While there isn't any code here, it could still be helpful to review the criticisms this developer had to see if there are similar mistakes in your code.
Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.Join For Free
I can't actually share all the code. So this feels incomplete. But I can share what I said about the code. Then you can look at your code and decide if you've got similar problems to fix.
My responses were these. I'll expand on them below.
- "This appears to be a single cell in a Jupyter notebook? Why isn't it a script?"
- "The code doesn't look like any effort was made to follow any conventions. Use black. Or pylint. Make the code look conventional."
- "There don't appear to be any docstring comments. That's really a very bad practice."
- "The design appears untestable. That's a very bad practice."
- "If this is an example of 'production' code, I would suggest it needs a lot of rework."
Let's review these in a little more detail.
Number 1 was based on the file name being
something_p36.ipynb.txt . The Jupyter notebook-iness of the name is a problem. The
_p36 is extra creepy, and indicates either a severe problem understanding how bash "shebang" comments work, or a blatant refusal to simply use Python3. It's hard to say what's going on, and I didn't even try to ask because...well...too many other things weren't clear.
Don't make up complex, weird naming rules. Use something.py. Simple. Flat. Pythonic.
Number 2 was based on things like this:
def PrintParameters(pca): I hate to get super-pure PEP-8, but this kind of thing is simply hard to read. There were a lot of other troubling aspects to the code. Once this is corrected, some of the other problems will go away, and we could move forward to more substantial issues.
Follow existing code styles. Find Python code. The standard library has a lot of examples already part of your installation. Read it. Enjoy it. Mimic it.
Use pylint. Always.
Number 3 and Number 4 are consequences of the bulk of the code being a flat script with few class or function definitions. Actually, there were one of each. One class. One function. 240 or so lines of code. There was no separate
__name__ == "__main__" section, so I was generally unhappy with the overall design.
Also. There's code like this:
Yes. That's a real line of code. Sigh.
Here's an ancillary problem. If you need to write something like this, you're doing it wrong.
########################## -- init Stuff ##########################
The code that follows one of these "big billboard comment" sections must be part of a function or class. It can't be left floating around with a billboard for demarcation. It should be refactored into a function (or method of a class), documented, and tested.
Did I mention tested?
It's untestable as written. Sigh.
Number 5 may be a misunderstanding on my part. The email had this: "They have produced production code that mathematically optimizes stuff for [redacted]. So, they are heads-up type of people."
I'm guessing this is relevant because the team has some "production" code in Python and consider themselves knowledgeable. Otherwise, this is noise, and I should have ignored it.
I'm hopeful they'll use black, make the code minimally readable, and we can move on to substantial issues regarding design for testability and overall possible correctness issues.
It wasn't the worst code I've seen. But. It shows a lot of room for growth and improvement.
Published at DZone with permission of Steven Lott, DZone MVB. See the original article here.
Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.