style that the shop uses is the same one that is also followed by the development tools.
Otherwise, if there is a large body of code that already follows a shop standard which is NOT the same as that of the tools you have two choices:
Modify all of the code to follow the tool standard, or
Maintain the existing shop standard.
Many shops do the latter. Regardless, there does need to be some kind of standard, and it does need to be followed.
Some development tools allow you to tweak their standard. In some cases you may be able to bring the tools in alignment with the shop standard.
It probably doesn't matter that much anymore if you can ensure that everybody in the team sees the source code "correctly" formatted, whatever they think it is. However I've not seen a system that can do that - you can do parts of it (say, reformat before and after checkin/checkout) but these days you also have to consider web interfaces into the version control, external code review systems that interact directly with the version control system etc.
The main purpose of a standard code style is (IMHO) to ensure that you can read other team members' code easily without having to start reverse engineering it because all the code is written using the same sort of guiding principles. Indenting and parentheses placement seem to be a major hangup on this but they are only a very small and in my opinion, somewhat overblown and not very important part of the need to make code consistent.
Unfortunately I'm not aware of any tools that can automatically apply consistent coding principles to source code...
Yes, coding styles are needed if there is a desire to have a homogeneous code base. Such a code base can be useful in preventing individual ownership of parts of the code base, which can cause problems when people leave the team. If you can't imagine having wildly different styles and problems understanding all of it, just look at all the different ways English text can be organized in various communications, all written but quite different such as tweets, e-mail, text messages, IM, message board posts, etc. and changes in fonts, capitalization, decorations, etc.
Visual Studio is kind enough to generate a lot of code for us when we create and design Windows.Forms controls. It also surrounds most of it with a #region statement.
In newer versions it also uses a partial class to separate generated from manually created code.
Developers are supposed to edit code only in certain areas.
But nothing prevents us from violating this in whatever way we please.
I'm fine with manual edits that could just as well have been made from the designer, or manual edits in areas the designer doesn't touch. But I'd like to flag any other kind of edit.
Does anyone know a utility that can do this? StyleCop rules perhaps?
I mostly need it for the combination of C#, Windows.Forms, and Visual Studio 2003, 2005, and 2008.
These days, designer code should end up in a .Designer.cs file. It should be very rare that developers need to touch that. Unfortunately, I don't know any way of verifying that the code was genuinely generated by the designer. It would be handy if it included some sort of hash, but it doesn't as far as I'm aware...
Given how easy it is now to just say "don't edit designer files" do you really need another system though? It's not like you need to stay away from specific regions - it's the whole file which is out of bounds.
Why should developers not be allowed to change this code? If they are able to write code that works, they should be allowed to do it. If they are not able to write code that works, lets say they should be trained or fired.
You just have to extend the meaning of "it works" to "it works at runtime as well as in the designer". So what's wrong about that?
Todays gui designers are not very restrictive and are doing a good job in "understanding" code that had been written by a human.
There is also real generated code around, for instance code generated by some xml specification, resources etc. This code is generated when building, so when it had been changed, these changes are undone whenever the application is built.
Designers are not real code generators of this kind. They are a kind of "coding helpers", helping the developer to write code faster then by typing it in. But it should actually be possible to write the same kind of code manually although limiting one self to the designers capabilities is a reasonable maintainability decision.
Since yesterday, I am analyzing one of our project with Ndepend (free for most of its features) and more I am using it, and more I have doubt about the real value of this type of software (code-analysis software).
Let me explain, The system build a report about the health of the system and class by Rank every metric. I thought it would be a good starting point to do modifications but most of the top result are here because they have over 100 lines inside the class (we have big headers and we do use VS comments styles) so it's not a big deal... than the number of Afferent Coupling level (CA) is always too high and this is almost very true for Interface that we used a lot... so at this moment I do not see something wrong but NDepend seem to do not like it (if you have suggestion to improve that tell me because I do not see the need for). It's the samething for the metric called "NOC" for Number of children that most of my Interface are too high...
For the moment, the only very useful metric is the Cyclomatic Complexity...
My question is : Do you find is worth it to analyse code with Automatic Code Analyser like NDepend? If yes, how do you filter all information that I have mentionned that doesn't really show the real health of the system?
Actually metrics are just one feature of NDepend, did you try to use VisualNDepend that lets you analyze your project much more in depth than the report? By reading your comment, I am almost sure you didn't play with NDepend UI (standalone or integrated in Visual Studio) which is the best way to filter data about your code base.
I am one of the developers of NDepend and we use it a lot to analyze our own code. Basically we write our own quality rules with Code Rules over LINQ Queries (CQLinq). These rules automatically make sure that we don't have regression on our design. Here you'll find the list of around 200 default code rules.
Here are some unique features of NDepend and not related to code metrics:
Write CQLinq rules to make sure we don't have architectural flaws, such as dependency cycles between our components, UI using directly the DB or DB entangled with the business objects.
Make sure we don't have problem with code coverage by tests (like we make sure with a CQLinq rule that if a class is supposed to be 100% covered, it will remain 100% covered in the future)
Enforce side-effects-free code (immutable class/pure methods)
Use the ability to compare 2 analysis to code review changes since the last release, before doing a new release. More specifically, I enjoy using NDepend to know which method has been added and refactored since the last release, and is not 100% covered by tests.
Having an optimal encapsulation for all our members and types (like knowing which internal methods can be declared as private). This is also related to dead-code detection that NDepend also supports.
For a complete list of features if NDepend, see here.
I don't necessarily see NDepend results as "good" or "bad" in software engineering, there's always a good reason why an application is designed the way it is. I see it as a report that can probably help me point out issues with my design, but I have the final word when it comes to deciding if a method needs to be refactored or if it's good the way I designed it. In general, don't get too caught up trying to answer if it's worth it or not. It definitely is, instead I would suggest you carefully review the results. This will help you view your design from another perspective and there may be occasions where you decide the way you designed it is the best to achieve your applications goals.