Welcome back to the Deep Dive. You know, we often tackle these
big complex topics, especially in tech, trying to cut through
the noise. Yeah, there's just so much
information out there. Exactly.
And today we're diving in something really practical
refactoring practice. We're not just going to talk
theory like what is refactoring. No, the goal here is how it's
actually done. You know, in real software
projects, day-to-day. Right, drawing from our source
material, and the first thing that jumps out like immediately
is this absolute reliance on good tests.
Oh, absolutely. It's foundational.
Seriously, the sources say it's just non negotiable.
OK, let's unpack this a bit. Well, it's fascinating because
tests, especially unit tests, aren't just helpful for
refactoring, they're kind of essential.
They make it possible in the first place.
How so exactly? Because remember what
refactoring is. You're changing the code's
internal structure. You're not adding features,
you're not fixing bugs in the sense of changing what it does
externally. Right.
You're cleaning it up, making it better internally.
Precisely. But changing code is inherently
risky, right? How do you know you didn't
accidentally break some, especially if you're not
changing the observable behavior?
OK. So the tests are the safety net.
Exactly that. They're the only way you can
verify that the external behavior, the thing the user or
other parts of the system rely on, hasn't changed after your
internal tweaks. Without that net, it's just too
dangerous to make significant structural changes that makes.
Sense. Yeah, and John Aster outputs it
really well. He says.
Tests, particularly unit tests, play an important role in design
because they facilitate refactoring, he goes on.
Without a test suite, it's dangerous to make major
structural changes to a system. And the consequence?
As a result, developers avoid refactoring in a system without
good test suites. They just leave the messy code
alone. Exactly.
They try to minimize the number of code changes for each new
feature or bug fix, which means that complexity accumulates and
design mistakes don't get corrected.
Wow, so no tests means complexity just grows?
It actively prevents you from improving the design.
You get trapped. So that's the aha moment, right?
You're not adding features, you're not fixing external bugs,
but the tests are arguably more important here.
In a way, yes. They give you the confidence,
the courage really to make those improvements.
It's the guard reel. It lets you clean up the engine
while the car is still running. Basically, without it you just
wouldn't dare touch certain things.
Perfectly put. You avoid the snowball effect of
complexity because you have that safety.
OK, so tests are the absolute bedrock.
Assuming you have those, the next big question is when do you
actually do this refactoring? Right, because developers are
always busy. Deadlines.
New features. Yeah, you can't just stop
everything all the time. Yeah.
So our sources point to two main ways this happens.
And here's where it gets really interesting.
Yeah, it does. The first one, and probably the
most common, is what's called opportunistic refactoring.
Opportunistic. OK, so this is stuff you do like
while you're already working on something else.
Say you're fixing a bug or adding a small feature and you
notice something. Maybe a method name is really
unclear or a function has gotten way too long and complicated.
Or code that isn't even used anymore.
Exactly. Dead code, overly complex logic.
You spot it while you're there anyway.
And you just fix it right then. Yes, you take a few extra
minutes, maybe longer depending on the issue, and you clean it
up right then and there. Rename the confusing thing,
breakdown the long method, delete the dead code.
It's like that Boy Scout rule. Leave the code cleaner than you
found it. Precisely.
It's about continuous improvement baked into the daily
workflow. And the source material actually
gives some practical advice here, doesn't it?
Like a rule of thumb. It does.
It suggests that if you're spending, say, an hour on a
task, maybe dedicate 20% or even more of that time to these
small, opportunistic cleanups. So it's not seen as separate
work, but part of the task itself.
Right, it's an investment. It makes the code base easier to
work with next time for you or someone else.
It prevents that technical debt from piling up quite so fast.
It makes a lot of sense. And this ties into Kent Beck's
famous idea. He said for each desired change,
make the change easy. Warning this may be hard.
Then make the easy change. OK, unpack that a little.
Make the change easy. Sometimes you want to add a
feature or fix a bug, but the current code structure makes it
really awkward, really difficult.
You're fighting the code. We've all been there.
Right, so instead of just forcing it in, Beck suggests you
first refactor the existing code.
You change the structure to make easy to add your feature or fix
your bug. So you do a preparatory cleanup.
Exactly. You take maybe one step back
refactoring so that you can then take two steps forward easily.
The actual change becomes trivial once the structure is
right. So that difficult task might
become super simple after the refactoring.
