With the Sonargraph 9.10 release, we added support for two additional OO-metrics “Depth of Inheritance” and “Number of Children” as described by Chidamber and Kemerer. Sonargraph provides a powerful Script API that allows implementing new metrics as Groovy scripts and I needed surprisingly little amount of code for the implementation. This blog post will explain the scripts’ code and the used Sonargraph Script API in detail.Read More
Today, we released a new version of Sonargraph with an improved script to find Singletons. “Singleton” is one of the design patterns described by the “Gang of Four” . It represents an object that should only exist once.
There are a couple of pros and cons for a Singleton that I won’t go into detail in this blog post. For anyone interested, I recommend “Item 3: Enforce a singleton property with a private constructor or an enum type” in “Effective Java”, written by Joshua Bloch . Two interesting links that came up during a quick internet research are listed as references  . Let’s just summarize that it is important to ensure that Singletons are properly implemented to avoid bad surprises (a.k.a bugs) in your software. And you should keep an eye on the existing Singletons and check that they are not misused as global variables.
This blog post describes, how you can detect Singletons by utilizing the Groovy scripting functionality of Sonargraph.
Cyclic dependencies have long been seen as a major code smell. We like to point to John Lakos as a reference [Lako1996], and a Google search about this topic will bring up valuable resources if you are unfamiliar with the negative effects. In this blog post, I take it as a given that you are interested in detecting cycles and that you agree that they should be avoided. If you see things differently, that’s fine by me – but then this blog post won’t be really interesting for you.
A number of static analysis tools exist that can detect those cycles in your code base automatically. SonarQube was one of them, until the Dependency Structure Matrix (DSM) and cycle detection was dropped with version 5.2. The DZone article by Patroklos Papapetrou (“Working with Dependencies to Eliminate Unwanted Cycles”) and the SonarQube documentation (“Cycles – Dependency Structure Matrix”) illustrate the previous functionality.
I noted that some people are missing those features badly and complain about their removal. The comments of the issue “Drop the Design related services and metrics” and the tweet of Oliver Gierke are two examples.
But thanks to the SonarQube ecosystem of plugins, there is a solution: Use the free Sonargraph Explorer and the Sonargraph Integration Plugin to get the checks for cycles back in SonarQube!
I will demonstrate that the setup and integration of Sonargraph into the build is fast and easy.
Sonargraph is our tool to quickly assess the quality of a project. I get frequently asked, how Sonargraph supports the Enterprise Architect who needs to answer quality-related questions in the broader context across several projects.
Since we recently released new functionality that allows the automation of re-occurring quality checks, it is now the right time to write a blog post.
Example questions that an enterprise architect wants to answer:
- How frequently does a certain anti-pattern occur?
- How strong is the dependency on deprecated functionality?
- How many of my projects suffer from high coupling?
This article will demonstrate the following core functionality of Sonargraph to answer the above questions for a couple of projects and how to automate this analysis.
- Use a script to detect an anti-pattern (“Supertype uses Subtype”)
- Create a simple reference architecture to detect usage of sun.misc.Unsafe
- Add a threshold for a coupling metric (NCCD)
- Export a quality model
- Use Sonargraph Build Maven integration to execute the analysis.
- Create a small Java project to execute the Sonargraph Maven goal, access the data in the generated XML reports and create a summary.
Research [Strei2014] and other sources (e.g. [Pizz2013]) have shown that typical software code bases contain 5-10% “dead code”, i.e. code that can be removed without reducing the functionality.
Streamlining the code base by identifying and removing dead code has several benefits:
- Less maintenance cost: Whilst dead code is less likely to be changed frequently, it still has to be understood and might be effected by refactorings.
- Smaller footprint: Less code makes the development environment faster, the build and deployment processes are more efficient, and the size of runtime artifacts are smaller.
- Better precision for calculated metrics: Dead code contributes to software metrics, e.g. “average test coverage” might be improved by tests for unused code and therefore creating false confidence.
Dead code grows in projects for the following reasons:
- Only few developers check in their IDE if some element is still in use, when they remove a reference to it.
- Identifying reliably that a public class or method is “dead code” is not a trivial task and requires deep knowledge about the code base.
- Removing seemingly dead code can easily lead to new bugs therefore developers are usually reluctant to remove them.
It is likely that more dead code exists in large and long running projects with a high fluctuation of developers.
Detecting dead code is a good use case to illustrate Sonargraph Explorer’s powerful scripting API and to demonstrate how it can be used to efficiently detect dead code within a Java project including public classes, methods and fields.