Comments on: Refactoring Day 25 : Introduce Design By Contract checks http://lostechies.com/seanchambers/2009/08/25/refactoring-day-25-introduce-design-by-contract-checks/ Just another LosTechies site Thu, 13 Sep 2012 07:11:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Ed http://lostechies.com/seanchambers/2009/08/25/refactoring-day-25-introduce-design-by-contract-checks/#comment-433 Ed Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:05:30 +0000 /blogs/sean_chambers/archive/2009/08/25/refactoring-day-25-introduce-design-by-contract-checks.aspx#comment-433 I'm pretty sure we have been calling this "defensive programming" for as long as I have been developing I’m pretty sure we have been calling this “defensive programming” for as long as I have been developing

]]> By: Thomas Weller http://lostechies.com/seanchambers/2009/08/25/refactoring-day-25-introduce-design-by-contract-checks/#comment-432 Thomas Weller Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:44:53 +0000 /blogs/sean_chambers/archive/2009/08/25/refactoring-day-25-introduce-design-by-contract-checks.aspx#comment-432 While I agree that DbC checks are not really 'Refactoring', but a modification of code behaviour, introducing it will greatly enhance the stability and maintainability of a codebase. So if you understand 'Refactoring' as 'making the code better and more consistent', then introducing DbC is clearly something to consider (although I think we shouldn't call it 'Refactoring'...). Btw, did you know that there's a really useful out-of-the-box library for writing DbC-Attributes like e.g. '[NotNull(something)]. Really nice, and spares tons of repetitive hand-rolled verification code: See here: http://validationaspects.codeplex.com Regards Thomas While I agree that DbC checks are not really ‘Refactoring’, but a modification of code behaviour, introducing it will greatly enhance the stability and maintainability of a codebase. So if you understand ‘Refactoring’ as ‘making the code better and more consistent’, then introducing DbC is clearly something to consider (although I think we shouldn’t call it ‘Refactoring’…).

Btw, did you know that there’s a really useful out-of-the-box library for writing DbC-Attributes like e.g. ‘[NotNull(something)]. Really nice, and spares tons of repetitive hand-rolled verification code: See here: http://validationaspects.codeplex.com

Regards
Thomas

]]> By: John Meyer http://lostechies.com/seanchambers/2009/08/25/refactoring-day-25-introduce-design-by-contract-checks/#comment-431 John Meyer Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:54:52 +0000 /blogs/sean_chambers/archive/2009/08/25/refactoring-day-25-introduce-design-by-contract-checks.aspx#comment-431 The orderTotal exception should not be one from the ArgumentException family, since orderTotal is not an argument to the method. InvalidOperationException, or a custom exception, would be more appropriate in this case. See code analysis (FXCop) warning 1040. The orderTotal exception should not be one from the ArgumentException family, since orderTotal is not an argument to the method. InvalidOperationException, or a custom exception, would be more appropriate in this case. See code analysis (FXCop) warning 1040.

]]> By: schambers http://lostechies.com/seanchambers/2009/08/25/refactoring-day-25-introduce-design-by-contract-checks/#comment-430 schambers Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:48:02 +0000 /blogs/sean_chambers/archive/2009/08/25/refactoring-day-25-introduce-design-by-contract-checks.aspx#comment-430 True, this is more of a modification then a refactoring because we are changing the exception that is being thrown. However, this change won't affect any consumers until you choose to catch the different exception being thrown. This one isn't really an exact fit for refactorings but I wanted to show it was a worthwhile thing to do when trying to apply some of the refactorings. True, this is more of a modification then a refactoring because we are changing the exception that is being thrown. However, this change won’t affect any consumers until you choose to catch the different exception being thrown.

This one isn’t really an exact fit for refactorings but I wanted to show it was a worthwhile thing to do when trying to apply some of the refactorings.

]]> By: alberto http://lostechies.com/seanchambers/2009/08/25/refactoring-day-25-introduce-design-by-contract-checks/#comment-429 alberto Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:24:51 +0000 /blogs/sean_chambers/archive/2009/08/25/refactoring-day-25-introduce-design-by-contract-checks.aspx#comment-429 That's not a refactoring by any mean. You are changing the behaviour of your class. A call that used to throw a NullReferenceException now will throw an ArgumentNullException. That’s not a refactoring by any mean. You are changing the behaviour of your class. A call that used to throw a NullReferenceException now will throw an ArgumentNullException.

]]>