Slashdot Mirror
When Making a Comprehensive Retrofit of your Code...
chizor asks: "My
programming team is considering making some sweeping changes to our
code base (150+ perl CGIs,
over a meg of code) in the interest of consistency and reducing
redundancy. We're going to have to make some hard decisions about
code style. What suggestions might readers have about tackling a
large-scale retrofit?" Once the
decision has been made for a sweeping rewrite of a project,
what can you do to make sure things go smoothly and you don't run
into any development snags...especially as things progress in the
development cycle?
I'm sure a bunch of code nazis will disagree with me (please note the clever way I attempt to pre-emptively undermine their arguments by labeling them as 'nazis') but sometimes massive engineering re-writes are not necessary.
Your tangled mass of spaghetti code paths are probably full of almost incomprehensible little design decisions and seemingly out of place declarations and functions, but most of those were probably added as specific fixes for bugs encountered under real-world use.
Most companies that decide to massively re-engineer their code (do a big rewrite) usually end up regretting it because it forces them to re-fix the problems that caused the original strange looking code in the first place.
Does your CGI nest work? If so, maybe you should leave it alone. If you are fixing specific problems, then go ahead, but if this is a generalized attempt to fix the 'not invented here' syndrome that plagues engineers (who will almost universally agree that it is easier to write code then it is to read it), perhaps you should reconsider.
Don't stop maintaining the old code code until the new code is on solid ground. No matter how sure you are that you can do it, the new code might never come through.
The Gardener
--
You are going to rewrite the system from scratch. Design from scratch. Your new design might be able to use some old code, if the old code is useful.
A large scale retrofit is really an oxymoron.
IMHO, but with 15 years experience.
-pyrrho
1) Know what you are doing. 2) Know what the code does.
Both are expedited by good documentation. This is so important, it deserves to be written thusly:
DOCUMENTATION!
Write everything down. If the code is not commented, figure out what it does and write it down. When you add a line or a module, write down what it is supposed to do. Declarations? Write those down too. Document everything so that you can figure everything out, both now and down the road when you decide to fix something else.
This is the voice of experience. I have had to reverse-engineer my own code 6 months after I wrote it because I failed to document anything. Learn from my mistake.
I have a strong belief in the Second Amendment.
A ton of people will tell you a ton of things, never having retrofited anything.
- Do not undervalue the investment you have learning your existing coding language. New challenges await you if you jump on a new language like java. Make the jump if you are excited about learning about the new language.
- If you use your existing coding language you will literally fly through the retrofit. Do it piece by piece. Make all those changes first, then test app, then make next set of changes then test. The simple fact is, most wasted time is spent on bugs not working on performance, and you've already knocked down a lot of bugs, don't let them pop back up by blowing everything up. There are books on this.
- Sometimes blowing everything up is worth it. Do it right this time. Realize it won't be as perfect as you might think it will be.
- Remember there are countless open source and shareware products that tried to create TNG with a total rewrite, got nowhere, and ended up improving their existing product. Remember the lesson, bite off what you can chew.
- Spend a week poking around researching possibilities. I do this all the time, bookmark things I think are important. Then for the next project you've got all the little things you might forget at your fingertips. Optimzations/Tools/Paradigms. Think you know it all? You'd be suprised at what is out there and what you missed. And what you spent a month in house re-inventing. This one's important.
- Use open source software. Nothing beats free. Nothing is more fun. Java's ugly standardization history makes me puke... the BS Sun has pulled with Java is staggering. That the Java Lobby swallows it and loves it even more so. This is irrelevant to your question, and not fair to the Lobby, but I like to give them a hard time.
- Colorary to Java. You need less abstract design then you think. Endless object hierarchies will weigh you and your app down... Their are books on this too.
- You need more documentation then you think. Ever found code someone ELSE wrote too EASY to follow. I don't think so. Especially if you are using perl and someone is enjoying the line noise capabalities perl allows. Perl has 20 ways to do EVERYTHING, you may not know the latest or twistiest. Document as you WRITE the code. Do not leave at the end of the day without catching up the docs. A week of documenting is the worst form of hell, avoided with a minutes worth of clarification each time you write a function/class.
