Refactoring disappointments

During my university days, I was a big fan of refactoring. I believed it should be done as much as possible in every situation when you encounter a code smell. But university days meant a lot of books and no real practice. Migration to the industry, specifically to SimCorp taught me that my beliefs were not true. Refactoring can be harmful in certain situations and it also can be really disappointing and demotivating activity. Here are some cases which I experienced in my career:

Refactor-distractor. Refactoring definitely takes away your time which could have been used for development of new features or fixing bugs. Now, sometimes refactoring is worth doing when you can clearly see the benefit of it when you can get 80% of improvement with 20% of the efforts. For example, you can see that few hours of refactoring can help putting important functionality under test or improve understandability of the frequently changed code. But often you will find yourself doing code improvements on the part of the system which rarely gets changed or doing improvements to the code which is already good enough. Diminishing returns law works here. You are pushing towards better code but into every further code improvement, you need to put more and more resources. I don’t know about you, but when I got caught by this type of refactoring, at the end the day I always feel pissed. The feature I am expected to deliver is not progressed and resulted code is not ideal because it is just never ideal.

Refactoring with no domain knowledge. Avoid doing refactoring if you don’t understand the domain of the software very well. This lesson was delivered to me by SimCorp. They have extremely complex financial software which they produce for a very long time. Every system which is in production for a long time has a lot of legacy code, SimCorp Dimension is no exception. And here I am, a freshman developer who just defended Ph.D. on refactoring and given the task to fix some bug deeply in the core of business logic. I discovered a function which length was over 7 hundred lines. It was definitely bleeding for refactoring and I immediately jumped in and starting extracting new functions. But there was a daunting problem! I did not know how to name those new functions. I had the best intentions and good technical knowledge but these prerequisites were far from enough to be able to do worth refactoring. I was running around distracting my colleagues and asking what they thought was the best name for this or that piece of code. I have finally done with this refactoring. It took few days and I was already exhausted and disappointed that my bug fix took that much time. But this was only the beginning of the trouble. Now, when something went wrong with this code, people started redirecting bug reports to me, although I absolutely was not aware what this code did in terms of business logic. No one actually came to me and said thanks for this clearing up! And this is because they were not happy with my changes at all. They knew the code well and now I have changed it and gave awkward names to the functions. Without domain knowledge, I made things even worth. Even after almost 4 years of my work there my, now good friends and colleagues, joked about names I gave to extracted functions.

Large refactoring by a dedicated team. As I said I was huge refactoring fan when I started at SimCorp. Therefore I joined the refactoring team which was forming soon after I joined this great company. The task of the team was to improve very badly rotted part of the system. Although I learned some good lessons from this experience, in about a year I understood it was a bad idea to have dedicated refactoring team. My discovery was supported by plenty of blog posts and books which described similar situations and came up with the similar conclusions. To make a long story short – it is very hard to justify for a business an existence of a dedicated team which does not deliver a tangible value. We completed only one project in a year which was only the part of big refactoring, although we worked pretty hard. Personally, I realized I wanted to deliver value to customers, it turned out it was a motivating aspect for me. Just re-coding what was already working well turned out to be a little fun to me. So I left the team and very soon it was dropped by the management. Most developers agreed that refactoring should be done gradually as a part of features development.

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
2 Comments

    Ilya Ivanov

    Great article, keep on writing.

    Note, that refactoring and testing can be compared to sugar in baking – you can’t just add them after the product has been created. When you cook a dish, you have to add ingredients during the process, not afterwards. This analogy is very well delivered by Misko Hevery in the talk “Psychology of Testing”.

    It’s a pity situation when teams try to add tests, refactor systems or modules, fix broken tests after the design has already been established and a lot of code has been written.

    Personally, I see TDD as a great saver, where testing and refactoring is the part of the process, not an optional thing after feature has been delivered.

      OleksandrNechai

      Hey! Thanks for the positive comment! And thanks for very interesting sugar metaphor, I have not heard it before!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.