1. Chapter 5: Coding Ronald J. Leach Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 1

2. Coding Practices Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 2

3. Standard Interfaces Defined APIs Languages – ANSI C, Ada, C++, Java Operating System – Linux, UNIX, POSIX, Windows, Macintosh, iOS, Android Software – Database, spreadsheet, communications Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 3

4. Standard Interfaces, cont. User Interfaces – X, UIL, Windows, SDK Formats: – TIF, GIF, RTF, JPEG... Local standards – coding standards, interface standards Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 4

5. Standards for Coding include: White space – Blank lines – Spacing – Indentation – Continuation lines – Braces and parentheses Comments Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 5

6. Standards for Coding include: Standard naming conventions – Name formats – General guidelines for variable names Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 6

7. Standards for Program Organization Program files Encapsulation and information hiding Readme file Header files Source files Makefiles Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 7

8. Standards for File Organization File prolog Header file (class definition) (*.h) Order of contents – Format of class declarations – Method (function) documentation in header file Method function implementation and documentation in source file Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 8

9. Coding Issues Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 9

10. Interfaces and coupling Consider the nature of coupling between components. There are many coupling metrics that measure the interconnection between program units. Generally speaking, the less coupling between modules, the better, at least from the perspective of using modules as components. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014,2015 10

11. Coupling can guide test effort Coupling-based testing is based on the premise that system errors occur most frequently at unit boundaries and where they interface. Modules with the most coupling must require the most testing effort. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 11

12. Coupling can also guide reuse There are many types of coupling. We will present them in the order of greatest amount of coupling to smallest amount, under the assumption that we should test in the places where errors are most likely to occur. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 12

13. Coupling and reuse If there is coupling, both components must be examined, before either is reused. We cannot simply reuse a component, unless we know about coupling and interface issues. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 13

14. Coupling types Content coupling Common coupling Control coupling Stamp and data coupling External coupling Message coupling No coupling Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 14

15. Content coupling Content coupling is the highest level of coupling between modules. One module modifies or relies on the internal local data of another module. Changing one module ’ s data (location, type, timing) will change the dependent module. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 15

16. Content coupling, cont. Unit 1 … Exception occurs … Unit 2 … Exception is handled … Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 16

17. Content coupling, cont. Systems with modules having content coupling can be tested using recovery testing ideas. The flow of control is managed in a systematic way by exception handlers. Ideally, exception handlers bring software execution back to a “ safe state. ” There may be problems if multiple content coupling occurs in a distributed system. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 17

18. Content coupling, cont. Content coupling can also cause a disaster in systems. The problems may be very hard to test. In languages such as C, using the system calls setjmp and longjmp makes problems hard to test, locate, and fix. Avoid these non-local GOTO statements whenever possible. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 18

19. Common coupling Two modules share the same global data (e.g. a global variable). Changing the shared resource implies changing all the modules using it. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 19

20. Common coupling, cont. Unit 1 … Use global data … Unit 2 … Use global data … Global data Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 20

21. Control coupling One module controls the logic of another, by passing it information on what to do (e.g. passing a what-to-do flag). Execution of a loop or program branch depends upon the parameter. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 21

22. Control coupling, cont. Unit 1 … parameter sent … Unit 2 … if (parameter > 0) do this else do that… Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 22

23. Data coupling Modules share data through parameters. Parameter may be used in a calculation, but does not affect logical flow (loops, branches) of receiving module. Some researchers call this stamp coupling. – (Others use stamp coupling to mean that only one field of a multi-field record is actually used.) Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 23

24. Data coupling, cont. Unit 1 … Parameter sent … Unit 2 … Parameter is used, but not for control of program unit. … Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 24

25. External coupling Two modules use data that is external to both. The external data may have a specified format, communications protocol, or device interface. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 25

26. External coupling, cont. Unit 1 … Use externally specified data … Unit 2 … Use externally specified data … Communications such as a specified socket Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 26

