Short names vs unique names
It is a good practice to use shorter method names, because long names are harder to read.
It is cleaner to call:
But then we end up with multiple "Save()" methods in different classes. For example:
Recruiter.cs/Save()Problem with non-unique names
If we search our codebase for "Save(" - we would find a lot of methods and method calls. Only some of them would relate to the functionality we actually want to research (for example, we may want to research where "Candidate Save()" functionality is used because we consider refactoring or deleting it).Plain text search vs code references
Visual Studio allows to find all references to a specific method by right-mouse-clicking on a method name and selecting "Find All References".
So, non-unique method names problem is solved, right?
Visual Studio is not able to track method calls that are made from aspx and ashx files.
Visual Studio is also not able to find method references in the comments.ReSharper vs vanilla Visual Studio
ReSharper actually is able to find method references in aspx, ashx and even in comments. Until Visual Studio 2015 that worked fine. But since ReSharper team and codebase aged, and Visual Studio switched to new Roslyn compiler, ReSharper team was not able to keep up and delivered only barely working resource hog, that is practically not usable with newer version of Visual Studio (too slow).Get rid of aspx and ashx files?
It is actually pretty easy to avoid using ashx handlers and use standard C# classes to implement HttpHandler interface.
But what about aspx pages: can we get rid of them too and use only standard C# HttpHandlers?
If we could do that, then we would be able to rely on "Find All References" feature again.
But, unfortunately, getting rid of aspx pages is not that simple. We would have to reimplement a lot of functionality that aspx has.
- Page PostBack support would be gone.
- Ability to nicely combine HTML code and aspx controls alongside each other would be gone.
- HTML syntax validation would be gone (no HTML syntax validation for C# strings in Visual Studio).If it ain't broke - don't fix it
Even though it is pretty straightforward operation to convert existing ashx files into standard C# classes (where Visual Studio is able to track all method references) - such conversion is not without its own problems.
- Conversion takes developer's time.
- Code replacement could introduce silly bugs.
- Moving code from class to class makes navigating "svn blame" - a little bit trickier.
So if an ashx handler was working in the solution for many years already - does it make sense to touch it now?The benefits of code refactoring
In spite of "If it ain't broke - don't fix it" rule - cleaning up code is still needed. If we do not keep code clean (do not delete unneeded parts and do not clear confusing things such as hidden references) - then our codebase would be extremely hard to maintain. Fixing a bug would introduce other bugs. Features would be very hard to add without adding bugs.It depends
There is no single solution that can be applied to all situations. In software development we consider multiple problems and constantly weigh pros and cons against each other.
For example, out of 11 remaining ashx files, we:
- Deleted one file because we do not use it ("Reduce amount of code when possible" principle).
- Would migrate one file to the standard C# HttpHandler, because today during refactoring a developer missed a method call from that ashx file.
- Keep other 9 ashx files as is ("If it ain't broke - don't fix it" principle).
What are your examples of balancing problems against each other?