- Hardware is cheap.
Anyways, have fun... and good luck. Be interested to read what others have to say.
To expand on the concept of Refactoring:
1. Write a test for a specific block of code.
2. Appliy the refactoring
You are going to want a good testing framework.
To expand on the modules post: Do a dependency analysis. If you are writing DB based code, look at what tables can be logically grouped together.
We did something like this at my company not too long ago. The basical level package we had was the security package, which identifies users and roles. Most other packages depended on this. All contact management stuff went into a package called Directory. All stuff for the people our system was managing went into Participant etc.
For each of the packages, split the code out into a set of interfaces, and a set of implementing code for business logic, and the UI required to drive that business logic. This is the standard breakdown for code. You may want to further pull out code into helper packages. Avoid the urge to call these helper or util, and instead try to name them based on what they contain: we have one called format for stuff like phone numbers and social security numbers.
Don't forget the make scripts. What ever build you use, it should be used to specify which modules you want to compile/deploy
I recommend a little UML modeling session for the end package structure.
Go in little pieces. After each refacotring, makes sure stuff still runs.
Good Luck
Open Source Identity Management: FreeIPA.org
Your tangled mass of spaghetti code paths are probably full of almost incomprehensible little design decisions and seemingly out of place declarations and functions, but most of those were probably added as specific fixes for bugs encountered under real-world use.
Yes, and if they're cryptic and uncommented, they are worthless. Eventually one of these incomprehensible, magical fixes will stop working. Perhaps the bug it works around is fixed. Perhaps how the function is being used changes to previously unexpected behavior. Some poor engineer will look at the little big of magic, scratch his head, and be forced make a blind decision about how to fix it. Perhaps he can change the code while leaving the bit of magic in working, but he can't be certain, since he doens't understand it. If the collection of cryptic tweaks becomes dense enough, any attempt to fix a bug or add a feature becomes highly risky.
On a related note, don't let this happen to you. If you add one of these strange little fixes, for the sake of the programmer that follows you, document them. Just a little "Need to toggle the Foo because Qux 1.4 is correctly fails to do so" will bring tears of joy to the eyes of future programmers.
Large overhauls are usually mistakes. Details in the previous code are lost. If the overhaul takes non-trivial time, people become frustrated that two weeks ago they had a working (if problematic) system and today most of the system doesn't work.
Instead, make small incremental changes. Pick something lots of code is replicating and attempt to unify it into a shared code base. Spend some time documenting key parts of the code. Pick a particularlly hairy class or function and untangle some of the worst bits. These sorts of changes can reveal minor bugs, build up to significant improvements, and leave you satisfied at the end of the day that you improved things.
If a signficant overhaul is necessary, try to overhaul portions while maintaining the existing bits.
The first thing you definitly have to do is Setting up a test suit for regressoin testing.
For those not familair with the term 'regression test':
Program a set of so called "test drivers", programms calling your code: routines/scripts.
Define test data, either in a DB or in flat files, used by those driver programs.
The test programs and test data needs to work with the old code, of course.
As the new code should behave similar you only need to adjust PATH or script names to let the test programs work with the new code.
Plan your project by defining which test cases(test program plus test data) should work at a planned milestone with the changed code.
After making changes rerun all tests.
Well, there is a lot more you could do, but that above is minimum (basic software engineering, sorry no art involved here).
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Most of the computer industry now calls this Refactoring.
I would HIGHLY recommend the book "Refactoring" by Martin Fowler.
There is a number of things you should do here.
1. Document your plan and come up with an official PROPOSAL document. Allow others to comment on this document and incorporate fix all relevant issues.
I started using this under the Apache Jetspeed project and now a lot of other Apache projects are accepting this practice.
It really allows the community to become involved in your changes and encourages constructive feedback and involvement.
2. Break this into phases. You should NOT attempt to do this all at once. Each phase should be isolated and should consist of one unit of work.
Each phase should be branched off of CVS, worked on, stabilized, brought back into HEAD and tagged. You should then RUN this code in a semi-deployment role for a period of time to correct all issues which WILL arise with the updated code.
