On my last post I looked through an independent developer’s code. It is messy so I applied clean code principles to it. Unfortunately, I only made a few fixes. There was a lot to say. Now, let us take a second dive into the rocky waters known as this developer’s code

Just to note, I will continue to use an uploaded replication of his code from GitHub:GitHub – LordEnma/YandereSimulatorDecompiled: Decompiled Code from the game Yandere Simulator.

The first thing I want to jump into is the Timer.cs file. It is part of the minigame where the player works in a cafe to make in game currency. The minigame is timed. It starts when the player presses start and when it runs out the minigames stops, calculates the in-game money earned and gives it to the player. One fix is to change the function named “Awake” into “GameTurnedOn” or “GameBegin”. Awake is supposed to tell the file that the player has started the game. The name given makes no sense since there is no sleeping in this minigame.

The next thing I want to discuss the ServingCounter.cs file. It is part of the cafe minigame. The counter is where the player sets their empty tray and picks of their tray filled with food. My first fix is to remove chefMask and trashMask from the SetMask function. Next, change Setmask to “SetservingcounterMask”. The whole file pertains to the serving counter. The chef AI and trash can should not be affected. It would be better to put something that could call on a function. Then the functions in their respective files would execute.

The next thing I want to discuss the KnifeDetectorScript.cs file. The whole thing is a mess. I think this sees if the player has a knife but it includes code of hiding a knife and interacting with a blowtorch. Maybe the code is for the player heating the knife with a blowtorch. Firstly, the name of the file is bad. It does nothing to describe what the code is doing. It is better to name the file “HeatingKnife”. Second, blowtorch is a bad name in general because the item looks exactly like a Bunsen burner. This has to be renamed to Bunsen burner. Lastly, why does the file mention a knife but the code does not specify a weapon? This would be confusing for anyone jumping into the code. Either change the code to only mention knife or change the file name to “HeatingWeapon”.

I have the same thoughts as the ones in my last post. The code is messy and any outside party trying to change it will have a lot of trouble. I also learned something new: the importance of naming things properly. Coding without proper naming is like trying to put furniture together with no labels. Even if you put to pieces together you run the risk of putting the wrong pieces together, getting them stuck and wasting time trying to fix it.

From the blog CS@Worcester – My Journey through Comp Sci by Joanna Presume and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Recently, I have been learning about clean code. It is a way of coding that prevents cluttering and confusion which is very important since coding is a collaborative effort. Without clean code mistakes would be constantly made, time would be wasted trying to understand each teammates code and most importantly nothing would get done.

It got me thinking about a developer. He’s infamous for his poor coding skills. It has gotten so bad to the point that he was wasted years coding one game even with volunteers’ aid. So, I would like to use my newfound knowledge to see how bad his code is and offer ways to clean it up.

I will be using an uploaded replication of his code from GitHub:GitHub – LordEnma/YandereSimulatorDecompiled: Decompiled Code from the game Yandere Simulator.

There are many parts of the code that need to be fixed but I will start in the ActiveAnimation.cs file. It dictates when a game cutscene is supposed to happen. One thing that stands out to me is the void function play. It contains a lot if statements (10 in fact). First, play is a vague name. It does not clearly explain what the code does. One can conclude that it plays the cutscene but there’s already a function that does this. Second, this function should be separated into smaller functions. One could play the cutscenes. Another could adjust animation components. Another could allow for earlier execution which would get rid of the else if statements. The computer would go, these conditions are met execute this or another set of conditions are met execute that. It would also make changing code easier which tends to be a problem for the developer.

Next, I want to discuss the AIControllers.cs file. It is part of a minigame where the player works in a cafe to make in game currency. Looking at the name one can assume that it only deals with player controls but that is not true. It also controls nonplayable characters which does not make sense. If something goes wrong with the nonplayable characters, it will be a pain to find where their code is. It is a little amusing since there are two files for the chairs of the minigame and all they do is move left and right. The main fix would be to take out the nonplayable characters’ code and put it with the chairs’ code since they both rely on each other. Overall, this file seems to be an improvement from the previous one but in general it should just focus on player controls. Remove everything else and put them in their own files.

