Skip to main content

Java Script code refactoring - hands on code

Let's see how we can create a mechanism that based on some flags; it will able to determine the status of some objects. The first version of code would look like this:
ItemStatus = {
    Status1: "Status1",
    Status2: "Status2",
    Status3: "Status3"
}();

ItemTypes = {
    Item1: "Item1",
    Item2: "Item2",
    Item3: "Item 3"
}();

var ItemConfiguration = function () {

    function ItemConfiguration() {

    }

    ItemConfiguration.prototype = function () {
        getItemConfiguration: function (itemTypes, flag1, flag2, flag3, flag4) {
            switch (itemTypes) {
                case ItemTypes.Item1:
                    if (flag1 && flag2) {
                        return ItemStatus.Status1;
                    } else if (flag3 || flag4) {
                        return ItemStatus.Status2;
                    }
                    break;
                case ItemTypes.Item2:
                    if (flag3 || flag2) {
                        return ItemStatus.Status3;
                    } else if (flag1 || flag2) {
                        return ItemStatus.Status1;
                    }
                    break;
                case ItemTypes.Item3:
                    if (flag3 || flag1 && flag3) {
                        return ItemStatus.Status1;
                    } else if (flag2 && flag4) {
                        return ItemStatus.Status3;
                    }
                    break;
            }
        }
    };
   
    return ItemConfiguration;
} ();

First problem is related to default values. If the flags combination from switch doesn’t return any value, that we should notify one way or another user about this issues. We end up throwing an expectation.
var ItemConfiguration = function () {

    function ItemConfiguration() {

    }

    ItemConfiguration.prototype = function () {
        getItemConfiguration: function (itemType, flag1, flag2, flag3, flag4) {
            switch (itemType) {
                case ItemTypes.Item1:
                    if (flag1 && flag2) {
                        return ItemStatus.Status1;
                    } else if (flag3 || flag4) {
                        return ItemStatus.Status2;
                    }
                    break;
                case ItemTypes.Item2:
                    if (flag3 || flag2) {
                        return ItemStatus.Status3;
                    } else if (flag1 || flag2) {
                        return ItemStatus.Status1;
                    }
                    break;
                case ItemTypes.Item3:
                    if (flag3 || flag1 && flag3) {
                        return ItemStatus.Status1;
                    } else if (flag2 && flag4) {
                        return ItemStatus.Status3;
                    }
                    break;
            }

            throw {
                message: "No flags matching for " + itemType + "with the flags combination"
                + "flag1: " + flag1 + ", "
                + "flag2: " + flag2 + ", "
                + "flag3: " + flag3 + ", "
                + "flag4: " + flag4 + ", "
            };
        }
    };

    return ItemConfiguration;
} ();
Almost okay we think. When we look over the requirements we notify that the user will need the status for all items. Because of this he will need to make 3 different calls. For each call he would need to add all the parameters over and over again. We can have two possible solutions. One is to create an object that has all this flags. The other option is to change our method to return the status for all our item types. I would go with the second approach.
var ItemConfiguration = function () {

    function ItemConfiguration() {

    }

    ItemConfiguration.prototype = function () {
        getItemsConfiguration: function(flag1, flag2, flag3, flag4) {
            var itemsStatus = new Object();
            itemsStatus[ItemTypes.Item1] = _getStatusForItem1(flag1, flag2, flag3, flag4);
            itemsStatus[ItemTypes.Item2] = _getStatusForItem2(flag1, flag2, flag3, flag4);
            itemsStatus[ItemTypes.Item3] = _getStatusForItem3(flag1, flag2, flag3, flag4);

            return itemsStatus;
        },

        _getStatusForItem1:function(flag1, flag2, flag3, flag4) {
            if (flag1 && flag2) {
                return ItemStatus.Status1;
            } else if (flag3 || flag4) {
                return ItemStatus.Status2;
            }

