JavaScript 代码整洁之道(中)
本文是原作者根据《代码整洁之道》总结的适用于 JavaScript 软件工程的原则。
本文是对作者英文原文《Clean Code JavaScript》的翻译整理。
类单一职责原则 (SRP)
如《代码整洁之道》一书中所述,“修改一个类的理由不应该超过一个”。
将多个功能塞进一个类的看似方便,但这将导致你的类无法达到概念上的内聚,并经常不得不进行修改。
最小化对一个类修改的次数非常必要。如果一个类具有太多太杂的功能,当你对其中一小部分进行修改时,将很难想象这一修够对依赖该类的其他模块会带来什么样的影响。
Bad:
class UserSettings {
constructor(user) {
this.user = user;
}
changeSettings(settings) {
if (this.verifyCredentials(user)) {
// ...
}
}
verifyCredentials(user) {
// ...
}
}
Good:
class UserAuth {
constructor(user) {
this.user = user;
}
verifyCredentials() {
// ...
}
}
class UserSettings {
constructor(user) {
this.user = user;
this.auth = new UserAuth(user)
}
changeSettings(settings) {
if (this.auth.verifyCredentials()) {
// ...
}
}
}
开/闭原则 (OCP)
“代码实体(类,模块,函数等)应该易于扩展,难于修改。”
这一原则指的是我们应允许用户方便的扩展我们代码模块的功能,而不需要打开 js 文件源码手动对其进行修改。
Bad:
class AjaxRequester {
constructor() {
// What if we wanted another HTTP Method, like DELETE? We would have to
// open this file up and modify this and put it in manually.
this.HTTP_METHODS = ['POST', 'PUT', 'GET'];
}
get(url) {
// ...
}
}
Good:
class AjaxRequester {
constructor() {
this.HTTP_METHODS = ['POST', 'PUT', 'GET'];
}
get(url) {
// ...
}
addHTTPMethod(method) {
this.HTTP_METHODS.push(method);
}
}
利斯科夫替代原则 (LSP)
“子类对象应该能够替换其超类对象被使用”。
也就是说,如果有一个父类和一个子类,当采用子类替换父类时不应该产生错误的结果。
Bad:
class Rectangle {
constructor() {
this.width = 0;
this.height = 0;
}
setColor(color) {
// ...
}
render(area) {
// ...
}
setWidth(width) {
this.width = width;
}
setHeight(height) {
this.height = height;
}
getArea() {
return this.width * this.height;
}
}
class Square extends Rectangle {
constructor() {
super();
}
setWidth(width) {
this.width = width;
this.height = width;
}
setHeight(height) {
this.width = height;
this.height = height;
}
}
function renderLargeRectangles(rectangles) {
rectangles.forEach((rectangle) => {
rectangle.setWidth(4);
rectangle.setHeight(5);
let area = rectangle.getArea(); // BAD: Will return 25 for Square. Should be 20.
rectangle.render(area);
})
}
let rectangles = [new Rectangle(), new Rectangle(), new Square()];
renderLargeRectangles(rectangles);
Good:
class Shape {
constructor() {}
setColor(color) {
// ...
}
render(area) {
// ...
}
}
class Rectangle extends Shape {
constructor() {
super();
this.width = 0;
this.height = 0;
}
setWidth(width) {
this.width = width;
}
setHeight(height) {
this.height = height;
}
getArea() {
return this.width * this.height;
}
}
class Square extends Shape {
constructor() {
super();
this.length = 0;
}
setLength(length) {
this.length = length;
}
getArea() {
return this.length * this.length;
}
}
function renderLargeShapes(shapes) {
shapes.forEach((shape) => {
switch (shape.constructor.name) {
case 'Square':
shape.setLength(5);
case 'Rectangle':
shape.setWidth(4);
shape.setHeight(5);
}
let area = shape.getArea();
shape.render(area);
})
}
let shapes = [new Rectangle(), new Rectangle(), new Square()];
renderLargeShapes(shapes);
接口隔离原则 (ISP)
“客户端不应该依赖它不需要的接口;一个类对另一个类的依赖应该建立在最小的接口上。”
在 JS 中,当一个类需要许多参数设置才能生成一个对象时,需要考虑大多时候不需要设置这么多的参数。适当减少配置参数的数量是有益的。
Bad:
class DOMTraverser {
constructor(settings) {
this.settings = settings;
this.setup();
}
setup() {
this.rootNode = this.settings.rootNode;
this.animationModule.setup();
}
traverse() {
// ...
