Category Archives: ai

Anti-Patterns

Source: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/antipatterns-to-avoid-in-code/

This article is titled “Anti-patterns You Should Avoid in Your Code.” It specifically mentions six of them, being: Spaghetti Code, Golden Hammer, Boat Anchor, Dead Code, Proliferation of Code, and the God Object. An anti-pattern, in regards to software development, is an example of how not to solve a problem in a codebase. They are not a positive thing, they are examples of practices to avoid in the development process. Anti-patterns lead to technical debt, code that you have to eventually come back to and properly fix later. Spaghetti Code is the most common, it is code that doesn’t have much structure. It is called Spaghetti Code because everything is difficult to follow, files are located in random places, and when visualized in a diagram, it appears to be a jumbled mess, much like spaghetti. Golden Hammer references a scenario where you follow a certain process that doesn’t necessarily align perfectly with the project but still works well enough. This may not seem like a large issue, but is obviously not the best practice to follow because it’ll cause performance issues in the long run. You should always use a process that is the best fit for your project, even if you need to teach yourself or learn something new. Boat Anchor is when developers leave code in the codebase that isn’t actively being used in the hopes of it being needed later and thus not requiring much effort to implement when it is eventually needed. The main problem with this is when it comes to maintaining the code. It leads to the question of what code in the codebase is unused and what is being actively used. Trying to fix a bug in the system on code that isn’t even being used is a time waster. Dead code is code that doesn’t look like it’s really doing anything, but it is being called from many different places. This leads to problems when trying to modify the code because no one is unsure what is actually dead. Proliferation of Code is about objects that have the purpose of invoking a more important object, meaning it doesn’t really do anything on its own. The action of invoking the more important object should be set to the calling object. Lastly, the God Object is an example of an object that does too much. Objects should only be responsible for doing one thing, referencing the Single Responsibility principle in SOLID. 

I chose this particular source because I appreciated the way examples were clearly given along with the 6 examples of anti-patterns, and upon reviewing the syllabus the topic “anti-patterns” seemed interesting. When you’re learning computer science a lot of the time you’re learning about things that you should do and not about things that you shouldn’t do. I really enjoyed reading about these 6 examples of common mistakes that developers make in industry. It’s important to both recognize good and bad practices to ensure that your projects are properly optimized. I can definitely see myself referencing anti-patterns when designing code in the future so my code can easily be maintained. 

From the blog CS@Worcester – Shawn In Tech by Shawn Budzinski and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Week 18A – Python Testing

For this week, I wanted to look at how different languages handle test cases, and I’ll begin with the one I’m the most familiar with, Python! I’ve worked with Python in small amounts in the past, and have an understanding a lot of it’s syntaxes are similar to java’s, albeit simpler. I feel like this is a good topic to discuss as knowing how other programming languages handle unit testing would be a great way to expand my knowledge when it comes to furthering my understanding of it within Java.

For this, I’ll be looking at the official page for unittest on Python’s website, here:

https://docs.python.org/3/library/unittest.html

Right off the bat, I’m really interested in the fact that unittest is actually based directly off of JUnit! Which means a lot of the syntax, formatting, and framework is quite similar, just modified to fit the mold of Python.

Looking at the snippet they gave as an example…

import unittest

class TestStringMethods(unittest.TestCase):

    def test_upper(self):
        self.assertEqual('foo'.upper(), 'FOO')

    def test_isupper(self):
        self.assertTrue('FOO'.isupper())
        self.assertFalse('Foo'.isupper())

    def test_split(self):
        s = 'hello world'
        self.assertEqual(s.split(), ['hello', 'world'])
        # check that s.split fails when the separator is not a string
        with self.assertRaises(TypeError):
            s.split(2)

if __name__ == '__main__':
    unittest.main()

In this, it seems the way you define test blocks is by having a class with (unittest.testcase) and then doing “def” to define each test case.

Even the assertions are the same and written near identically, as the first three use assertEqual, which is identical to javas assertEquals, minus the s, and assertTrue and assertFalse, which are also identical to their java counterparts. assertRaises, which is used in the third test, seems to be Python’s equivalent to assertThrows, however, it seems to be a bit different in comparison. assertRaises seems to identify a specific kind of exception being raised, whereas assertThrows would just identify any exception in general.

The last line also is a block of code that allows an easy way to run all the tests, so when you run unittest.main() in a command line, it will automatically run all the tests and display the results.