            _noStatusHandler();
        },

        _getStatusForItem2:function(flag1, flag2, flag3, flag4) {
            if (flag3 || flag2) {
                return ItemStatus.Status3;
            } else if (flag1 || flag2) {
                return ItemStatus.Status1;
            }

            _noStatusHandler();
        },

        _getStatusForItem3:function(flag1, flag2, flag3, flag4) {
            if (flag3 || flag1 && flag3) {
                return ItemStatus.Status1;
            } else if (flag2 && flag4) {
                return ItemStatus.Status3;
            }

            _noStatusHandler();
        },

        _noStatusHandler:function() {
            throw {
                message: "No flags matching for " + itemType + "with the flags combination"
                + "flag1: " + flag1 + ", "
                + "flag2: " + flag2 + ", "
                + "flag3: " + flag3 + ", "
                + "flag4: " + flag4 + ", "
            };
        }
    };

    return ItemConfiguration;
} ();
For each item type we extracted a method that calculates the item status. In the case for the input flags we cannot retrieve a status we throw an exception. In our public method, we create an object that contains our item types and status. In this way we removed the switch and the code looks better.
The thing that has a smell is the 4 parameters that are send each time in our private method. We could create an internal object with these 4 parameters and send it as parameter for each private method. Another option is to create 4 private fields and each private method can use them. Because we don’t have any problem with thread concurrency in JavaScript we can go with the second approach without any problem.
var ItemConfiguration = function () {

    var flag1, flag2, flag3, flag4;
   
    function ItemConfiguration() {

    }

    ItemConfiguration.prototype = function () {
        getItemsConfiguration: function(flag1, flag2, flag3, flag4) {
            this.flag1 = flag1;
            this.flag2 = flag2;
            this.flag3 = flag3;
            this.flag4 = flag4;
           
            var itemsStatus = new Object();
            itemsStatus[ItemTypes.Item1] = _getStatusForItem1();
            itemsStatus[ItemTypes.Item2] = _getStatusForItem2();
            itemsStatus[ItemTypes.Item3] = _getStatusForItem3();

            return itemsStatus;
        },

        _getStatusForItem1:function() {
            if (this.flag1 && this.flag2) {
                return ItemStatus.Status1;
            } else if (this.flag3 || this.flag4) {
                return ItemStatus.Status2;
            }

            _noStatusHandler();
        },

        _getStatusForItem2:function() {
            if (this.flag3 || this.flag2) {
                return ItemStatus.Status3;
            } else if (this.flag1 || this.flag2) {
                return ItemStatus.Status1;
            }

            _noStatusHandler();
        },

        _getStatusForItem3:function() {
            if (this.flag3 || this.flag1 && this.flag3) {
                return ItemStatus.Status1;
            } else if (this.flag2 && this.flag4) {
                return ItemStatus.Status3;
            }

            _noStatusHandler();
        },

        _noStatusHandler:function() {
            throw {
                message: "No flags matching for " + itemType + "with the flags combination"
                + "flag1: " + flag1 + ", "
                + "flag2: " + flag2 + ", "
                + "flag3: " + flag3 + ", "
                + "flag4: " + flag4 + ", "
            };
        }
    };

    return ItemConfiguration;
} ();
It seems that the code looks cleaner in this way and is easier to read. For the private method, I would let the user to specify all the parameters because is more clear for him and he don’t need to create a new object to send the parameters and use it only in one place.
One thing that came to my mind is to create an object or a dictionary that contains the private functions for each item type. But it would be to complex and I don’t know if is worth it.
What do you think? Do you see another way to implement it?



Last edit: Another option is to create a mapping based on the flags (for example each combinations of flag has a unique key that point to an object that has our item types configuration –ex: flag1*2^0+flag2*2^1+flag3*2^3 in base 10 or we could use a mapping in base 2). What is my concern for this solution is the complexity of the code increase, even if the numbers of line are less and we don’t have the IF statements anymore.
 

