Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Test-Driven Reverse Engineering and Perniciously Bad Code

I've done a fair amount of reverse engineering over the years.

In the early days, you went from code to specification to new code. It took forever and the problems you uncovered -- well -- they often derailed the project.

Recently, I used a TDD-like approach. Each piece of legacy code was turned into some Java code with some associated unit tests. Further, the users were able to cough up a canonical set of acceptance tests. These were turned into unit tests, and it wasn't too difficult to meet in the middle with plenty of testing for each piece of legacy conversion.

Given some subsequent experience, it turns out that user acceptance tests are essential to success in reverse engineering. Without user acceptance tests being provided up front, reverse engineering is a nightmare.

Mystery Code

Today's issue is legacy code that is -- frankly -- incompetently done. As a bonus, the user organization is a little vague on what it's supposed to do. They trust it, but they can't verify it. There are no official test cases.

The only explanation we can get is a demo. And because of the user's workload, we're only getting one of these. Limited to an hour. AFAIK, the only way we can test the conversion is to run it head-to-head with the legacy and take notes as the users complain about the differences.

There will be no easy way to get to create up-front acceptance tests to drive development. We'll have to take careful notes during the demo and transform the demo script into test results we can use.

Worse Still

What's worse is the incompetent coding. How bad can code be? Let me count the ways:
  1. Globals. Anyone who thinks a global is a legal programming construct needs to find a new career. A module that declares all the globals just compounds the horror. Everything is scopeless and could be used anywhere. There's no "interface" to anything, it's just a puddle of grey goo.
    • Using globals means functions have side-effects. They update global variables more-or-less spontaneously.
    • Using globals also means that all kinds of things may have hysteresis. You call it once, it does one thing. You call it again, it does something different.
  2. Random SQL. Anyone who thinks that SQL statements can be dropped in any random place in the application needs to find a new career. MVC is essential for segregating the SQL away from the View. Views functions can't query stuff that should have been part of the model, it means the model is incomplete -- and possibly in the wrong state. It also means that view functions are slow and possibly not strictly idempotent -- every time you refresh, a value in the view could diverge from the value in the "official" model.
  3. Copy-and-Paste coding. How hard can it be to put common code into a function? Apparently, it's nearly impossible. If you're copying and pasting common code, stop now. There's no excuse. It just raises the cost of maintenance and conversion through the roof.
  4. No Change Control. Or rather, the change control is to leave all previous versions of the code in place as comment blocks. For each line of real code, there are two lines of previous versions commented out. I don't care what it was; I want to know what it is. If you can't use SVN, or even VSS, you need to find another career.
There. I feel better. Back to trying to figure out what this application really does.

No comments:

Post a Comment