I often hear around here from test driven development people that having a function get large amounts of information implicitly is a bad thing. I can see were this would be bad from a testing perspective, but isn't it sometimes necessary from an encapsulation perspective? The following question comes to mind:
Is using Random and OrderBy a good shuffle algorithm?
Basically, someone wanted to create a function in C# to randomly shuffle an array. Several people told him that the random number generator should be passed in as a parameter. This seems like an egregious violation of encapsulation to me, even if it does make testing easier. Isn't the fact that an array shuffling algorithm requires any state at all other than the array it's shuffling an implementation detail that the caller should not have to care about? Wouldn't the correct place to get this information be implicitly, possibly from a thread-local singleton?
I don't think it breaks encapsulation. The only state in the array is the data itself - and "a source of randomness" is essentially a service. Why should an array naturally have an associated source of randomness? Why should that have to be a singleton? What about different situations which have different requirements - e.g. speed vs cryptographically secure randomness? There's a reason why java.util.Random has a SecureRandom subclass :) Perhaps it doesn't matter whether the shuffle's results are predictable with a lot of effort and observation - or perhaps it does. That will depend on the context, and that's information that the shuffle algorithm shouldn't care about.
Once you start thinking of it as a service, it makes sense that it's passed in as a dependency.
Yes, you could get it from a thread-local singleton (and indeed I'm going to blog about exactly that in the next few days) but I would generally code it so that the caller gets to make that decision.
One benefit of the "randomness as a service" concept is that it makes for repeatability - if you've got a test which fails, you can pass in a Random with a specific seed and know you'll always get the same results, which makes debugging easier.
Of course, there's always the option of making the Random optional - use a thread-local singleton as a default if the caller doesn't provide their own.
Yes, that does break encapsulation. As with most software design decisions, this is a trade-off between two opposing forces. If you encapsulate the RNG then you make it difficult to change for a unit test. If you make it a parameter then you make it easy for a user to change the RNG (and potentially get it wrong).
My personal preference is to make it easy to test, then provide a default implementation (a default constructor that creates its own RNG, in this particular case) and good documentation for the end user. Adding a method with the signature
public static IEnumerable<T> Shuffle<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
that creates a Random using the current system time as its seed would take care of most normal use cases of this method. The original method
public static IEnumerable<T> Shuffle<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Random rng)
could be used for testing (pass in a Random object with a known seed) and also in those rare cases where a user decides they need a cryptographically secure RNG. The one-parameter implementation should call this method.
I don't think this violates encapsulation.
Your Example
I would say that being able to provide an RNG is a feature of the class. I would obviously provide a method that doesn't require it, but I can see times where it may be useful to be able to duplicate the randomization.
What if the array shuffler was part of a game that used the RNG for level generation. If a user wanted to save the level and play it again later, it may be more efficient to store the RNG seed.
General Case
Simple classes that have a single task like this typically don't need to worry about divulging their inner workings. What they encapsulate is the logic of the task, not the elements required by that logic.
Related
Effective java states a good practice of assertions in private methods.
"For an unexported method, you as the package author control the circumstances under which the method is called, so you can and should ensure that only valid parameter values are ever passed in. Therefore, nonpublic methods should generally check their parameters using assertions, as shown below:
For example:
// Private helper function for a recursive sort
private static void sort(long a[]) {
assert a != null;
// Do the computation;
}
My question is would asserts be required even if the public function calling the sort has a null pointer check ?
Example:
public void computeTwoNumbersThatSumToInputValue(int a[], int x) {
if (a == null) {
throw new Nullptrexception();
}
sort(a);
// code to do the required.
}
In other words, will asserts in private function be 'redudant' or mandatory in this case.
Thanks,
It's redundant if you're sure that you've got the assertion in all the calling code. In some cases, that's very obvious - in other cases it can be less so. If you're calling sort from 20 places in the class, are you sure you've checked it in every case?
It's a matter of taste and balance, with no "one size fits all" answer. The balance is in terms of code clarity (both ways!), performance (in extreme cases) and of course safety. It depends on the exact context, and I wouldn't personally like to even guarantee that I'm entirely consistent. (In other words, "level of caffeine at the time of coding" may turn out to be an influence too.)
Note that your assert is only going to execute when assertions are turned on anyway - I personally prefer to validate parameters consistently however you're running the code. I generally use the Preconditions class from Guava to make preconditions unobtrusive.
Assertions will make the helper function sort more robust to use.
Checking for parameters before passing it to any method is a good methodology to have more control over the Exceptions occurring unintentionally at the runtime.