Comments

  1. Hi, Radu!
    Could you explain what does the code below actually do?

    if (this.flag3 || this.flag1 && this.flag3) {
    return ItemStatus.Status1;
    } else if (this.flag2 && this.flag2) {
    return ItemStatus.Status3;
    }

    I guess you carried some typos through-out the article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Based on some Booleans values send by the caller we need to be able to return a list of status for some object. We can imagine that we have a big table with a lot of combinations of flags and based on this combination we can determine the status of some items.

      Delete
    2. flag2 && flag2
      If was a type mistake Thank you. I update the code.

      Delete
    3. The condition in the first If statement is either wrong or contains a typo since it is equivalent to "if(this.flag3)". Proof: http://jsfiddle.net/DenisPostu/2cQe3/3/

      Delete
  2. Some suggestions:
    - I hope that in the real code the parameters have meaningful names, not flag1, flag2, ...

    - without some real context, it's hard to understand if the solution is appropriate: are you sure that there will always be 3 'items' and that they have a fixed number of types?

    - using _ in JS to mark 'private' members is an anti-pattern: there are methods to simulate real private members in JS objects, using closures (http://javascript.crockford.com/private.html)

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the lack of knowing the whole context, it seems to me that you need something like a logic grid (http://www.codeguru.com/cpp/misc/misc/math/article.php/c9629/LogicGrid-An-Elegant-Alternative-to-Your-IfElse-Nightmare.htm), seen very often in digital circuit design. Another way would be having some kind of state machine.

    Regarding the JS part, you should avoid accessing private variables from methods added by prototyping.

    Happy refactoring :)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Windows Docker Containers can make WIN32 API calls, use COM and ASP.NET WebForms

After the last post , I received two interesting questions related to Docker and Windows. People were interested if we do Win32 API calls from a Docker container and if there is support for COM. WIN32 Support To test calls to WIN32 API, let’s try to populate SYSTEM_INFO class. [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] public struct SYSTEM_INFO { public uint dwOemId; public uint dwPageSize; public uint lpMinimumApplicationAddress; public uint lpMaximumApplicationAddress; public uint dwActiveProcessorMask; public uint dwNumberOfProcessors; public uint dwProcessorType; public uint dwAllocationGranularity; public uint dwProcessorLevel; public uint dwProcessorRevision; } ... [DllImport("kernel32")] static extern void GetSystemInfo(ref SYSTEM_INFO pSI); ... SYSTEM_INFO pSI = new SYSTEM_INFO(

Azure AD and AWS Cognito side-by-side

In the last few weeks, I was involved in multiple opportunities on Microsoft Azure and Amazon, where we had to analyse AWS Cognito, Azure AD and other solutions that are available on the market. I decided to consolidate in one post all features and differences that I identified for both of them that we should need to take into account. Take into account that Azure AD is an identity and access management services well integrated with Microsoft stack. In comparison, AWS Cognito is just a user sign-up, sign-in and access control and nothing more. The focus is not on the main features, is more on small things that can make a difference when you want to decide where we want to store and manage our users.  This information might be useful in the future when we need to decide where we want to keep and manage our users.  Feature Azure AD (B2C, B2C) AWS Cognito Access token lifetime Default 1h – the value is configurable 1h – cannot be modified

What to do when you hit the throughput limits of Azure Storage (Blobs)

In this post we will talk about how we can detect when we hit a throughput limit of Azure Storage and what we can do in that moment. Context If we take a look on Scalability Targets of Azure Storage ( https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/storage-scalability-targets/ ) we will observe that the limits are prety high. But, based on our business logic we can end up at this limits. If you create a system that is hitted by a high number of device, you can hit easily the total number of requests rate that can be done on a Storage Account. This limits on Azure is 20.000 IOPS (entities or messages per second) where (and this is very important) the size of the request is 1KB. Normally, if you make a load tests where 20.000 clients will hit different blobs storages from the same Azure Storage Account, this limits can be reached. How we can detect this problem? From client, we can detect that this limits was reached based on the HTTP error code that is returned by HTTP