This code may not quite do what it says it does.

RCoate

In preparation for some redevelopment work, I was having a look through some legacy code provided by a contractor. I have a feeling that it does not do exactly what the comments suggest it does.

/// <summary>
/// Determines whether this person already has an application of that type
/// </summary>
/// <param name="appTypeID">The app type ID.</param>
/// <param name="registrationNumber">The registration number.</param>
/// <param name="app">The Application</param>
/// <returns>
/// 	true if they have an unfinished application of the given type
/// </returns>

private bool HasApplicationAlready(int appTypeID, int registrationNumber, ref Application app)
{
	bool foundOne = false;

	List<Application> matches = new Application().GetApplicationListForContact(DataLocation.OnlineDataBase, Int32.Parse(Profile.RegistrationNumber));

	// We now have all their applications
	// Find their latest application of the correct AppType
	Application bestMatch = null;
	foreach (Application singleApp in matches)
	{
		// See if it's the correct type
		if (singleApp.Application\_type\_id.GetValueOrDefault(0) == appTypeID)
		{
			// See if it's the most recent application of that type
			if (bestMatch == null)
			{
				bestMatch = singleApp;
			}
			else
			{
				// There's already a match, but see if this one is more recent
				if (singleApp.ApplicationId > bestMatch.ApplicationId)
				{
					bestMatch = singleApp;
				}
				else
				{
					bestMatch = singleApp;
				}
			}
		}
	}
	if (bestMatch != null)
	{
		app = bestMatch;
		foundOne = true;
	}
	else
	{
		foundOne = false;
	}
	return foundOne;
}

Another gem I found was:

/// <summary>
/// Does the Final validation.
/// </summary>
/// <returns></returns>
protected bool FinalValidation()
{
    return true;
}

walterhevedeich

The second gem was really funny. :laugh:

Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment. Barry LePatner

...it's our division that makes us sane(r), and their unity that makes them crazy. Ian Shlasko

0bx

It's funny because I know what he was thinking, I still make similar mistakes from time to time. But when I find myself typing something like this:

if (singleApp.ApplicationId > bestMatch.ApplicationId)
{
bestMatch = singleApp;
}
else
{
bestMatch = singleApp;
}

It's usually a sign that it's time to slap yourself and get go outside for five minutes. :-D

Giraffes are not real.

Tarun K S

RCoate wrote:

/// <summary> /// Does the Final validation. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> protected bool FinalValidation() { return true; }

:laugh: :laugh:

The more anger towards the past you carry in your heart, the less capable you are of loving in the present. My Blog![^]

BobJanova

Yeah I think we've all written code like that on a bad day. But most of us probably notice immediately and take a little break. The worst thing about the original example is the way it returns a value and assigns to instance variables, I think (as well as the 'best match' logic being broken, but that's just a mistake, it's not really insidious). It could just return bestMatch and if it's null then there wasn't one, and then it wouldn't have side effects.

BobJanova

Yes, although if it were virtual, it could make sense. Even as it stands if it's a placeholder for something to be added later, it makes sense. (If public, I'd say it was probably an interface implementation; I often have trivial methods or property getters for that purpose.)

walterhevedeich

BobJanova wrote:

Even as it stands if it's a placeholder for something to be added later, it makes sense.

I agree. But I find it funny to have a method called FinalValidation and does no validation at all. Maybe I just have a weird sense of humor.

Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment. Barry LePatner

...it's our division that makes us sane(r), and their unity that makes them crazy. Ian Shlasko

RCoate

Thing is, this code has been in production for as least 12 months.

Peter_in_2780

So Final is obviously valid! ;P

Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994.

chmod2222

Why don't you just do...

private bool HasApplicationAlready(int appTypeID, int registrationNumber, ref Application app)
{
app = Application().GetApplicationListForContact(DataLocation.OnlineDataBase, Int32.Parse(Profile.RegistrationNumber)).OrderByDescending(s=>s.ApplicationId).FirstOrDefault(s=>s.Application_type_id==appTypeID);
return app==null?false:true;
}

... or something similar?

James H

Probably because it is a bitch to debug

chmod2222

Not really.. You get null, or the result you wanted, nothing to debug.

James H

But if it is null rather than the result you expected and you want to dig in a bit to find where it is going wrong it is a nightmare so you end up expanding it out a bit to trace then perhaps collapsing again once it is working (or more likely leaving well alone). While I like the concept of the single line solution until you can step through the parts I can see why you would validly avoid it.

Lost User

Now all of your applications are belong to us!

chmod2222

Well, when I write code, I write it so it doesn't have to be debugged(almost:). Only thing that can go wrong here, would be that the database connection is down, or some sore of foreign key exception. It would result in an exception(with a nice description), but that's a whole different story. My point is, that I would always rather write(and debug) 2 lines of code, than 22, no mather how complicated they may be...but that's just me...

austin hamman

also im not sure the lambda notation existed(in c#) when this code was made. i may be wrong.

chmod2222

The "not so" good old days... :)

Lost User

Unless it was filling in an interface (and you have no control over the interface definition; third party, etc.), it's just code bloat. YAGNI: you ain't gonna need it. The best designs have the minimum of moving parts.

BobJanova

As non-virtual, I agree. I'm just suggesting what reasonable thing the original code might have been trying to do.

BrainiacV

At a former place of employment we were told "Names mean nothing." If the function name is "Print" it may not get around to doing any. And for this crapware it was true. Typically functions were not single purpose. They might do 10 different things. These functions would be called by other functions only interested in the output of two of the operations and with the hope that the other eight did not cause any problems. A colleague and I traced a subroutine down 25 levels making calls to these routines, we totally lost what the intended result was supposed to be and never reached bottom.

Psychosis at 10 Film at 11