My suggestion will be to use both the approaches in your code as there is no guarantee that all the callers of sort will do such checks. If assertions in helper methods are algorithmically of high order or seems redundant then this can be disabled (esp for production use) via use of -disableassertions or -da from command-line.
You could do that. I will quote from the Oracle docs.
An assertion is a statement in the JavaTM programming language that
enables you to test your assumptions about your program. For example,
if you write a method that calculates the speed of a particle, you
might assert that the calculated speed is less than the speed of
light.
I do not personally use assertions, but from what I gathered readings the oracle docs on it, it enables you to test your assumptions about what you expect something to do. Try/catch blocks are more for failing gracefully as an inevitability of failures bound to happen (like networking, computer problems). Basically, in a perfect world your code would always run successfully because theres nothing wrong with it code wise. But this isn't a perfect world. Also note:
Experience has shown that writing assertions while programming is one
of the quickest and most effective ways to detect and correct bugs. As
an added benefit, assertions serve to document the inner workings of
your program, enhancing maintainability.
I would say use as a preference. To answer your question, I would mainly use it to test code as the docs say, while testing assumptions you have about your code. As the second quote mentions, it has the added benefit of telling other developers (or future you) what you assume to get as parameters. As a personal preference, I leave control flow to try/catch blocks as that is what they were designed for.
*But keep in mind that assertions could be turned off.
I got a rather big class library that contains a lot of code.
I am looking at how to optimize the performance of some of the code, and for some rather simple utility methods I've found that the parameter validation occupies a rather large portion of the runtime for some core methods.
Let me give a typical example:
A.MethodA1 runs a loop, iterating over a collection, calling B.MethodB1 for each element
B.MethodB1 processes the element and returns the result, it's a rather basic calculation, but since it is used many places, it has been put into its own method instead of being copied and pasted where needed
A.MethodA1 calls C.MethodC1 with the results of B.MethodB1, and puts the result into a list that is returned at the end of the loop
In the case I've found now, B.MethodB1 does rudimentary parameter validation. Since the method calls other internal methods, I'd like to avoid having NullReferenceExceptions several layers deep into the code, and rather fail early, hence B.MethodB1 validates the parameters, like checking for null and some basic range checks on another parameter.
However, in this particular call scenario, it is impossible (due to other program logic) for these parameters to ever have the wrong values. If they had, from the program standpoint, B.MethodB1 would never be called at all for those values, A.MethodA1 would fail before the call to B.MethodB1.
So I was considering removing the parameter validation in B.MethodB1, since it occupies roughly 65% of the method runtime (and this is part of some heavily used code.)
However, B.MethodB1 is a public method, and can thus be called from the program, in which case I want the parameter validation.
So how would you solve this dilemma?
Keep the parameter validation, and take the performance hit
Remove the parameter validation, and have potentially fail-late problems in the method
Split the method into two, one internal that doesn't have parameter validation, called by the "safe" path, and one public that has the parameter validation + a call to the internal version.
The latter one would give me the benefits of having no parameter validation, while still exposing a public entrypoint which does have parameter validation, but for some reason it doesn't sit right with me.
Opinions?
I would go with option 3. I tend to use assertions for private and internal methods and do all the validation in public methods.
By the way, is the performance hit really that big?
That's an interesting question.
Hmmm, makes me think ... "code contracts" .. It would seem like it might be technically possible to statically (at compile time) have certain code contracts be proven to be fulfilled. If this were the case and you had such a compilation validation option you could state these contracts without ever having to validate the conditions at runtime.
It would require that the client code itself be validated against the code contacts.
And, of course it would inevitably be highly dependent on the type of conditions you'd want to write, and it would probably only be feasible to prove these contracts to a certain point (how far up the possible call graph would you go?). Beyond this point the validator might have to beg off, and insist that you place a runtime check (or maybe a validation warning suppression?).
All just idle speculation. Does make me wonder a bit more about C# 4.0 code contracts. I wonder if these have support for static analysis. Have you checked them out? I've been meaning to, but learning F# is having to take priority at the moment!
Update:
Having read up a little on it, it appears that C# 4.0 does indeed have a 'static checker' as well as a binary rewriter (which takes care of altering the output binary so that pre and post condition checks are in the appropriate location)
What's not clear from my extremely quick read, is whether you can opt out of the binary rewriting - what I'm thinking here is that what you'd really be looking for is to use the code contracts, have the metadata (or code) for the contracts maintained within the various assemblies but use only the static checker for at least a selected subset of contracts, so that you in theory get proven safety without any runtime hit.
Here's a link to an article on the code contracts
I have been reading over design-by-contract posts and examples, and there is something that I cannot seem to wrap my head around. In all of the examples I have seen, DbC is used on a trivial class testing its own state in the post-conditions (e.g. lots of Bank Accounts).
It seems to me that most of the time when you call a method of a class, it does much more work delegating method calls to its external dependencies. I understand how to check for this in a Unit-Test with specific scenarios using dependency inversion and mock objects that focus on the external behavior of the method, but how does this work with DbC and post-conditions?
My second question has to deal with understanding complex post-conditions. It seems to me that to write out a post-condition for many functions, that you basically have to re-write the body of the function for your post-condition to know what the new state is going to be. What is the point of that?
I really do like the notion of DbC and I think that it has great promise, particularly if I can figure out how to reproduce some failure state once I find a validated contract. Over the past couple of hours I have been reading some neat stuff wrt. automatic test generation in Eiffel. I am currently trying to improve my processes in C++ development, but I am open to learning something new if I can figure out how to not lose all of the ground I have made in my current projects. Thanks.
but how does this work with DbC and
post-conditions?
Every function is basically one of these:
A sequence of statements
A conditional statement
A loop
The idea is that you should check any postconditions about the results of the function that go beyond the union of the postconditions of all the functions called.
that you basically have to re-write
the body of the function for your
post-condition to know what the new
state is going to be
Think about it the other way round. What made you write the function in the first place? What were you pursuing? Can that be expressed in a postcondition which is more simple than the function body itself? A postcondition will typically use queries (what in C++ are const functions), while the body usually combines commands and queries (methods that modify the object and methods which only get information from it).
In some cases, yes, you will find out that you can really add little value with postconditions. In these cases, writing a bunch of tests will typically be enough.
See also:
Bertrand Meyer, Contract Driven
Development
Related questions 1, 2
Delegation at the contract level
most of the time when you call a
method of a class, it does much more
work delegating method calls to its
external dependencies
As for this first question: the implementation of a function/method may call many other function/methods, but if the designer of the code had a clear mind, this does not imply that the specification of the caller is the concatenation of the specifications of the callees. For a method that calls many others, the size of the specification can remain contained if the method accomplishes a precise and well-defined task. Which it should if the whole system was well designed.
You are clearly asking your question from the point of view of run-time assertion checking. In this context, the above would perhaps be expressed as "you don't need to re-check in the post-condition of the caller that all the callees have respected their respective contracts. These checks will already be made on each call. In the post-condition of the caller, only check the functionally visible result of the caller."
Understanding complex post-conditions
You may find this "ACSL by example" document interesting (although probably different from what you're used to). It contains many examples of formal contracts for C functions. The language of the contracts is intended for static verification instead of run-time checking, with all the advantages and the drawbacks that it entails. They are a little more sophisticated than the "Bank Accounts" that you mention — these functions implement real algorithms, although simple ones. The document keeps the contracts short and readable by introducing well-thought-out auxiliary predicates (which would be called queries in Eiffel, as Daniel points out in his answer).
I recently expressed my view about this elsewhere* , but I think it deserves further analysis so I'm posting this as its own question.
Let's say that I need to create and pass around a container in my program. I probably don't have a strong opinion about one kind of container versus another, at least at this stage, but I do pick one; for sake of argument, let's say I'm going to use a List<>.
The question is: Is it better to write my methods to accept and return a high level interface such as C#'s IEnumerable? Or should I write methods to take and pass the specific container class that I have chosen.
What factors and criteria should I look for to decide? What kind of programs work benefit from one or the other? Does the computer language affect your decision? Performance? Program size? Personal style?
(Does it even matter?)
**(Homework: find it. But please post your answer here before you look for my own, so as not bias you.)*
Your method should always accept the least-specific type it needs to execute its function. If your method needs to enumerate, accept IEnumerable. If it needs to do IList<>-specific things, by definition you must give it a IList<>.
The only thing that should affect your decision is how you plan to use the parameter. If you're only iterating over it, use IEnumerable<T>. If you are accessing indexed members (eg var x = list[3]) or modifying the list in any way (eg list.Add(x)) then use ICollection<T> or IList<T>.
There is always a tradeoff. The general rule of thumb is to declare things as high up the hierarchy as possible. So if all you need is access to the methods in IEnumerable then that is what you should use.
Another recent example of a SO question was a C API that took a filename instead of a File * (or file descriptor). There the filename severly limited what sores of things could be passed in (there are many things you can pass in with a file descriptor, but only one that has a filename).