}
}
let $ = new DOMTraverser({
rootNode: document.getElementsByTagName('body'),
animationModule: function() {} // Most of the time, we won't need to animate when traversing.
// ...
});
Good:
class DOMTraverser {
constructor(settings) {
this.settings = settings;
this.options = settings.options;
this.setup();
}
setup() {
this.rootNode = this.settings.rootNode;
this.setupOptions();
}
setupOptions() {
if (this.options.animationModule) {
// ...
}
}
traverse() {
// ...
}
}
let $ = new DOMTraverser({
rootNode: document.getElementsByTagName('body'),
options: {
animationModule: function() {}
}
});
依赖反转原则 (DIP)
该原则有两个核心点:
- 高层模块不应该依赖于低层模块。他们都应该依赖于抽象接口
- 抽象接口应该脱离具体实现,具体实现应该依赖于抽象接口
Bad:
class InventoryTracker {
constructor(items) {
this.items = items;
// BAD: We have created a dependency on a specific request implementation.
// We should just have requestItems depend on a request method: `request`
this.requester = new InventoryRequester();
}
requestItems() {
this.items.forEach((item) => {
this.requester.requestItem(item);
});
}
}
class InventoryRequester {
constructor() {
this.REQ_METHODS = ['HTTP'];
}
requestItem(item) {
// ...
}
}
let inventoryTracker = new InventoryTracker(['apples', 'bananas']);
inventoryTracker.requestItems();
Good:
class InventoryTracker {
constructor(items, requester) {
this.items = items;
this.requester = requester;
}
requestItems() {
this.items.forEach((item) => {
this.requester.requestItem(item);
});
}
}
class InventoryRequesterV1 {
constructor() {
this.REQ_METHODS = ['HTTP'];
}
requestItem(item) {
// ...
}
}
class InventoryRequesterV2 {
constructor() {
this.REQ_METHODS = ['WS'];
}
requestItem(item) {
// ...
}
}
// By constructing our dependencies externally and injecting them, we can easily
// substitute our request module for a fancy new one that uses WebSockets.
let inventoryTracker = new InventoryTracker(['apples', 'bananas'], new InventoryRequesterV2());
inventoryTracker.requestItems();
使用 ES6 的 classes 而不是 ES5 的 Function
典型的 ES5 的类(function)在继承、构造和方法定义方面可读性较差。
当需要继承时,优先选用 ES6 class。
但是,当在需要更大更复杂的对象时,最好优先选择更小的 function 而非 class。
Bad:
var Animal = function(age) {
if (!(this instanceof Animal)) {
throw new Error("Instantiate Animal with `new`");
}
this.age = age;
};
Animal.prototype.move = function() {};
var Mammal = function(age, furColor) {
if (!(this instanceof Mammal)) {
throw new Error("Instantiate Mammal with `new`");
}
Animal.call(this, age);
this.furColor = furColor;
};
Mammal.prototype = Object.create(Animal.prototype);
Mammal.prototype.constructor = Mammal;
Mammal.prototype.liveBirth = function() {};
var Human = function(age, furColor, languageSpoken) {
if (!(this instanceof Human)) {
throw new Error("Instantiate Human with `new`");
}
Mammal.call(this, age, furColor);
this.languageSpoken = languageSpoken;
};
Human.prototype = Object.create(Mammal.prototype);
Human.prototype.constructor = Human;
Human.prototype.speak = function() {};
Good:
class Animal {
constructor(age) {
this.age = age;
}
move() {}
}
class Mammal extends Animal {
constructor(age, furColor) {
super(age);
this.furColor = furColor;
}
liveBirth() {}
}
class Human extends Mammal {
constructor(age, furColor, languageSpoken) {
super(age, furColor);
this.languageSpoken = languageSpoken;
}
speak() {}
}
使用方法链
这里我们的理解与《代码整洁之道》的建议有些不同。
有争议认为,方法链不够干净且违反了德米特法则,但这种方法在 JS 及许多库(如 JQuery)中显得非常实用。
因此,我认为在 JS 中使用方法链是非常合适的。在 class 的函数中返回 this,能够方便的将类需要执行的多个方法链接起来。
Bad:
class Car {
constructor() {
this.make = 'Honda';
this.model = 'Accord';
this.color = 'white';
}
setMake(make) {
this.name = name;
}
setModel(model) {
this.model = model;
}
setColor(color) {
this.color = color;
}
save() {
console.log(this.make, this.model, this.color);
}
}
let car = new Car();
car.setColor('pink');
car.setMake('Ford');
car.setModel('F-150')
car.save();
Good:
class Car {
constructor() {
this.make = 'Honda';
this.model = 'Accord';
this.color = 'white';
}
setMake(make) {
this.name = name;
// NOTE: Returning this for chaining
return this;
}
setModel(model) {
this.model = model;
// NOTE: Returning this for chaining
return this;
}
setColor(color) {
this.color = color;
// NOTE: Returning this for chaining
return this;
}
save() {
console.log(this.make, this.model, this.color);
}
}
let car = new Car()
.setColor('pink')
.setMake('Ford')
.setModel('F-150')
.save();
优先使用组合模式而非继承
在著名的设计模式一书中提到,应多使用组合模式而非继承。
这么做有许多优点,在想要使用继承前,多想想能否通过组合模式满足需求。
那么,在什么时候继承具有更大的优势呢?这取决于你的具体需求,但大多情况下,可以遵守以下三点:
- 继承关系表现为"是一个"而非"有一个"(如动物->人 和 用户->用户细节)
- 可以复用基类的代码("Human"可以看成是"All animal"的一种)
- 希望当基类改变时所有派生类都受到影响(如修改"all animals"移动时的卡路里消耗量)
Bad:
class Employee {
constructor(name, email) {
this.name = name;
this.email = email;
}
// ...