There also seems to be a whole bunch of different command line options to display results and modify the ways in which its run. As an example, theres “-v”, which stands for verbosity, much like the bash command, which shows the results of each individual test being run, like below:

test_isupper (__main__.TestStringMethods.test_isupper) ... ok
test_split (__main__.TestStringMethods.test_split) ... ok
test_upper (__main__.TestStringMethods.test_upper) ... ok

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 3 tests in 0.001s

OK

It seems extremely interesting and makes me want to learn more Python, which would definitely help me in my career in all sorts of ways! Next blog we will be looking at how unit testing works in C. Until then!

From the blog CS@Worcester – You're Telling Me A Shrimp Wrote This Code?! by tempurashrimple and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Week 14

Considering this week we only had one day of class it’s good to reinforce the ideas we learned to spread out in separate classes. I was in a search this week for an article that went into depth about software technical reviews. Software technical reviews are very important; understanding the fundamentals is a key component in the field. 

The main function of a software technical review is to examine a document either in a group or alone and find errors or any defects inside the code. This is done to verify various documents to find if they reach specifications, system design, test plans, and test cases. An important thing to consider is this is a step to make sure the client gets clarity of the project and stays informed on how it’s going. In addition, finalize any changes to reach the requirements before being released to the market. This allows for improved productivity, makes the testing process cost-effective, fewer defects to be found outside the team, and reduces the time it will take to create a technically sound document. The main three types of software reviews include software peer review, software management review, and software audit reviews. The process of software review is simple if you are informed of the implementations taking place. First is the entry evaluation which is just a standard checklist to know the basis for the review. Without a checklist, you will be pulling on strings to find what is wrong with the code or what it’s missing. Then comes Management preparation ensures that your review will have all the required resources like staff, time, and materials. Next is review planning where you create an objective that comes from the team. You then move on to preparation where the reviewers are held responsible for doing their specific task. Lastly, examination and exit evaluation where the group meets up and is discussed to make the team on the same page and verify any discoveries.

Reading this article allowed me to see other steps that are taken to do a software technical review. If we as a team were able to create an objective of what to search for inside the code last week it would have been more goal-oriented instead of randomly searching for faults in the code. As a team, it would have been great to have a more organized group so then when we come together we have an understanding of what we should all find. I would like to see how it would work trying to explain to someone who doesn’t code what has been done and show them that their money is being placed in the right place. Other than that this is a great way to reduce time and be in unison with your team.   

https://medium.com/@vyashj09/software-technical-reviews-in-software-testing-what-is-software-technical-review-321462039f4f#:~:text=A%20software%20technical%20review%20is,an%20object%20in%20the%20software.

View at Medium.com

From the blog cs-wsu – DCO by dcastillo360 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Black Box vs White Box Testing

In the ever changing and dynamic field that is Software development, understanding the nuances of different testing methodologies is crucial for ensuring quality and reliability. I would like to say that I stumbled upon the blog “Black vs White vs Grey Box Testing” on Shakebugs.com however, the truth is I was still a little confused after our last class and needed further clarification not only on the difference of the two testing methods but just what they do and when they are used. And well this article did just that it resonated with what we were learning and sparked several insights that I believe will impact future practices.

The article navigates through the concept of black, white and grey box testing (I did not even know grey was a thing.) Black box testing, as it explains, is an approach where the tester assesses the functionality without knowledge of the internal workings of the application. White box testing, on the other hand, requires a deep understanding of the code, as tester need to verify the internal processes and pathways. Grey box emerges as a hybrid approach, combining elements of both black and white box testing. It allows testers to apply their partial knowledge of the internal structures while examining the software’s external functionality.

As I mentioned before I chose this resource because it matched the topics we were discussing in class and further helped develop my understanding of the practical applications of the different testing methodologies. The clear and concise explanations paired with practical examples and visuals, provide a framework to differentiate and appreciate the unique attributes and applications

Reading this article was more delightful than I initially anticipated as when I saw a 13 minute read time I almost closed the tab however, I am glad I did not. I learned that while black box testing is excellent for validating user requirements and functionalities, white box testing is indispensable for internal code optimization and security assessments. Grey box testing , with its balanced approach, offers a valuable perspective for comprehensive testing.

Going forward, I intend to integrate these insights into my approach to software testing. In future projects, I will not only consider the functional requirements but also the internal code structure and security aspects when deciding on a testing strategy.

The blog post is a must-read for anyone in the field of software development testing. It offers clear and practical understanding of the different methods, guiding how to apply them effectively. You can read the full article here . This resource not only enhanced my understanding but has also equipped me with practical knowledge I am eager to apply in the future.

From the blog CS@Worcester – Josies Notes by josielrivas and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.