After studying this code and completing the corresponding exercises, you should be able to,
- Set up a project in an IDE
[LO-IdeSetup]
- Navigate code efficiently
[LO-CodeNavigation]
- Use a debugger
[LO-Debugging]
- Automate CLI testing
[LO-AutomatedCliTesting]
- Use Collections
[LO-Collections]
- Use Enums
[LO-Enums]
- Use Varargs
[LO-Varargs]
- Follow a coding standard
[LO-CodingStandard]
- Apply coding best practices
[LO-CodingBestPractices]
- Refactor code
[LO-Refactor]
- Abstract methods well
[LO-MethodAbstraction]
- Follow SLAP
[LO-SLAP]
- Work in a 1kLoC code base
[LO-1KLoC]
Part A:
-
Create a new project in IntelliJ and write a small HelloWorld program.
Part B:
-
Download the source code for this project: Click on the
clone or download
button in the project’s GitHub homepage and either,-
download as a zip file and unzip content.
-
clone the repo (if you know how to use Git) to your Computer.
-
-
Set up the project in IntelliJ.
-
Run the program from within IntelliJ, and try the features described in the User Guide section.
The AddressBook.java
code is rather long, which makes it cumbersome to navigate by scrolling alone.
Navigating code using IDE shortcuts is a more efficient option.
For example, CTRL+B will navigate to the definition of the method/field at the cursor.
Prerequisite: [LO-IdeSetup]
Demonstrate your debugging skills using the AddressBook code.
Here are some things you can do in your demonstration:
-
Set a 'break point'
-
Run the program in debug mode
-
'Step through' a few lines of code while examining variable values
-
'Step into', and 'step out of', methods as you step through the code
-
…
-
Run the tests as explained in the Testing section.
-
Examine the test script to understand how the script works.
-
Add a few more tests to the
input.txt
. Run the tests. It should fail. Modifyexpected.txt
to make the tests pass again. -
Edit the
AddressBook.java
to modify the behavior slightly and modify tests to match.
Note how the AddressBook
class uses ArrayList<>
class (from the Java Collections
library) to store a list of String
or String[]
objects.
Currently, a person’s details are stored as a String[]
. Modify the code to use a HashMap<String, String>
instead.
A sample code snippet is given below.
private static final String PERSON_PROPERTY_NAME = "name";
private static final String PERSON_PROPERTY_EMAIL = "email";
...
HashMap<String,String> john = new HashMap<>();
john.put(PERSON_PROPERTY_NAME, "John Doe");
john.put(PERSON_PROPERTY_EMAIL, "john.doe@email.com");
//etc.
Similar to the exercise in the LO-Collections
section, but also bring in Java enum
feature.
private enum PersonProperty {NAME, EMAIL, PHONE};
...
HashMap<PersonProperty,String> john = new HashMap<>();
john.put(PersonProperty.NAME, "John Doe");
john.put(PersonProperty.EMAIL, "john.doe@email.com");
//etc.
Note how the showToUser
method uses Java Varargs feature.
The given code follows the coding standard for the most part.
This learning outcome is covered by the exercise in [LO-Refactor]
.
Most of the given code follows the best practices mentioned here.
This learning outcome is covered by the exercise in [LO-Refactor]
Resources:
Note: this exercise covers two other Learning Outcomes: [LO-CodingStandard]
, [LO-CodingBestPractices]
-
Improve the code in the following ways,
-
Fix coding standard violations.
-
Fix violations of the best practices given in in this document.
-
Any other change that you think will improve the quality of the code.
-
-
Try to do the modifications as a combination of standard refactorings given in this catalog
-
As far as possible, use automated refactoring features in IntelliJ.
-
If you know how to use Git, commit code after each refactoring. In the commit message, mention which refactoring you applied. Example commit messages:
Extract variable isValidPerson
,Inline method isValidPerson()
-
Remember to run the test script after each refactoring to prevent regressions.
Notice how most of the methods in AddressBook
are short and focused (does only one thing and does it well).
Case 1. Consider the following three lines in the main
method.
String userCommand = getUserInput();
echoUserCommand(userCommand);
String feedback = executeCommand(userCommand);
If we include the code of echoUserCommand(String)
method inside the getUserInput()
(resulting in the code given below), the behavior of AddressBook remains as before.
However, that is a not a good approach because now the getUserInput()
is doing two distinct things.
A well-abstracted method should do only one thing.
String userCommand = getUserInput(); //also echos the command back to the user
String feedback = executeCommand(userCommand);
Case 2. Consider the method removePrefixSign(String s, String sign)
.
While it is short, there are some problems with how it has been abstracted.
-
It contains the term
sign
which is not a term used by the AddressBook vocabulary.ℹ️A method adds a new term to the vocabulary used to express the solution. Therefore, it is not good when a method name contains terms that are not strictly necessary to express the solution (e.g. there is another term already used to express the same thing) or not in tune with the solution (e.g. it does not go well with the other terms already used).
-
Its implementation is not doing exactly what is advertised by the method name and the header comment. For example, the code does not remove only prefixes; it removes
sign
from anywhere in thes
. -
The method can be more general and more independent from the rest of the code. For example, the method below can do the same job, but is more general (works for any string, not just parameters) and is more independent from the rest of the code (not specific to AddressBook)
/** * Removes prefix from the given fullString if prefix occurs at the start of the string. */ private static String removePrefix(String fullString, String prefix) { ... }
If needed, a more AddressBook-specific method that works on parameter strings only can be defined. In that case, that method can make use of the more general method suggested above.
Notice how most of the methods in AddressBook
are written at a single
level of abstraction (cf se-edu/se-book:SLAP)
Here is an example:
public static void main(String[] args) {
showWelcomeMessage();
processProgramArgs(args);
loadDataFromStorage();
while (true) {
userCommand = getUserInput();
echoUserCommand(userCommand);
String feedback = executeCommand(userCommand);
showResultToUser(feedback);
}
}
In the main
method, replace the processProgramArgs(args)
call with the actual code of that method.
The main
method no longer has SLAP. Notice how mixing low level code with high level code reduces
readability.
Sometimes, going in the wrong direction can be a good learning experience too. In this exercise, we explore how low code qualities can go.
-
Refactor the code to make the code as bad as possible. i.e. How bad can you make it without breaking the functionality while still making it look like it was written by a programmer (but a very bad programmer :-)).
-
In particular, inlining methods can worsen the code quality fast.
Enhance the AddressBook to prove that you can work in a codebase of 1KLoC. Remember to change code in small steps, update/run tests after each change, and commit after each significant change.
Some suggested enhancements:
-
Make the
find
command case insensitive e.g.find john
should matchJohn
-
Add a
sort
command that can list the persons in alphabetical order -
Add an
edit
command that can edit properties of a specific person -
Add an additional field (like date of birth) to the person record