- •Table of Contents
- •About the Author
- •About the Technical Reviewer
- •Acknowledgments
- •Software Entropy
- •Clean Code
- •C++11: The Beginning of a New Era
- •Who This Book Is For
- •Conventions Used in This Book
- •Sidebars
- •Notes, Tips, and Warnings
- •Code Samples
- •Coding Style
- •C++ Core Guidelines
- •Companion Website and Source Code Repository
- •UML Diagrams
- •The Need for Testing
- •Unit Tests
- •What About QA?
- •Rules for Good Unit Tests
- •Test Code Quality
- •Unit Test Naming
- •Unit Test Independence
- •One Assertion per Test
- •Independent Initialization of Unit Test Environments
- •Exclude Getters and Setters
- •Exclude Third-Party Code
- •Exclude External Systems
- •What Do We Do with the Database?
- •Don’t Mix Test Code with Production Code
- •Tests Must Run Fast
- •How Do You Find a Test’s Input Data?
- •Equivalence Partitioning
- •Boundary Value Analysis
- •Test Doubles (Fake Objects)
- •What Is a Principle?
- •KISS
- •YAGNI
- •It’s About Knowledge!
- •Building Abstractions Is Sometimes Hard
- •Information Hiding
- •Strong Cohesion
- •Loose Coupling
- •Be Careful with Optimizations
- •Principle of Least Astonishment (PLA)
- •The Boy Scout Rule
- •Collective Code Ownership
- •Good Names
- •Names Should Be Self-Explanatory
- •Use Names from the Domain
- •Choose Names at an Appropriate Level of Abstraction
- •Avoid Redundancy When Choosing a Name
- •Avoid Cryptic Abbreviations
- •Avoid Hungarian Notation and Prefixes
- •Avoid Using the Same Name for Different Purposes
- •Comments
- •Let the Code Tell the Story
- •Do Not Comment Obvious Things
- •Don’t Disable Code with Comments
- •Don’t Write Block Comments
- •Don’t Use Comments to Substitute Version Control
- •The Rare Cases Where Comments Are Useful
- •Documentation Generation from Source Code
- •Functions
- •One Thing, No More!
- •Let Them Be Small
- •“But the Call Time Overhead!”
- •Function Naming
- •Use Intention-Revealing Names
- •Parameters and Return Values
- •Avoid Flag Parameters
- •Avoid Output Parameters
- •Don’t Pass or Return 0 (NULL, nullptr)
- •Strategies for Avoiding Regular Pointers
- •Choose simple object construction on the stack instead of on the heap
- •In a function’s argument list, use (const) references instead of pointers
- •If it is inevitable to deal with a pointer to a resource, use a smart one
- •If an API returns a raw pointer...
- •The Power of const Correctness
- •About Old C-Style in C++ Projects
- •Choose C++ Strings and Streams over Old C-Style char*
- •Use C++ Casts Instead of Old C-Style Casts
- •Avoid Macros
- •Managing Resources
- •Resource Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII)
- •Smart Pointers
- •Unique Ownership with std::unique_ptr<T>
- •Shared Ownership with std::shared_ptr<T>
- •No Ownership, but Secure Access with std::weak_ptr<T>
- •Atomic Smart Pointers
- •Avoid Explicit New and Delete
- •Managing Proprietary Resources
- •We Like to Move It
- •What Are Move Semantics?
- •The Matter with Those lvalues and rvalues
- •rvalue References
- •Don’t Enforce Move Everywhere
- •The Rule of Zero
- •The Compiler Is Your Colleague
- •Automatic Type Deduction
- •Computations During Compile Time
- •Variable Templates
- •Don’t Allow Undefined Behavior
- •Type-Rich Programming
- •Know Your Libraries
- •Take Advantage of <algorithm>
- •Easier Parallelization of Algorithms Since C++17
- •Sorting and Output of a Container
- •More Convenience with Ranges
- •Non-Owning Ranges with Views
- •Comparing Two Sequences
- •Take Advantage of Boost
- •More Libraries That You Should Know About
- •Proper Exception and Error Handling
- •Prevention Is Better Than Aftercare
- •No Exception Safety
- •Basic Exception Safety
- •Strong Exception Safety
- •The No-Throw Guarantee
- •An Exception Is an Exception, Literally!
- •If You Can’t Recover, Get Out Quickly
- •Define User-Specific Exception Types
- •Throw by Value, Catch by const Reference
- •Pay Attention to the Correct Order of Catch Clauses
- •Interface Design
- •Attributes
- •noreturn (since C++11)
- •deprecated (since C++14)
- •nodiscard (since C++17)
- •maybe_unused (since C++17)
- •Concepts: Requirements for Template Arguments
- •The Basics of Modularization
- •Criteria for Finding Modules
- •Focus on the Domain of Your Software
- •Abstraction
- •Choose a Hierarchical Decomposition
- •Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)
- •Single Level of Abstraction (SLA)
- •The Whole Enchilada
- •Object-Orientation
- •Object-Oriented Thinking
- •Principles for Good Class Design
- •Keep Classes Small
- •Open-Closed Principle (OCP)
- •A Short Comparison of Type Erasure Techniques
- •Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP)
- •The Square-Rectangle Dilemma
- •Favor Composition over Inheritance
- •Interface Segregation Principle (ISP)
- •Acyclic Dependency Principle
- •Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)
- •Don’t Talk to Strangers (The Law of Demeter)
- •Avoid Anemic Classes
- •Tell, Don’t Ask!