To conclude, I understand why this game is taking a while to complete. From looking at two files one can see that the code is a mess. I think the developer and his volunteers should stop and focus on organizing the code. So in the end I learned one thing: do not code like this developer.

From the blog CS@Worcester – My Journey through Comp Sci by Joanna Presume and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

I was reading an article called “Why Scrum Fails” by Jason Godesky. The link is here: Why Scrum Fails | Better Programming. It is pretty a list of much all the pitfalls Scrum contains. The author lists many points for why Scrum is not a good wat to achieve Agility. He criticized the increments saying that they do not focus on customers and giving working software. He then criticizes self-managing teams by saying that managers can interfere. They could see their positions threatened, since there are no managers in scrum teams, and try to squeeze themselves into teams. Managers may try to take management task from the developer’s shoulders as a good gesture but in actuality they take away the team’s autonomy. No one is willing to just give up their role in the company. The author also mentions a “monkey’s paw” situation where companies that want to have a quick and painless way to improve output get it and later stunt the company growth. This is mainly because companies refuse to use Scrum to transform the company but instead delegate it to a developer only thing.

This made me think of what I learned previously about Scrum. I thought it was a structured and reasonable process. First there is the Sprint where ideas turn to value. Then Sprint Planning to plan for the work that will be done. Then the Daily Scrum which acts as a progress report. After that the Scrum Review which inspects outcomes and determines future adaptations. Finally, Review Retrospective which plans for the future. All of this seems reasonable. Although, after reading the article I can start to understand the criticisms. There is no role for the managers. But to counteract this I want to add that the managers could just become Scrum Masters. Maybe the role could be divided into two and have middle managers be involved. Also, there is no focus on working software but that could be added to the Definition of Done. Easy fix. To be honest it is strange to be introduced to something as a positive and helpful and then to immediate learn that it has so many faults.

To conclude, Scrum is not perfect which makes sense since it is man made. Also, a lot of the problems in Scrum is just how the companies enact it. For example, one critism was that Scum is mostly limited to developers and not companywide. Still there are still flaws. Nevertheless, I still think it is relevant to companies and would like to use it in the future. Overall, Scrum is not scum.

From the blog CS@Worcester – My Journey through Comp Sci by Joanna Presume and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

I was reading about the top four symptoms of bad code, and it reminded me of the classwork I did earlier today. At that time my group and I were learning about the Waterfall Methodology and the Agile Methodology.

But first, the article’s link is this: Top 4 Symptoms of Bad Code – Excella. To summarize, it lists rigidity, fragility, immobility and viscosity as symptoms of bad code. Rigidity makes code difficult to change and causes non rigid problems to stay unfixed. Fragility is when software breaks when it is changed. To simplify, it causes the common issue of when one bug is fixed and multiple spawn in its place. Immobility is when software can’t be reused which leads to code having to be duplicated. Viscosity is when the developer is hesitant to change their code. This can result in wasted time and energy.

Back to what I was saying earlier, this article made me think about how the symptoms of bad code would affect the development process under Waterfall Methodology and the Agile Methodology. Under the Waterfall Methodology, rigidity and fragility would delay the verification and maintenance process. Rigidity makes code hard to edit which would make the steps where a person would have to edit code especially difficult. Fragility would cause time to be wasted or worse, it could delay the whole project. Immobility would delay the implementation process since time that could have been spent somewhere else is being used to duplicate a piece of code. Viscosity has the potential to affect the deployment stage since it could allow a program with bugs to be sent to the customer. Think about how some video games tend to be published with bugs. If only one or a few developers suffer from viscosity, then it would only delay the verification and maintenance process.

Since the Agile Methodology is more fast paced any delay would be more significant. Rigidity, fragility, immobility and viscosity would all call delays or a rushed project that may not meet up to the customer’s expectation. Viscosity would allow problems to fall through the cracks. Immobility would waste precious time. Fragility would take away attention from coding and push it toward constant bug fixing. Rigidity would extend the time it takes to fix bugs.

Overall, I believe this article achieved two things: teaching me something and allowed me to make a connection to what I learned earlier. I liked that it was short, to the point, and easy to understand. I will use this information to recognize when I fall into this pitfalls and course correct in school and my future career.

