Fighting Fabricated Complexity

During my interview on Code Metrics by Scott Hanselman’s on Software Metrics, Scott had a particularly relevant remark.

Basically, while I was explaining that long and complex methods are killing quality and should be split into smaller methods, Scott asked me:

looking at this big too complicated method and I break it up into smaller methods, the complexity of the business problem is still there, looking at my application I can say, this is no longer complex from the method perspective, but the software itself, the way it is coupled with other bits of code, may indicate other problem…

 

Software complexity is a subjective measure relative to the human cognition capacity. Something is complex when it requires effort to be understood by a human. The fact is that software complexity is a 2 dimensional measure. To understand a piece of code one must understand both:

  • what this piece of code is supposed to do at run-time, the behavior of the code, this is the business problem complexity 
  • how the actual implementation does achieve the business problem,  what was the developer mental state while she wrote the code, this is the implementation complexity.

Business problem complexity lies into the specification of the program and reducing it means working on the behavior of the code itself. On the other hand, we are talking of fabricated complexity when it comes to the complexity of the implementation: it is fabricated in the sense that it can be reduced without altering the behavior of the code. As an illustration here is a super/giant/complex method found inside the .Net Framework implementation System.Windows.Forms.DataGridView.GetClipboardContent():

 

GetClipboardContent() is made of around 300 Lines of Code and has a ILComplexity equals to 192. GetClipboardContent() does not have drastic performance requirement. As a consequence I don’t see any justification for not refactoring this massive method into smaller ones and maybe even a small classes hierarchy that could help in implementing the enormous switch/cases. Doing so would certainly discard a lot of fabricated complexity.

 

Fighting Fabricated Complexity with Simple Code Metrics

The simplest way to limit fabricated complexity is to abide by simple code metrics thresholds. This is why one of the default CQLinq rule proposed by NDepend is the following one:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
// <Name>Quick summary of methods to refactor</Name>
warnif count > 0 from m in JustMyCode.Methods where
// Code Metrics' definitions
m.NbLinesOfCode > 30 || // http://www.ndepend.com/Metrics.aspx#NbLinesOfCode
m.NbILInstructions > 200 || // http://www.ndepend.com/Metrics.aspx#NbILInstructions
m.CyclomaticComplexity > 20 || // http://www.ndepend.com/Metrics.aspx#CC
m.ILCyclomaticComplexity > 50 || // http://www.ndepend.com/Metrics.aspx#ILCC
m.ILNestingDepth > 5 || // http://www.ndepend.com/Metrics.aspx#ILNestingDepth
m.NbParameters > 5 || // http://www.ndepend.com/Metrics.aspx#NbParameters
m.NbVariables > 8 || // http://www.ndepend.com/Metrics.aspx#NbVariables
m.NbOverloads > 6 // http://www.ndepend.com/Metrics.aspx#NbOverloads
 
select new { m, m.NbLinesOfCode, m.NbILInstructions, m.CyclomaticComplexity,
m.ILCyclomaticComplexity, m.ILNestingDepth,
m.NbParameters, m.NbVariables, m.NbOverloads }
view raw gistfile1.txt hosted with ❤ by GitHub

 

Fighting Fabricated Complexity with Abstractions

Another popular way to limit fabricated complexity is to hide implementations behind some interfaces. Even though interfaces are not contracts, an interface itself often conveys enough information to make its purpose understandable. For example the IDisposable pattern is a complex topic but still, the IDisposable interface present only one method and we at least understand that it is an indication that some unmanaged resources must be released somehow. When a piece of code relies on an interface, at code review time, the interface relieves the developer from the burden of mastering every details of the implementation(s) hidden by the interface. This is in essence the Liskov Subsitution Principle.

 

NDepend provides 2 ways to asses if and where your program should use more abstractions. First NDepend proposes the Robert C Martin metrics about Abstractness vs Instability. The idea is that the more a code element of a program is popular, the more it should be abstract. Or in other words, avoid depending too much directly on implementations, depend on abstractions instead. By popular code element I mean an assembly (but the idea works also for namespaces and types) that is massively used by other assemblies of the program. Abstractness of a group of types (like an assembly) is the ratio NbAbstractTypes / NbTotalTypes. There are debates about how these metrics should be computed and we plan in the future to make Robert C Martin’s metrics more flexible but still, you get the point, it is not a good idea to have concrete types very popular in your code base. This provokes some Zones of Pains in your program, where changing the implementations can potentially affect a large portion of the program. And implementations are known to evolve more often than abstractions.

 

The second way to assess if more abstractions is needed is to rely on the Level metric. I won’t detail here this metric and its usage because I have already done it in the post Layering, the Level metric and the Discourse of Method. The idea here is that using more interfaces decrease the overall Level value of code elements (classes/namespaces). Thus, if many classes and namespaces have a high Level value (> 12), it means that you have a long stack of concrete layers sitting above each others. Introducing abstractions is then a good idea to split such long stack and benefit from the interface simplification describe above.

