<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thanks for that Tomas. I don’t think I have anything substantive to add. <o:p></o:p></span></a></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Recently, I’ve done a lot of work on another Perl project which often doesn’t use subroutines or has them scattered around in files, which make them impossible to test. It makes development more difficult and it makes releases a nightmare. As Tomas says, you need to be able to test everything. If you think about it in that way, no code is every used once. It always has to be used at least twice. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>David Cook<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Systems Librarian<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Prosentient Systems<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>72/330 Wattle St, Ultimo, NSW 2007<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Tomas Cohen Arazi [mailto:tomascohen@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 1 October 2015 12:19 AM<br><b>To:</b> Philippe Blouin <philippe.blouin@inlibro.com><br><b>Cc:</b> David Cook <dcook@prosentient.com.au>; koha-devel <koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Koha-devel] Add rule for no subroutines in PL scripts<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>2015-09-30 9:20 GMT-03:00 Philippe Blouin <<a href="mailto:philippe.blouin@inlibro.com" target="_blank">philippe.blouin@inlibro.com</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Because the code would be extremely specific to a specific functionality, whereas the code in the libraries is there to be reused.<br>And let not go overboard with OO.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>We embrace the OO paradigm for most of the CRUD operations, but we also have libs containing functions that are used statically, like Koha::Util::MARC, that do specific things and are testable. And is only used in a couple places.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>A script is a script is a script. Make it readable, add functions to make it cleaner, make your functions readable.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>We have two main kind of scripts: command line scripts, and controller scripts that got too complicated during Koha's life, and we are trying to simplify "as we go".<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I think both should be testable.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>And make some rule for forbidding direct DB accesses, so that future DB changes do not require to change many scripts.<br>But please, do not forbid functions in scripts.<br><br>As for tests, writing them for very complicated, very very specific function only applicable to a script could have value, but it certainly does not balance the extra complexity your bringing to the code.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'm trying to think of a use case for that, and I'm not sure we really have that kind of situations. We might consider on a per-scenario basis BUT, the whole point is that no super-complex code should lack full coverage tests. Because the more complex the function, the more difficult for people to know they are not breaking a feature if they touch it.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So, even if we didn't write this rule down, the most probable scenario is that the release team would fail a patch adding complex functions that don't provide unit tests.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This is not a religious/fanatic thing, but a practical one. Trying to pay our technical debt and interests instead of adding more debt.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.5pt'>Tomás Cohen Arazi<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.5pt'>Theke Solutions (<a href="http://theke.io/" target="_blank">http://theke.io</a>)<br></span><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol",sans-serif'>✆</span><span style='font-size:9.5pt'> +54 9351 3513384<br>GPG: B76C 6E7C 2D80 551A C765 E225 0A27 2EA1 B2F3 C15F<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>