Question

我无法弄清楚为什么这个方法的可维护性指数（在Visual Studio中计算）只有40，我实际上必须删除几乎所有的行除了前两个以达到60以上：

    public void getNewPasswordDetails(Int32 newPasswordId)
    {

        int UserId = HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.GetUserId().ToInt();
        bool userIsAdmin = HttpContext.Current.User.IsInRole("Administrator");

        //get a list of userIds that have UserPassword records for this password
        var UserIDList = DatabaseContext.UserPasswords.Where(up => up.PasswordId == newPasswordId).Select(up => up.Id).ToList();

        //Retrive the password -if the user has access
        Password newPassword = DatabaseContext.Passwords
                                                        .Include("Creator")
                                                        .Where(pass => !pass.Deleted
                                                        && (
                                                            (UserIDList.Contains(UserId))
                                                         || (userIsAdmin && ApplicationSettings.Default.AdminsHaveAccessToAllPasswords)
                                                         || pass.Creator_Id == UserId)
                                                            )
                                                            .Include(p => p.Parent_UserPasswords.Select(up => up.UserPasswordUser))
                                                            .SingleOrDefault(p => p.PasswordId == newPasswordId);



        if (newPassword != null)
        {
            //map new password to display view model
            AutoMapper.Mapper.CreateMap<Password, PasswordItem>();
            PasswordItem returnPasswordViewItem = AutoMapper.Mapper.Map<PasswordItem>(newPassword);

            //generate a string based view of the new category
            string passwordPartialView = RenderViewContent.RenderViewToString("Password", "_PasswordItem", returnPasswordViewItem);

            //broadcast the new password details
            PushNotifications.sendAddedPasswordDetails(passwordPartialView, returnPasswordViewItem.Parent_CategoryId, returnPasswordViewItem.PasswordId);
        }
        else
        {
            //we dont have access any more, so tell UI to remove the password
            PushNotifications.sendRemovePasswordAccess(new PasswordDelete()
                                                                { 
                                                                     PasswordId = newPasswordId
                                                                });
        }

    }

Answer 1

代码越复杂，维护起来就越困难。对？那么让我们看一下代码的复杂部分。我将检查它好像我是第一次查看代码的开发人员：

DatabaseContext.Passwords
               .Include("Creator")
               .Where(pass => !pass.Deleted
                          && ((UserIDList.Contains(UserId))     // Why Check #1
                               || (
                                   userIsAdmin                // Why Check #2
                                   &&                        // Why Check #3
                                   ApplicationSettings.Default.AdminsHaveAccessToAllPasswords
                                  )
                              || pass.Creator_Id == UserId) 
                             )
               .Include(p => p.Parent_UserPasswords.Select(up => up.UserPasswordUser))
               .SingleOrDefault(p => p.PasswordId == newPasswordId);

在进入循环之前，人们已经知道这些状态事实：

(UserIDList.Contains(UserId) as 为什么选中＃1
userIsAdmin为为什么选中＃2
(userIsAdmin && ApplicationSettings.Default.AdminsHaveAccessToAllPasswords)为为什么检查＃3

然而，开发人员已将这些检查降级为密码中的每个密码。为什么？难道没有更好的表达方式吗？

由于程序逻辑的应用程序（编码），对于业务逻辑的决定 中的每个逻辑分支 直接，会出现复杂性增加了代码的复杂性以及随后的可维护性;因此获得了评级。

当然，代码本质上存在某些复杂性，这种情况将会发生并且应该是预期的。问题是，这种复杂性是否可以最小化到可以更好地实现代码维护的程度。

谁能告诉我为什么这段代码的可维护性指数只有40？

1 个答案: