Re: Real world coding standards implementation feedback
On May 20, 5:38 pm, Noah Roberts <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
James Kanze wrote:
Again, I question the use of the word "refactor".
Another "agile development" term.
Looks like the first Chapter, a sample refactoring session, is
at least partially there.
I know what refactoring normally means. If in the linked to
document, it means what it normally means, then it's wrong.
When I refactor code into a function, I remove the original
code, replacing it by a call to the function. When I insert an
assert to enforce a documented pre-condition, I definitely
should not remove the documentation of the pre-condition.
There's nothing that says you need to be doing agile
development to use these techniques or concepts.
In fact, many of the "agile development" techniques are just a
relabeling of what was common practice 30 or 40 years ago.
The idea of refactoring, as applied in agile development, does
require full unit test coverage though.
No more so than anything else. You always need full unit test
coverage. (Again, that was an established fact long before
"agile" became in.)
The whole point is that you change your code and run the same
tests that existed before...thus telling you that you probably
haven't broken anything.
Yes. Of course, the tests aren't sufficient in themselves; you
also need code review. But the tests are necessary.
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:email@example.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34