After this you can then start your next phase.
3. UNIT TESTS! If management (assuming you have management) has approved the time for this type of refactor then you need to take the time and write Unit Tests for each major component.
It is important that Unit Testing can sometimes be just as hard, if not harder, than the actual development itself.
In some situations you can avoid Unit Testing, some here are going to call me crazy for saying this but it is true. In a lot of high level applications, which are NOT used as libraries by other applications, you can bypass Unit Testing in order to increase development time. This is a dangerous practice but it is often outweighed by the extra functionality you will end up with in your product.
Anyway. Good luck!
Kevin
His comments about code reworking and rewriting have a lot of insight in them.
Here are some quotes from his article:
The point is this... The benefits of spending time rewriting code completely may be a waste of the companies resources, this is for you to determine.
His interview is here:
http://www.softwaremarketsolution.com/index_2.h
and his site has more information about the concepts here:
http://joel.editthispage.com/articles/fog000000
Now, on coding standards and how to incorporate them into a legacy project. Your concern is NOT format. The format of your code, such as indentation, spacing, etc, should be the least of yoru concerns. Everyone has their own style, but there are wonderful tools that you can use to force everyone to a single style, ident and astyle just to name a couple. Use a wrapper script to the CVS (or similar system) on checkins. Force the code through an automated cleanup. check the code back out and make sure it compiles/runs as expected.
What you should worry about is how much your design team has embraced the "black box" design principal. Parameters go in, results come out with no "side-effects" that impact the remainder of the code. Make your code re-entry safe, i.e. stay away from globally scoped variables as much as possible.
Someone's going to give you the whole OO-Design sales pitch. Yes it's nice on paper, but don't sell out because something looks nice on paper. I learned this the hard way. I have a tendency to overdesign things. When OO, this gets to be really scary. I waste my time writing object classes for "everything" instead of simply designing the software to its functionality spec. Make things more "object oriented", "functional", or "blackboxed" when you find yourself repeating code elsewhere in the application.
Don't spend a lot of time with naming standards such as Hungarian, Modified Hungarian, etc. Find a style that you and your team is comfortable with for the Interface API level. Below the Interface API, be more lenient. It's likely that portion of the code will undergo many changes anyway.
And most importantly, document! This is the singlemost important issue of any coding project. Either force your developers to write docs as they go, use embedded documentation solutions, or hire a techwriter to follow you and your team around for a few months. Documented API is the quickest way to start someone off in the project, and a great way to keep track of the flow of the program.
assert(expired(knowledge));
Baloney.
Contrary to what lots of people around here seem to think, especially those who like to make wide-sweeping declarations about what things are and what they are not, Perl is a tool. Nothing less, nothing more. Like all tools, it can be used to create well-engineered systems, and it can be used to create crap.
The community that grew up around Perl is all-welcoming and generally free of elitism. That's why a lot of newbie programmers and "system administrators-cum-developers" use Perl -- because they can without getting crapped on by others who think they know better. As a result, there is a lot of ametaurish-looking Perl code out there, but that's not a result of the language, that's a result of the all-inclusive set of people who use Perl.
Let's be clear: If you write code in any language and the code sucks, it's your fault, not the language's -- the language is just a tool.
Don't blame the problems of programmers on their tools.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
Mmmm. I write large-scale web applications for a living, and I do it in Perl. By large-scale, I mean sites that are expected to support hundreds of thousands of page-views per day, serve hundreds of thousands of distinct users per month, and collate hundreds of thousands of distinct chunks of content into dynamic pages.
My company is a high-end development shop. We generally bid on projects that will take six to nine months to complete, and we only do jobs for clients who understand how we work and why. Part of our approach is to use very small teams of extremely experienced web developers. We usually deploy four programmers on a project. Other companies that bid against us sometimes use several times that many people on a single development team. Another part of our approach is to build everything on top of our open-source development framework. That sometimes used to be a tough sell ("what, give software away for free, heaven forfend") but these days, most customers are pretty receptive to the twin "more eyeballs means better code" and "you're not locked into our closed, proprietary product" arguments.
We also generally build small clusters of dual-processor Athlon or PIII machines, whereas our Java- (Oracle-, IBM -, BEA-, etc) wielding colleagues often specify absurdly-expensive hardware.
Perl is flexible, complete, performs relatively well and has an extroardinary base of skilled developers and re-usable components (CPAN). We couldn't work as quickly or write code that is as concise and maintainable using any other currently-available language/approach. Most of the lines of code that we write actually go into Perl modules, with HTML::Mason templates handling the dynamic web-page generation. We can push Mason out of the way and use straight mod_perl for small, defined tasks. And we can easily integrate C code into our Perl frameworks in places where performance is really, really critical (though those places are rare, as when push comes to shove, one is almost always waiting on the database).
There are lots of things that aren't "right" about web development. The package that results from gluing HTML and program logic together in a stateless execution environment is sometimes a little lumpy, and unavoidably so. There's no magic bullet toolkit, and (as with other specialized programming arenas, like graphics or embedded systems) a lot of hard-won, domain-specific knowledge goes into the development of a fast, reliable, maintainable web app.
The Perl/Apache/Mason combination that we use is far from perfect. But it's better -- for us -- than any of the alternatives.
I really like Java, and have written big systems in that language, too. If for some reason I had to manage a very large team of programmers, or had to manage a team with a large percentage of less-experienced programmers, I would use a Java-based solution. Java is a more rigid language than Perl, and the structure that the language provides would be a useful management tool in those contexts. But for my small teams of skilled hackers, Perl is more productive. (We have an extensive, evolved, self-imposed "structure," so we don't need the language to impose one on us -- in fact, it gets in the way.)
I would never use PHP for the kind of work we do. PHP just isn't the kind of powerful, flexible, complete environment that Perl is.
Zope and Python are really neat. I'm a fan of the work that folks on that side of the fence are doing. But Python+Zope don't offer us anything new that Perl+Mason+Comma don't. I also like Perl more than Python (which is a subjective preference), and think that the Perl development environment is more mature (which is a subjective judgment).
So don't listen to the folks who tell you to dump Perl. You should certainly consider all of your options and make an informed decision about core tools, but anyone who thinks that Perl is just a "scripting" language, or that it doesn't scale, hasn't been paying attention.
To finish this up with a little more specific advice to the original poster: You mentioned "150+ perl CGIs" in your question. You should consider moving away from the CGI model, if possible. Take a look at HTML::Mason, which is a very good embedded-perl environment. You can build solid, consistent application layers using Mason as a base. Also, I couldn't agree more with the folks recommending writing perl modules and requiring complete regression tests for each module. There are lots of ways to write tests, but in perl-land one of the easiest is to simply make a t/ directory down your module tree, write a bunch of scripts in that directory named <some-test>.t that print out a series of "ok <n>\n" lines, and use make test or Test::Harness::runtests() to invoke them.
Refactoring is not re-writing. Refactoring is a methodical approach to moving, redesigning, and making the code cleaner. It's not throwing away and starting from scratch. The two words are wholly semantically different.
In his book, Refactoring, Martin Fowler talks about how code "smells". He identifies a whole slew of reasons why code can "smell" bad, such as having a method that's too long, having a method on the wrong object, incorrect use of polymorphism, etc. He then outlines "Refactoring Patterns" which can be applied to certain "smells" to make the code more managable.
The last project I managed was a 3 month re-write of over 75,000 lines of code for an auction component that had gotten way out of control. The original component integrated with a very very poorly written (yet still very expensive) auction engine, and our task was to take it out.
Because there was no time allotted to proper requirements gathering, the powers that be decided that we could use the existing system as a requirements base, and just make the new system "act" like the old one.
So I was thrown two things: A staff that was inexperienced in design, and a lack of requirements. We were re-writing from scratch -- throwing all of the code away and starting again. I'm one of the only ones on my team that actually knows what refactoring means, let alone how to apply it.
So we built the new system based on a solid design. We even did the design in UML. But that only goes so far. Given a properly designed system, there is still another lower step -- how to actually implement the code. Invariably, the design doesn't take into account helper methods that are necessary, other objects, etc. Because we were on a tight schedule, I left it up to each developer to design these new tidbits.
If they had known what they were doing, everything would have been fine, but there are several places where the code is absolutely abysmal. It's not that it will perform poorly or is totally unmanagable, but in some places it's close.
Granted, the business rules for the system are some of the most complex I've ever seen, but if the developers had known more about refactoring, they might have made better choices.
There's a whole notion of Quality here that should be discussed as well. Most good has a good enough quality, and though it looks ugly, I'd throw it away. There's an interesting interview by Joel (a former microsoft programmer) which tackles these problems of Quality head on. I also reccommend reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence: An Inqiry into Values for a pretty good discussion of the whole notion of quality.
I'd say just keep the codebase unless you are totally switching languages (or in our case taking out a 3rd party integration). Otherwise if you re-write you'll wish you hadn't. The new codebase will end up being in the same state as the old codebase, it'll just take a little bit more time to get there.
I'd also reccommend just doing a performance test of the site, and find out which modules really need to be re-written. The 80/20 rule will invariably apply -- 80% of the execution time will be spent in 20% of the code -- so at a minimum just re-write the 20% of the code that's executed on the most frequent paths. Leave the rest alone. Re-writing it will just be a waste of time, and you have to fix all the old bugs that were re-introduced during the re-write.
if it works... don't fix it.
If you feel you have to fix it, then prioritise the most problematic parts and fix them according to a set plan/policy. Use a naming and calling convention. Break functions that do more than one thing up into component functions that can be tested, verified and reused by other parts of your program. Fix it incrementally not all at once. Try using an interface contract when you make objects; that way, your new functions can call new methods and the old code can depend on old methods to be there. Deprecate the old methods when there is no code that depends on it. Don't forget to comment - comment the code then come back the next day and read your own comments. Make changes to the comments so they make sense today.
Blah... blah... blah... Etc... etc... etc...
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
There's a few things that I'll say. One, not a single person posting here really knows what your situation is (well, unless your coworkers read /. and are posting advice for you...). I don't want to be mean, but most of what's been posted here is likely not applicable to your situation. For starters, ignore all the threads arguing over languages: they'll never agree, and in the meantime you have work to get done. Next, I would suggest ignore all of the posts from people who aren't talking about web sites. There's a lot of methodology recommendations there, and it takes a long time to really understand *any* methodology. So if you don't already know it, it won't help for *this* project. If you're interested in that kind of stuff, read up on it; maybe it'll be useful on a future project.
:)
Next, no matter what you decide, from your current position, there's substantial risk involved. If you don't have a good way of estimating the costs and benefits of your alternatives, then you will wind up shooting in the dark no matter what you choose. This isn't really unusual, but it can be stressful! Somebody in management has to decide if they want to play high stakes poker with this project. This will establish how many nice risk mitigating activities you can budget (like unit tests, code reviews, documentation, etc). One thing a lot of technology people have difficulty grasping (this isn't directed at anybody in particular), is that if your management decides on a high risk course of action, it's not WRONG because it's technically inferior. Now, if management doesn't understand that it's a high risk proposition, then there's a communication failure somewhere that will screw you no matter what gets chosen.
Ok, now that you've decided where you're going, I've got 3 pieces of useless advice (all advice is useless advice, btw...)
1) Know your priorities. This is the most important thing to getting ANY solution.
2) Understand your requirements(I don't care how you do this). This is the most important thing to getting (close to) a CORRECT solution.
3) Remember it's only a job. This can be very important for retaining sanity
[There's only so much a methodology can bring to the table -- after that it's about finding and keeping a competant staff who understand the value of what they're doing.]
You are so utterly right. The key idea is "people over process". I've rather have 5 great people with any old process, than 25 mediocre people with the perfect process.
[look at the console gaming industry for tips]
I have always been impressed with the gaming industry for this reason. Sometime people erroneously think of game programming as being somehow less "heavy duty" than business apps, etc. But games are usually under incredible schedule pressure (for vital marketing reasons) yet also need to ship very few bugs, because buyers are prone to return a game that doesn't work, not become a source of upgrade revenues.