From the blog CS@Worcester – My Journey through Comp Sci by Joanna Presume and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Introduction:

In our final group assignment, we explored testing in Python, and just last week, I blogged about using Selenium. Sticking to this testing theme, it’s intriguing to compare Java and Python, two powerful languages widely used with Selenium for automated testing. Drawing on insights from a Testrig Technologies article, this post examines which language might be better suited for Selenium testing, offering perspectives that could influence our approach to future projects.

Summary:

The Testrig Technologies article delves into the strengths and weaknesses of using Java and Python with Selenium for automated web testing. It notes that both languages have robust frameworks and libraries to support Selenium but highlights Python for its simplicity and readability, making it generally easier for beginners to learn and implement. Java, on the other hand, is praised for its performance and extensive community support. The article provides a balanced view, suggesting that the choice depends largely on the specific needs of the project and the familiarity of the team with the language.

Reason for selection:

I chose this article because it ties directly into our recent assignments and discussions around testing in Python, and my personal exploration of Selenium. Understanding the comparative advantages of Java and Python in this context is highly relevant, not just academically but also for practical application in future software development roles.

When comparing testing with Selenium using Java and Python, several key similarities and differences emerge, each influencing how testers might choose one language over the other. Both Java and Python support Selenium with extensive libraries and frameworks that facilitate browser automation, which means testers can script complex user interactions on both web and mobile applications using either language. They also integrate well with testing frameworks and tools like TestNG and PyTest, respectively, allowing for comprehensive test suites and reporting features.

Personal reflection:

Reflecting on the article, I appreciated the straightforward comparison between Java and Python. Last week’s experience with Selenium and Python was quite enlightening, especially seeing how straightforward scripts can be with Python’s syntax. This article reinforced my understanding and opened up considerations on when Java might offer advantages, particularly in scenarios requiring robust performance or when integrating into larger, more complex systems.

Future practice:

With this knowledge, I feel better prepared to choose the appropriate language for future projects involving Selenium. Depending on the project’s complexity and the team’s expertise, I can make informed decisions on whether to lean towards Python for its ease of use or Java for its powerful capabilities and performance.

Conclusion:

Choosing between Java and Python for Selenium testing doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all answer. Both languages offer unique benefits that can be leveraged depending on the project requirements. As we continue to develop our skills in automated testing, understanding these nuances will be key to delivering high-quality, robust software

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

Testing In context of software development is a critical process that involves systematically checking a program or system to ensure it performs as intended. In software development, It is really important to check our work making sure everything works as it should. When we write code using object-orientated programming (OOP) which is a common way to organize and write our software, we need a special kind of checking called Object-Orientated Testing (OOT). This blog dives into what OOT is, inspired by the detailed article from GeeksforGeeks , showing why it is different and important.
Summary of the resource

The article from GeeksforGeeks explains how testing for Object-Orientated programming is different than traditional testing. OOP deals with concepts like classes and objects (which are basically groups of functions and data that model real-world things). OOT then focuses on checking these classes and objects, along with how they interact with each other, which is not something you do in traditional testing. The article talks about the challenges of doing OOT, like making sure objects work well together and the need for different tools and strategies to do it right.

Reason for selection

I picked this article because it does a great job of showing how checking object-orientated code is different from the usual way of testing code. It fits well with what we are learning in class about how to build software, giving us a clear picture of how to make sure out OOP projects work well

Reflection:

Reading about OOT made me realize that checking our code in OOP needs more than just looking at each part by itself. We need to see how all parts work together. It was an eye-opener to learn about the different tools we can use for OOT and how it helps us find and fix problems early on.

Looking forward

This article made me more aware of how important it is to use OOT in my future projects. Knowing how to do this kinds of testing means I can make sure my software is solid and works well, which is very important for any software developer.

Conclusion

Object-Orientated Testing is a key skill for software developers, especially as we build more complex and interconnected software. The insights from the GeeksforGeeks article highlights the unique aspect of OOT and remind us why adapting our testing to match our coding style is crucial. As we tackle bigger projects keeping these OOT principles in mind will help us build better and more reliable software

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