I've worked with codebases that have made me frustrated. Some of the **features** I've seen include:
- Naming the variables returned by a function $this and $return.
- God functions. These are functions that do everything and are impossible to debug.
Fixing such a codebase needs a lot of thought put into it. I found that the following process works best for me.
Forgetting your ego
The first reaction I have tends to be my ego talking. This is because I find better ways to fix the problems at hand. This is usually because I don't have the context nor understand the problem.
What I do is take a break, walk around and look at the codebase again once I've cooled down. This provides some fresh perspective and I sometimes find that the code is pretty decent. This occurs when I had started looking at the worst done sections of the codebase. I also get to see the code organisation and styles used by doing this.
Discuss with Management
Have an honest discussion with management. If the code is bad, it means that feature addition or bug fixes take a significant amount of time even for simple things. This is worse still if you're new to the code base but don't have someone to guide you through it (This has happened once for me).
Also make it clear that things will occasionally break, especially if the project did not have tests.
Try to come up with a good enough workflow that will prevent the same thing happening again.
Document everything. In my case, documentation means issues, code comments and API docs.
I have a policy of not working on anything if there isn't an issue for it. This helps me keep track of all the problems discovered in the system.
The basic requirements I have for issues are:
- Clear unambiguous title
- Prepend the title with the type of issue. I usually have Bug, Refactor, Feature, Documentation.
- The description of the issue should explain the problem comprehensively. If it is a bug, include a method of replication.
- An implementation plan: This is where I draft an initial solution to the problem. This doesn't need to be accurate, but at least the next time I look at this issue I won't start from scratch.
I create issues for every problem I encounter, no matter how simple it seems.
Choose a coding standard and stick to it. Even better yet, you can look for tools that ensure your code follows this standard. In my case, I use pre-commit hooks to either block commits or lint my code before committing anything. This prevents mistakes when I'm in a hurry or there is a lot of pressure.
I try to set up CI/CD for automatic testing and deployment of my projects. This catches some problems like linting errors and failing tests. It also reduces normal access to production/testing servers. This reduces the likelihood of making changes live.
Testing is the best thing I've found when improving codebases. This is because it forces good coding practices by default. For example, if you encounter a God function, trying to test this will force you to break it down into manageable blocks.
I tend to avoid changing the database at first. This is because there are a lot of things that could have been done there that you might mess up. Also, unless you're a database pro, it's safer to deal with the code base first.
For example, I met a database with virtual tables, procedures and triggers. I only knew of these features, but had never actively used them. The problem at hand seemed fixable from the db side, but I had not factored in that the affected table linked up with multiple virtual tables and triggers. Trying to change the database led to a disaster that took me days to fix (I didn't even fix this, but reverted the database back to the original form).
If removing or renaming something, try to use grep to make sure it isn't referenced somewhere. This is especially true for tightly coupled systems. I've found controller functions used in the weirdest of places on some codebases.
Try to check code quality using code climate. Analyzing the json provided, helps figure out the more problematic sections of code. Better yet, you can use this as a step in your CI workflow.