- •Avoid Static Class Members
- •Modules
- •The Drawbacks of #include
- •Three Options for Using Modules
- •Include Translation
- •Header Importation
- •Module Importation
- •Separating Interface and Implementation
- •The Impact of Modules
- •What Is Functional Programming?
- •What Is a Function?
- •Pure vs Impure Functions
- •Functional Programming in Modern C++
- •Functional Programming with C++ Templates
- •Function-Like Objects (Functors)
- •Generator
- •Unary Function
- •Predicate
- •Binary Functors
- •Binders and Function Wrappers
- •Lambda Expressions
- •Generic Lambda Expressions (C++14)
- •Lambda Templates (C++20)
- •Higher-Order Functions
- •Map, Filter, and Reduce
- •Filter
- •Reduce (Fold)
- •Fold Expressions in C++17
- •Pipelining with Range Adaptors (C++20)
- •Clean Code in Functional Programming
- •The Drawbacks of Plain Old Unit Testing (POUT)
- •Test-Driven Development as a Game Changer
- •The Workflow of TDD
- •TDD by Example: The Roman Numerals Code Kata
- •Preparations
- •The First Test
- •The Second Test
- •The Third Test and the Tidying Afterward
- •More Sophisticated Tests with a Custom Assertion
- •It’s Time to Clean Up Again
- •Approaching the Finish Line
- •Done!
- •The Advantages of TDD
- •When We Should Not Use TDD
- •TDD Is Not a Replacement for Code Reviews
- •Design Principles vs Design Patterns
- •Some Patterns and When to Use Them
- •Dependency Injection (DI)
- •The Singleton Anti-Pattern
- •Dependency Injection to the Rescue
- •Adapter
- •Strategy
- •Command
- •Command Processor
- •Composite
- •Observer
- •Factories
- •Simple Factory
- •Facade
- •The Money Class
- •Special Case Object (Null Object)
- •What Is an Idiom?
- •Some Useful C++ Idioms
- •The Power of Immutability
- •Substitution Failure Is Not an Error (SFINAE)
- •The Copy-and-Swap Idiom
- •Pointer to Implementation (PIMPL)
- •Structural Modeling
- •Component
- •Interface
- •Association
- •Generalization
- •Dependency
- •Template and Template Binding
- •Behavioral Modeling
- •Activity Diagram
- •Action
- •Control Flow Edge
- •Other Activity Nodes
- •Sequence Diagram
- •Lifeline
- •Message
- •State Diagram
- •State
- •Transitions
- •External Transitions
- •Internal Transitions
- •Trigger
- •Stereotypes
- •Bibliography
- •Index
Appendix A Small UML Guide
Figure A-23. A state with internal transitions
Besides self-defined events, the following predefined events can optionally be used for internal transitions in order to execute some specified behavior:
•\ entry: A behavior that is performed upon entry to a state.
•\ do: An ongoing behavior that is performed as long as the modeled element is in the state.
•\ exit: A behavior that is performed upon exit from a state.
Trigger
A transition may own a set of so-called triggers. A trigger specifies an event whose occurrence, when dispatched, may trigger traversal of the transition. Triggers can be noted on a transition according to the following template:
[event1, event2, ...][condition][/behavior]
All elements, i.e. the explicit events, the so-called guard (that’s the part that contains the condition), as well as the executed behavior if a transition is triggered, are optional. Even if no explicit trigger is annotated at a transition, there is one. This implicit event is called a completion event and it signifies that all behaviors associated with the source state (e.g., the possibly existing behaviors that are associated with the entryand doevents) have completed execution.
Stereotypes
Among other ways, the vocabulary of UML can be extended with the help of so-called stereotypes. This lightweight mechanism allows the introduction of platformor domain-specific extensions of standard UML elements. For instance, by the application of the stereotype «Factory» on the standard UML element Class, designers can express that those specific classes are object factories.
474
Appendix A Small UML Guide
The name of an applied stereotype is shown within a pair of guillemets (French quotation marks) above or before the name of the model element. Some stereotypes also introduce a new graphical symbol, an icon. Table A-4 contains a list of the stereotypes used in this book.
Table A-4. Stereotypes Used in This Book
Stereotype |
Meaning |
|
|
«Factory» |
A class that creates objects without exposing the instantiation logic to the |
|
client. |
«Facade» |
A class that provides a unified interface to a set of interfaces in a complex |
|
component or subsystem. |
«Include» |
A stereotype applied to a directed relationship (dependency) to indicate that one |
|
source code file requires the contents of another source code file. |
«ModuleImport» A stereotype applied to a directed relationship (dependency) to indicate that a C++ source code file imports a C++ module, which is a set of source code files that were precompiled independently of the units that are importing the module.
«Subsystem» |
A UML standard stereotype. It is used to mark a component that represents a |
|
large-scale module within a system, which may have characteristics of a self- |
|
contained system. |
«SUT» |
The System Under Test (SUT). Classes or components with this stereotype are |
|
the entities to be tested, for example, with the help of unit tests. |
«System» |
This stereotype, which can be applied to both the UML component and the |
|
class, marks the element that represents the so-called “system of interest,” |
|
i.e., the entire software system. |
«TestContext» |
A software entity, for example, a class that acts as a grouping mechanism for a |
|
set of test cases (see stereotype «TestCase»). |
«TestCase» |
An operation that interacts with the «SUT» to verify its correctness. Test cases |
|
are grouped in a «TestContext». |
|
|
475