27. Message coupling A very low level of coupling. Modules do not communicate with each other through parameters. They use a public interface, such as messages or events, to exchange parameter-less messages. This is more prevalent in object-oriented systems. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 27

28. Message coupling, cont. Unit 1 … Use external message … Unit 2 … Use external message … Message such as a mouse click Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 28

29. The lowest form of coupling No coupling: modules do not appear to communicate with one another at all. A minor concern: – Each module might use up system resources, making it hard for the other module to execute. – Very hard to find such errors without extreme stress testing Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 29

30. No coupling, cont. Unit 1 … Unit 2 … Available memory, virtual memory limits Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 30

31. Coding Metrics Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 31

32. McCabe Cyclomatic Complexity Metric Based on analysis of the program graph E – V + 2P – Here E is the number of edges in the graph – V is the number of vertices – P is the number of parts (= the number of subprograms called, including the main program) Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 32

33. McCabe Cyclomatic Complexity Metric Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 33

34. How Many Regions? Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 34

35. Why is this metric important? Study by Enerjy Co. – Classes with a combined cyclomatic complexity of 11 had a fault probability of 0.28. – Classes with a combined cyclomatic complexity of 74 had a fault probability of 0.98. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 35

36. Why is this metric important? HP’s Medical Products System (now part of Agilent) made anyone writing a function with cyclomatic complexity >= 10 have meetings with two supervisors to explain testing strategy. Reduced complexity = simpler program logic = better quality programs Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 36

37. Coding Inspections Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 37

38. Issues in Coding Inspections The source code may be examined for adherence to coding standards. The directory structure may be examined for adherence to naming conventions. The inputs or outputs from each function may be checked by hand for correctness. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 38

39. Issues in Coding Inspections The invariants of each loop may be checked to make sure that the loop exit conditions are met. Objects may be checked for completeness of coverage of all conditions if some of the object’s methods are overloaded. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 39

40. Coding and Configuration Management Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 40

41. Configuration Management Essential for all but the most trivial projects Especially important for team projects Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 41

42. The Razor system Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 42

43. The Agile Development Case Study: Coding Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 43

44. Perspectives The object of coding in an agile development process is to create a high-quality system as rapidly as possible. As little effort placed on non-coding-related issues during the coding process as is humanly possible. Little effort placed on coding standards. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 44

45. Perspectives, cont. Source code written by different members of the agile team may not follow coding standards about indentation and the actual physical presentation of the formatting. Standards, if any, will be those used by the IDE. The use of configuration management tools for version control is almost universal. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 45

46. Perspectives, cont. Internal documentation of the code will be a lower priority than the actual development and testing of the source code. The testing of the code is paramount. It is primarily focused on the interfaces between components, COTS products, and subsystems. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 46

47. Perspectives, cont. It is not clear if lack of adherence to coding standards in an agile development process will have any effect on the maintenance of such a system over time. For systems that are expected to have short deployment lifetimes, any maintenance problems that do occur are not likely to be major ones. Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 47

48. Coding of the Continuing Major Software Development Project Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 48

49. Coding standards Have we followed them? Have we been consistent with naming conventions? Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 49

50. Requirements Traceability Have we listed our source code in the RTM? Has every requirement been implemented? Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 50

51. Coding and Project Management, Cont. Perform a status check. Are we ahead of schedule (unlikely), behind schedule (likely), or approximately on target? Have there been any unpleasant surprises, any portions of the system that were more difficult than we expected? Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 51

52. Coding and Project Management Does any portion of the system require extra attention, perhaps additional resources? Have technology or market pressures rendered any portion of the system obsolete? Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 52

53. Coding and Project Management Perform a status check. Are we ahead of schedule (unlikely), behind schedule (likely), or approximately on target? Have there been any unpleasant surprises, any portions of the system that were more difficult than we expected? Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 53

54. Coding and Project Management Does any portion of the system require extra attention, perhaps additional resources? Have technology or market pressures rendered any portion of the system obsolete? (Recall that we did this status check earlier.) Copyright Ronald J. Leach, 1997, 2009, 2014, 2015 54