Often, yeah. And this opportunistic approach,
including Beck's idea, probably covers most refactoring that
happens. It's the day in, day out
practice. OK, so that's the constant low
level cleanup. But sometimes, sometimes you
need more, right? What if things have gotten
really out of hand or you need a major overhaul?
Right, that's where the second approach comes in.
Planned refactorings. Planned.
OK, sounds more deliberate. It is.
These are the bigger, more time consuming changes.
Thing is, you really can't just squeeze into a regular task.
They often need dedicated time, maybe planning, sometimes
involving the whole team. Can you give an example?
Sure. A classic one is maybe you have
a really large software module or package that's just become a
monolith doing too many things. A planned refactoring might be
to break that down into several smaller, more focused
subtackages. That sounds like a significant
effort. It definitely can be.
Or another situation. Maybe a team realizes they've,
you know, neglected refactoring for too long.
Technical debt is high. They might actually schedule
specific time, like a refactoring week or dedicated
days just to tackle the backlog of needed improvements.
So it's a strategic decision to invest focused time.
Exactly. It's for those larger structural
changes, or when you need a concerted effort to pay down
significant technical debt that opportunistic cleanups just
aren't addressing. It's often necessary for like,
enabling future big changes or improving overall system health.
Got it. So understanding when to use
which approach, the ongoing opportunistic tweaks versus the
focused planned efforts, that's really key to keeping code
manageable in the long run. Absolutely.
It's about balancing immediate cleanup with strategic
investment. OK, this brings us to something
that's, well, kind of changed the game for refactoring,
automation, modern tools, the ID ES, they help a lot here, right?
Massively. It's hard to overstate the
impact. Automated refactoring tools
built into integrated development environments or ID
ES are incredibly powerful. How do they actually work?
Is it just magic? Not quite magic, but it feels
like it's sometimes. So imagine you want to rename a
method. Let's say it's used in, I don't
know, 50 different places across your code base.
So that manually would be tedious and risky.
You'd miss one for sure. For sure, with an IDE you
typically just select the method name, choose the rename
refactoring option, type in the new name and hit enter and then
and then. The IDE automatically finds
every single place that method is called or referenced and
updates it to the new name instantly and accurately.
And it's not just renaming. It works for things like
extracting a piece of code into its own new method, changing the
parameters of a function, introducing variables, lots of
common refactoring tasks. The tool handles the widespread
mechanical changes. That sounds amazing, but you
said it's not magic, so what's the catch?
Or rather, what's the developer still doing?
Well, the developer's still driving.
You have to identify what needs refactoring.
You have to decide which refactoring operation makes
sense, Rename, extract method etcetera.
You have to provide the necessary information like the
new name or how the new method should look.
So the intelligence, the design decision, is still human.
Absolutely. The IDE is the incredibly smart,
incredibly fast assistant doing the mechanical work.
And crucially, before it does the work, it checks things.
It runs what are called precondition checks.
Preconditions like safety check. Exactly.
It analyzes the code to make sure the requested refactoring
won't, for example, break the build, cause compilation errors,
or accidentally change the program's behavior in unintended
ways. If it detects a problem, it'll
usually warn you or prevent the refactoring.
So it adds another layer of safety on top of the test we
talked about earlier. It does.
It makes the process much safer and way more efficient,
especially for changes that affect many parts of the code.
But yeah, the human intent, the why and the what, that's still
firmly with the developer, so. It's a powerful partnership,
human intelligence guiding sophisticated automation.
That's a great way to put it. OK, so wrapping things up for
this deep dive on retract during practice, we've seen how
absolutely crucial good tests are.
They're the foundation for doing this safely.
Couldn't agree more. Non negotiable.
Then we looked at the 2 main timings, the everyday
opportunistic cleanups. Keeping things tidy as you go.
And the more strategic planned refactoring efforts for bigger
changes or tackling debt. Right, the larger investments.
And finally, the huge role automation plays now through ID
ES, making these changes safer and much much faster, while
still relying on the developer's judgement.
Yeah, the tools really enable a lot more refactoring than was
practical before. It gives you a much clearer
picture of how healthy code bases are actually maintained in
the real world. It's not just about writing new
code, but constantly refining what's already there.
It's a continuous process. Well, thank you for joining us
on this deep dive.