 

Fighting Fabricated Complexity with Immutability

A common source of fabricated complexity is mutable states. The human brain is not properly wired to anticipate what is really happening at run-time in a program. While reviewing a class, it is hard to imagine how many instances will simultaneously exists at runtime and how the states of each these instances will evolve over time. This is actually THE major source of problems when dealing with a multi-threaded program. If a class is immutable (meaning if the states of all its instances objects don’t change at runtime once the constructor is called) its runtime behavior immediately becomes much easier to grasp and as a bonus, one doesn’t need to synchronize access to immutable objects. For more information, I wrote about the benefits of immutable types and how NDepend can help in statically verifying immutability.

Fighting Fabricated Complexity with minimal Coupling

When trying to re-engineer/understand/refactor a large piece of code (I mean something made of dozens of classes like a big namespaces or an assembly), the difficulty is directly proportional to the coupling between considered code elements. Both these following graphs are made of dependencies between 23 classes, one with 53 edges and the other one with 175 edges: which one would you prefer to deal with?

 

While clear componentization is certainly the best way to fight against entangled/spaghetti code, keep in mind that using abstractions is also a good way to limit the over coupling-overhead. Indeed, if an interface has N implementations, then relying only on the interface is virtually like depending on the N underlying classes, except that from the static dependency point of view, you actually rely on only one type.

 

Could Fabricated Complexity be Measured?

There are plenty of other sources of fabricated complexity and I estimate that the 4 quoted ones are certainly the big 4 culprits. One could arguably appends also the ratio of code coverage + the number of automatic tests in the list, since a clean tests suite certainly forces the code to be better designed, simpler and more maintainable.

 

Interestingly enough, all these potential sources of problem can be controlled through NDepend. Could we find a formula that might process all these data to finally spit a number (a score) to measure the Fabricated Complexity? This approach is implemented in tools like Struture101 in the Java world that comes with a dedicated XS metric to measure fabricated complexity. Another example is the maintainability index range in VisualStudio that spits a number in the range 0-100. This number is linearly computed from potential source of fabricated complexity such as NbLinesOfCode, CyclomaticComplexity… and being lower than 20 is bad.

 

Such metrics are certainly interesting but I have a few caveats. The inventors of these formulas claim that in a certain range of value the code is crappy. The fact is that the value spitted doesn’t have any associated dimension. If a method has 120 lines of code and a Cyclomatic Complexity of 50, does it helps to add 120+50 and says that 170 something (something here is undetermined) is a bad thing? From the 2 values (120 Loc and 50 CC), isn’t it already obvious that the method should be splitted? And what about a method with 169 lines of code and no cyclomatic complexity (such as the massive Windows Form InitializeComponent() method)? I don’t think that such a method is as bad as the previous one and still they both measure 170 something.

Let’s take for example the more and more popular CRAP metric that helps to detect crap code. The idea is that crap code is complex methods and poorly covered by tests. The proposed formula is:

CRAP(m) = comp(m)^2 * (1 – cov(m)/100)^3 + comp(m)

…where comp(m) is the cyclomatic complexity of method m, and cov(m) is the test code coverage provided by automated tests. NDepend proposes an implementation of C.R.A.P through the default code rule C.R.A.P method code metric:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
// <Name>C.R.A.P method code metric</Name>
// Change Risk Analyzer and Predictor (i.e. CRAP) code metric
// This code metric helps in pinpointing overly complex and untested code.
// Reference: http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=215899
// Formula: CRAP(m) = comp(m)^2 * (1 – cov(m)/100)^3 + comp(m)
warnif count > 0
from m in JustMyCode.Methods
 
// Don't match too short methods
where m.NbLinesOfCode > 10
 
let CC = m.CyclomaticComplexity
let uncov = (100 - m.PercentageCoverage) / 100f
let CRAP = (CC * CC * uncov * uncov * uncov) + CC
where CRAP != null && CRAP > 30
orderby CRAP descending, m.NbLinesOfCode descending
select new { m, CRAP, CC, uncoveredPercentage = uncov*100, m.NbLinesOfCode }
view raw gistfile1.cs hosted with ❤ by GitHub

Personally, I think that by mixing it up, it is hard to understand the meaning of an estimation of the fabricated complexity value and worst, it makes harder to predict which refactoring will affect positively the value of the metric.

In the future, an open-source program based on NDepend.API could be written to take account of all complexity factor shown above.

Are you using these formulas? What’s your opinion on this?

 

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
  • http://runefs.wordpress.com runefs

    Some time back I wrote a post (http://runefs.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/pit-falls-in-testing/) on using complexity to evalutate the test setup, I haven’t stubled into the C.R.A.P. metric before that
    I’ve never thought of that metric as a measurement for code quality and I think I agree with your point of it not telling what to improve but I would still use it for evaluating the test setup. In that respect I would have a low CC (our current rule is that CC must be below 10) so it would usually be obvious where we needed to improve the testing since we’re already focusing on the other factors using different metrics (one of them being the refactor method of CppDepend)