}
// Bad because Employees "have" tax data. EmployeeTaxData is not a type of Employee
class EmployeeTaxData extends Employee {
constructor(ssn, salary) {
super();
this.ssn = ssn;
this.salary = salary;
}
// ...
}
Good:
class Employee {
constructor(name, email) {
this.name = name;
this.email = email;
}
setTaxData(ssn, salary) {
this.taxData = new EmployeeTaxData(ssn, salary);
}
// ...
}
class EmployeeTaxData {
constructor(ssn, salary) {
this.ssn = ssn;
this.salary = salary;
}
// ...
}
测试
单一测试每个断言
Bad:
const assert = require('assert');
describe('MakeMomentJSGreatAgain', function() {
it('handles date boundaries', function() {
let date;
date = new MakeMomentJSGreatAgain('1/1/2015');
date.addDays(30);
date.shouldEqual('1/31/2015');
date = new MakeMomentJSGreatAgain('2/1/2016');
date.addDays(28);
assert.equal('02/29/2016', date);
date = new MakeMomentJSGreatAgain('2/1/2015');
date.addDays(28);
assert.equal('03/01/2015', date);
});
});
Good:
const assert = require('assert');
describe('MakeMomentJSGreatAgain', function() {
it('handles 30-day months', function() {
let date = new MakeMomentJSGreatAgain('1/1/2015');
date.addDays(30);
date.shouldEqual('1/31/2015');
});
it('handles leap year', function() {
let date = new MakeMomentJSGreatAgain('2/1/2016');
date.addDays(28);
assert.equal('02/29/2016', date);
});
it('handles non-leap year', function() {
let date = new MakeMomentJSGreatAgain('2/1/2015');
date.addDays(28);
assert.equal('03/01/2015', date);
});
});
并发
用 Promises 替代回调
回调不够整洁并会造成大量的嵌套,应该使用 ES6 内嵌了 Promises 替代。
Bad:
require('request').get('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil_Martin', function(err, response) {
if (err) {
console.error(err);
}
else {
require('fs').writeFile('article.html', response.body, function(err) {
if (err) {
console.error(err);
}
else {
console.log('File written');
}
})
}
})
Good:
require('request-promise').get('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil_Martin')
.then(function(response) {
return require('fs-promise').writeFile('article.html', response);
})
.then(function() {
console.log('File written');
})
.catch(function(err) {
console.error(err);
})
Async/Await 是较 Promises 更好的选择
Promises 是较回调而言更好的一种选择,但 ES7 中的 async 和 await 更胜过 Promises。
在能使用 ES7 特性的情况下可以尽量使用 async 和 await 替代 Promises。
Bad:
require('request-promise').get('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil_Martin')
.then(function(response) {
return require('fs-promise').writeFile('article.html', response);
})
.then(function() {
console.log('File written');
})
.catch(function(err) {
console.error(err);
})
Good:
async function getCleanCodeArticle() {
try {
var request = await require('request-promise')
var response = await request.get('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil_Martin');
var fileHandle = await require('fs-promise');
await fileHandle.writeFile('article.html', response);
console.log('File written');
} catch(err) {
console.log(err);
}
}
共同学习,写下你的评论
评论加载中...
作者其他优质文章