Once you have to start casting you have either gone too high OR you should be making a second method that takes a more specific type.
The only exception to this that I can think of is when speed is an absolute must and you do not want to go through the expense of a virtual method call. Declaring the specific type removes the overhead of virtual functions (will depend on the language/environment/implementation, but as a general statement that is likely correct).
It was a discussion with me that prompted this question, so Euro Micelli already knows my answer, but here it is! :)
I think Linq to Objects already provides a great answer to this question. By using the simplest interface to a sequence of items it could, it gives maximum flexibility about how you implement that sequence, which allows lazy generation, boosting productivity without sacrificing performance (not in any real sense).
It is true that premature abstraction can have a cost - but mainly it is the cost of discovering/inventing new abstractions. But if you already have perfectly good ones provided to you, then you'd be crazy not to take advantage of them, and that is what the generic collection interfaces provides you with.
There are those who will tell you that it is "easier" to make all the data in a class public, just in case you will need to access it. In the same way, Euro advised that it would be better to use a rich interface to a container such as IList<T> (or even the concrete class List<T>) and then clean up the mess later.
But I think, just as it is better to hide the data members of a class that you don't want to access, to allow you to modify the implementation of that class easily later, so you should use the simplest interface available to refer to a sequence of items. It is easier in practice to start by exposing something simple and basic and then "loosen" it later, than it is to start with something loose and struggle to impose order on it.
So assume IEnumerable<T> will do to represent a sequence. Then in those cases where you need to Add or Remove items (but still don't need by-index lookup), use IContainer<T>, which inherits IEnumerable<T> and so will be perfectly interoperable with your other code.
This way it will be perfectly clear (just from local examination of some code) precisely what that code will be able to do with the data.
Small programs require less abstraction, it is true. But if they are successful, they tend to become big programs. This is much easier if they employ simple abstractions in the first place.
It does matter, but the correct solution completely depends on usage. If you only need to do a simple enumeration then sure use IEnumerable that way you can pass any implementer to access the functionality you need. However if you need list functionality and you don't want to have to create a new instance of a list if by chance every time the method is called the enumerable that was passed wasn't a list then go with a list.
I answered a similar C# question here. I think you should always provide the simplest contract you can, which in the case of collections in my opinion, ordinarily is IEnumerable Of T.
The implementation can be provided by an internal BCL type - be it Set, Collection, List etcetera - whose required members are exposed by your type.
Your abstract type can always inherit simple BCL types, which are implemented by your concrete types. This in my opinion allows you to adhere to LSP easier.
What factors determine which approach is more appropriate?
I think both have their places.
You shouldn't simply use DoSomethingToThing(Thing n) just because you think "Functional programming is good". Likewise you shouldn't simply use Thing.DoSomething() because "Object Oriented programming is good".
I think it comes down to what you are trying to convey. Stop thinking about your code as a series of instructions, and start thinking about it like a paragraph or sentence of a story. Think about which parts are the most important from the point of view of the task at hand.
For example, if the part of the 'sentence' you would like to stress is the object, you should use the OO style.
Example:
fileHandle.close();
Most of the time when you're passing around file handles, the main thing you are thinking about is keeping track of the file it represents.
CounterExample:
string x = "Hello World";
submitHttpRequest( x );
In this case submitting the HTTP request is far more important than the string which is the body, so submitHttpRequst(x) is preferable to x.submitViaHttp()
Needless to say, these are not mutually exclusive. You'll probably actually have
networkConnection.submitHttpRequest(x)
in which you mix them both. The important thing is that you think about what parts are emphasized, and what you will be conveying to the future reader of the code.
To be object-oriented, tell, don't ask : http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/articles/tell-dont-ask.
So, Thing.DoSomething() rather than DoSomethingToThing(Thing n).
If you're dealing with internal state of a thing, Thing.DoSomething() makes more sense, because even if you change the internal representation of Thing, or how it works, the code talking to it doesn't have to change. If you're dealing with a collection of Things, or writing some utility methods, procedural-style DoSomethingToThing() might make more sense or be more straight-forward; but still, can usually be represented as a method on the object representing that collection: for instance
GetTotalPriceofThings();
vs
Cart.getTotal();
It really depends on how object oriented your code is.
Thing.DoSomething is appropriate if Thing is the subject of your sentence.
DoSomethingToThing(Thing n) is appropriate if Thing is the object of your sentence.
ThingA.DoSomethingToThingB(ThingB m) is an unavoidable combination, since in all the languages I can think of, functions belong to one class and are not mutually owned. But this makes sense because you can have a subject and an object.
