[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-5106?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17329985#comment-17329985
]
Rakesh Radhakrishnan commented on HDDS-5106:
--------------------------------------------
bq. I totally agree with this section, I think we should avoid using V1
prefixes everywhere and have some more meaningful class names.
[~elek] I'm closing this issue as I have handled the class names - changed
"V1" to "FSO" endings.
> [FSO] Avoid using V1 postfixes for prefix related classes
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDDS-5106
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-5106
> Project: Apache Ozone
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Ozone Client, Ozone Manager
> Reporter: Marton Elek
> Assignee: Rakesh Radhakrishnan
> Priority: Blocker
> Labels: pull-request-available
>
> I already commented in it HDDS-5097, but it seems that majority of the new
> functions are implemented in just copying existing classes with V1 postfix.
> It's not clear what is V1 (or what is V0). And I already quoted the clead
> code recommendation:
> It turned out that a lot of tests just copied with V1 prefix with small
> modification (or original test extended with V1 which means the methods of
> the old and new tests are executed) instead of improving the original test to
> cover both of the cases (simple/prefix-ed).
> Also: the same functionality seems to be tested on multiple levels
> (FileSystemInterface, OMRequest, acceptance test...)
> This copy can make the maintenance of the tests slightly harder, and the V1
> prefix is quite meaningless and confusing.
> From the legendary "Clean code" book:
> bq. Programmers create problems for themselves when they write code solely to
> satisfy a compiler or interpreter. For example, because you can’t use the
> same name to refer to two different things in the same scope, you might be
> tempted to change one name in an arbitrary way. Sometimes this is done by
> misspelling one, leading to the surprising situation where correcting
> spelling errors leads to an inability to compile.2
> bq. [...] It is not sufficient to add number series or noise words, even
> though the compiler is satisfied. If names must be different, then they
> should also mean something different.
> bq. Number-series naming (a1, a2, .. aN) is the opposite of intentional
> naming. Such names are not disinformative—they are noninformative; they
> provide no clue to the author’s intention....
> I totally agree with this section, I think we should avoid using V1 prefixes
> everywhere and have some more meaningful class names.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
