bostonaholic/refactoring-to-patterns

Refactoring to Patterns

Refactoring is the process of changing the internal structure of code without changing its observable behavior. Every refactoring step must leave all tests passing. Never refactor while also adding features — separate the two activities.

When to Refactor

Refactor when you need to:

• Make a change easier before making it. If the code is hard to change, refactor first, then change. Two small moves beat one large dangerous move.
• Remove duplication discovered during implementation. The Rule of Three: tolerate duplicate code the second time, refactor the third time.
• Improve clarity before debugging. Code you cannot understand, you cannot fix reliably. Clarify first, then fix.

Do NOT refactor when:

• The tests are failing. Fix failing tests first.
• The code is working well and no change is imminent. Refactoring for its own sake is waste.
• You are under a deadline to deliver a feature. Note the smell for later; do not block the feature.

Code Smells and Their Refactorings

Long Method

Smell: A function that is too long to understand in one reading (~30+ lines is a guideline, not a rule — some 10-line functions are too long).

Refactorings:

• Extract Method — Pull a cohesive block of code into its own named function. The new name documents intent.
• Replace Temp with Query — Extract a temporary variable's computation into a method so the name explains what is computed.
• Decompose Conditional — Extract complex condition predicates and their branches into named methods.

Duplicate Code

Smell: The same structure appears in two or more places. The danger: a bug in the pattern must be fixed in every copy.

Refactorings:

• Extract Method — Pull the duplicate logic into a shared function.
• Extract Class — If duplicates appear across classes, extract the shared behavior into a new class both can use.
• Pull Up Method — Move a method common to several subclasses into the base class.
• Form Template Method — If two methods perform similar steps in similar order, extract the skeleton into a template method and override the varying parts.

Large Class

Smell: A class has too many responsibilities, indicated by many instance variables, many methods, or methods that use only a subset of variables.

Refactorings:

• Extract Class — Identify a cohesive subset of fields and methods; move them to a new class and compose.
• Extract Subclass — If the class behaves differently under certain conditions, extract a subclass for each behavioral variant.
• Extract Interface — Define an interface for the subset of methods that callers actually need.

Long Parameter List

Smell: A function with four or more parameters is hard to call correctly and hard to remember.

Refactorings:

• Introduce Parameter Object — Replace a cluster of parameters that always travel together with a single object.
• Preserve Whole Object — Pass the object itself instead of extracting multiple values from it before calling.
• Replace Parameter with Method — If one parameter can be derived by calling a method on another, remove it and call the method inside.

Divergent Change

Smell: A single class changes for multiple different reasons — every time X happens you change one set of methods, every time Y happens you change a different set. This is SRP violation made visible.

Refactorings:

• Extract Class — Split the class along the lines of each reason to change.

Shotgun Surgery

Smell: One logical change requires small edits to many different classes. The opposite of Divergent Change: behavior that should be together is spread apart.

Refactorings:

• Move Method / Move Field — Pull scattered pieces toward a cohesive home.
• Inline Class — If two small classes are always changed together, merge them.

Feature Envy

Smell: A method that seems more interested in another class's data than its own — it uses getters to pull out data and compute something.

Refactorings:

• Move Method — Move the envious method to the class it envies. The data and the behavior belong together.
• Extract Method — If only part of the method has feature envy, extract that part and move it.

Primitive Obsession

Smell: Using primitives (strings, integers, booleans) to represent domain concepts — phone numbers as strings, money as floats, status as magic string constants.

Refactorings:

• Replace Data Value with Object — Create a class for the concept so it carries validation, formatting, and behavior.
• Replace Type Code with Class — Replace magic constants with a type that the compiler can check.
• Replace Type Code with Subclasses — When behavior varies by type, use polymorphism instead of a type field.

Conditional Complexity

Smell: Complex chains of if/else or switch that must be updated every time a new variant is added. Frequently accompanies Primitive Obsession.

Refactorings:

• Replace Conditional with Polymorphism — Each branch becomes an override in a subclass or strategy.
• Introduce Null Object — Replace checks for null with a null object that does nothing (or the right default thing).
• Decompose Conditional — Extract the condition and its branches into named methods so the intent is readable.

Mixed Levels of Abstraction

Smell: A single function alternates between high-level orchestration ("save the order, charge the card, send the receipt") and low-level primitives ("for each line, format the price as fixed-width 8 chars"). Readers must repeatedly swap mental contexts. Often a sign of an unextracted helper.

Refactorings:

• Extract Method — pull the low-level primitive into a function named at the surrounding level's abstraction.
• Rule of thumb: a function should call functions one level of abstraction below its own; never two or more levels at once.

Middle Man

Smell: A class that delegates most of its methods to another class. If half or more of a class's public methods just forward to another class, the middle man adds no value.

Refactorings:

• Remove Middle Man — Let callers call the delegated class directly.
• Inline Method — If a method just calls another, inline the delegation.

Constructor Doing Work

Smell: A class instantiates its dependencies inside methods (new HttpClient() inside fetchUser()), takes per-call work parameters in the constructor (new ReportGenerator(2024, 1, 1, 2024, 12, 31)), or does I/O / static lookups in the constructor. No seam exists for tests to substitute collaborators.

Refactorings:

• Construct with collaborators, call with work. Move long-lived dependencies (HTTP client, DB, clock, logger) to the constructor signature. Inject them; do not new them inside.
• Move per-call work parameters to method signatures. Date ranges, query strings, and request bodies belong on the method, not the constructor.
• Constructors do no work. No I/O, no XML parsing, no static lookups, no expensive computation. Just assign collaborators and return.

This creates a seam: production wires real collaborators through DI; tests substitute fakes or stubs at construction.

Safe Refactoring Procedure

Every refactoring step must follow this sequence:

1. Ensure tests pass before starting. If tests fail, stop — do not refactor broken code.
2. Make the smallest possible structural change. One refactoring at a time.
3. Run tests after each change. If tests break, undo the change immediately. Do not proceed with broken tests.
4. Commit when tests pass. Each passing checkpoint is a safe point.
5. Repeat until the code is in the desired shape.

Applying This in the Implementer Role

When working with existing code during implementation:

1. Read the code before changing it. Identify smells before writing.
2. Separate refactoring from feature work. If a refactoring is needed to make the feature easier to add, do the refactoring in its own commit first, then add the feature.
3. Refactor only what you touch. Do not opportunistically refactor distant code unrelated to the current task — that is scope creep.
4. Name the smell and the refactoring in the commit. "refactor: extract user validation into UserValidator (Long Method)" tells reviewers exactly what happened and why.
5. When in doubt, leave it. An imperfect but working refactoring that breaks tests is worse than the smell it was trying to fix. Only refactor when you are confident the transformation is safe.