Active voice is more straightforward than passive voice, so make sure your sentence has a subject that isn't just "the computer". This means, use form 1 and form 3 frequently, and use form 2 rarely.
For clarity:
// Form 1: "File handle, close."
fileHandle.close();
// Form 2: "(Computer,) close the file handle."
close(fileHandle);
// Form 3: "File handle, write the contents of another file handle."
fileHandle.writeContentsOf(anotherFileHandle);
I agree with Orion, but I'm going to rephrase the decision process.
You have a noun and a verb / an object and an action.
If many objects of this type will use this action, try to make the action part of the object.
Otherwise, try to group the action separately, but with related actions.
I like the File / string examples. There are many string operations, such as "SendAsHTTPReply", which won't happen for your average string, but do happen often in a certain setting. However, you basically will always close a File (hopefully), so it makes perfect sense to put the Close action in the class interface.
Another way to think of this is as buying part of an entertainment system. It makes sense to bundle a TV remote with a TV, because you always use them together. But it would be strange to bundle a power cable for a specific VCR with a TV, since many customers will never use this. The key idea is how often will this action be used on this object?
Not nearly enough information here. It depends if your language even supports the construct "Thing.something" or equivalent (ie. it's an OO language). If so, it's far more appropriate because that's the OO paradigm (members should be associated with the object they act on). In a procedural style, of course, DoSomethingtoThing() is your only choice... or ThingDoSomething()
DoSomethingToThing(Thing n) would be more of a functional approach whereas Thing.DoSomething() would be more of an object oriented approach.
That is the Object Oriented versus Procedural Programming choice :)
I think the well documented OO advantages apply to the Thing.DoSomething()
This has been asked Design question: does the Phone dial the PhoneNumber, or does the PhoneNumber dial itself on the Phone?
Here are a couple of factors to consider:
Can you modify or extend the Thing class. If not, use the former
Can Thing be instantiated. If not, use the later as a static method
If Thing actually get modified (i.e. has properties that change), prefer the latter. If Thing is not modified the latter is just as acceptable.
Otherwise, as objects are meant to map on to real world object, choose the method that seems more grounded in reality.
Even if you aren't working in an OO language, where you would have Thing.DoSomething(), for the overall readability of your code, having a set of functions like:
ThingDoSomething()
ThingDoAnotherTask()
ThingWeDoSomethingElse()
then
AnotherThingDoSomething()
and so on is far better.
All the code that works on "Thing" is on the one location. Of course, the "DoSomething" and other tasks should be named consistently - so you have a ThingOneRead(), a ThingTwoRead()... by now you should get point. When you go back to work on the code in twelve months time, you will appreciate taking the time to make things logical.
In general, if "something" is an action that "thing" naturally knows how to do, then you should use thing.doSomething(). That's good OO encapsulation, because otherwise DoSomethingToThing(thing) would have to access potential internal information of "thing".
For example invoice.getTotal()
If "something" is not naturally part of "thing's" domain model, then one option is to use a helper method.
For example: Logger.log(invoice)
If DoingSomething to an object is likely to produce a different result in another scenario, then i'd suggest you oneThing.DoSomethingToThing(anotherThing).
For example you may have two was of saving thing in you program so you might adopt a DatabaseObject.Save(thing) SessionObject.Save(thing) would be more advantageous than thing.Save() or thing.SaveToDatabase or thing.SaveToSession().
I rarely pass no parameters to a class, unless I'm retrieving public properties.
To add to Aeon's answer, it depends on the the thing and what you want to do to it. So if you are writing Thing, and DoSomething alters the internal state of Thing, then the best approach is Thing.DoSomething. However, if the action does more than change the internal state, then DoSomething(Thing) makes more sense. For example:
Collection.Add(Thing)
is better than
Thing.AddSelfToCollection(Collection)
And if you didn't write Thing, and cannot create a derived class, then you have no chocie but to do DoSomething(Thing)
Even in object oriented programming it might be useful to use a function call instead of a method (or for that matter calling a method of an object other than the one we call it on). Imagine a simple database persistence framework where you'd like to just call save() on an object. Instead of including an SQL statement in every class you'd like to have saved, thus complicating code, spreading SQL all across the code and making changing the storage engine a PITA, you could create an Interface defining save(Class1), save(Class2) etc. and its implementation. Then you'd actually be calling databaseSaver.save(class1) and have everything in one place.
I have to agree with Kevin Conner
Also keep in mind the caller of either of the 2 forms. The caller is probably a method of some other object that definitely does something to your Thing :)