Welcome to the Lounge

pkfox2-Mar-21 0:19

2-Mar-21 0:19

Sounds good John - do I smell an article ? I hope so.

"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP

#realJSOP2-Mar-21 1:38

2-Mar-21 1:38

I might. The code as it exists is very work-specific, so I'd have to refactor it a bit.

".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013

pkfox2-Mar-21 2:40

2-Mar-21 2:40

So the conn string is regenerated on the fly every time the program is run ?

"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP

#realJSOP2-Mar-21 3:07

2-Mar-21 3:07

Every time it's requested. Smile | :)

pkfox3-Mar-21 2:04

3-Mar-21 2:04

I would like to see how you do this

"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP

#realJSOP3-Mar-21 2:20

3-Mar-21 2:20

The connectionstring when "at rest" is not assembled into a string. It merely exists in its component parts.

When you call the "Get" method to retrieve the connection string, it assembles the parts into a connection string, and either base64 encodes it, or 256-bit encrypts it (programmer's choice) and returns that encoded/encrypted string.

When you're ready to access the database, you simply decode/decrypt it when you send it to the SqlConnection object.

(We don't use Entity Framework or any other ORM, so this approach is no problem).

Any using base64/encryption is optional as well, you can have it return a string as plain text as well.

modified 3-Mar-21 8:33am.

pkfox4-Mar-21 10:10

4-Mar-21 10:10

Ok I f****ng" hate EF ( and any ORM ) - look forward to reading your article - thanks for your efforts

"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP

#realJSOP4-Mar-21 6:35

4-Mar-21 6:35

The article's been posted:

A Connection string manager for multi-environment ecosystems[^]

pkfox5-Mar-21 2:02

5-Mar-21 2:02

That's my Friday taken care of - thanks John

"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP

#realJSOP5-Mar-21 2:37

5-Mar-21 2:37

We're going to add the code to one of our projects to see how it goes. Until i see it work in the intended environment, it's all prettty much just theoretical. The sample app works within the context of my dev box, but I wanna put it on a live server to make sure it will actually do what I want.

If you're up for it, feel free to relate your experience in the article forum.

#realJSOP2-Mar-21 6:15

2-Mar-21 6:15

Wow, making it general enough for public consumption is going to take some work. We have considerations not normally encountered in the civilian ecosystem, and I have to make the code easy to implement in a way that makes sense to devs that have never been exposed to it before.

pkfox3-Mar-21 2:05

3-Mar-21 2:05

I work for the government in the UK ( at local level ) so it definitely is of interest

"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP

#realJSOP3-Mar-21 2:29

3-Mar-21 2:29

While staring at the code trying to come up with a way to describe how it works, I actually came up with what I think is a better way to approach some of it, so code introspection is a "good thing" (TM). Smile | :)

Jacquers2-Mar-21 0:38

Jacquers

2-Mar-21 0:38

We use Ansible for similar purposes.

Maximilien2-Mar-21 2:06

Maximilien

2-Mar-21 2:06

Does it save money ? that's the only convincing you need to do.

I'd rather be phishing!

raddevus2-Mar-21 2:43

raddevus

2-Mar-21 2:43

Maximilien wrote:
Does it save money ?

Dev reply: No, it only saves Developer headaches.
Manager: Denied! These are unnecessary changes.
Laugh | :laugh:

honey the codewitch2-Mar-21 3:48

honey the codewitch

2-Mar-21 3:48

First of all, it makes too much sense for them to use, unless you can convince them it was their idea. Laugh | :laugh:

Good show. Generating connection strings that is. I've never liked them and often found myself doing similar, and yes, because of security.

#realJSOP wrote:
The code has almost as many lines of comments as there are lines of actual code.

I hate to say this, but that's a red flag to me.

1. Are you using comments where you should be using documentation? You're perhaps either duplicating effort and creating maintenance issues #2, or you're using comments for where you need documentation - it sounds like in your case it's the former, since you have a 6 page doc.

2. What of maintenance? Is your code not clear enough to stand on its own absent all the comments? If not, why not spend that time refactoring instead? Every line of code is important. A comment is still a line of code. It must be maintained, too. If the source changes, and the comments get out of sync, then they become counterintuitive. Comments should be avoided if possible, for the same reason other lines of code should be. The most bug free, efficient code is the code you never wrote. I break this rule in one place - writing articles for code project with code in them - because comments allow me to describe what I'm doing as I'm doing it, but in normal circumstances, you aren't writing your comments for learners, but for maintainers.

/design-hat

*ducks*

Real programmers use butterflies

#realJSOP2-Mar-21 5:10

2-Mar-21 5:10

0) The reason for the (excessive?) comments is to answer any ecosystem-specific questions that might come up from the other devs on the team. Right now, this is just proposed code in the form of a proof-of-concept console app that encompasses the code in question, and I figured that explaining the what/why of the code in an external document was pointlessly convoluted, and a general pain in the ass. However, I did provide a word doc that explains what's happening, and were/how to integrate the code into our existing web apps.

1) As a general rule, we don't have time to generate meticulous documentation about a given code implementation, much less maintain it when something in the code changes. A programmer is much more apt to update comments than they are to seek out the correct document to update when the code changes.

2) Regardless of how "understandable" code that I wrote is to me, it could turn out to be gibberish to someone else, so comments are important. There is no such thing as code that isn't made better with comments. Why? Because I'm the 26th programmer to work on the code base over the last 13 years. We waste a lot of time trying to figure out what/why the hell is happening because there are virtually no comments in the code. Not even intellisense comments for method and property prototypes. This code base involves hundreds of thousands of lines of c#, javascript, css, and sql. NONE of it had comments before I started.

3) I will never accept or dish out ridicule for commenting code, regardless of how trivial the comment might appear. In fact, over the 40+ years I'be been a programmer, I've only been ridiculed for NOT providing enough code comments, and that only happened one time.

The plain and simple fact is that I'm not the first guy to work on this code, and I can guaran-damn-tee you I won't be the last. I don't want to be the subject of name-calling and gnashing of teeth because I didn't to the job the best I could, which includes making it easier for the next guy in the food chain.

honey the codewitch2-Mar-21 5:14

honey the codewitch

2-Mar-21 5:14

I'm not trying to dish or ridicule. I was both trying to understand your rationale and explain why I was even bringing it up, by way of offering what I genuinely felt was constructive criticism. I'm sorry to have offended you, assuming I did that.

I think we have different philosophies regarding comment style, which your points illustrate.

I can live with that, I just wanted to understand where you were coming from. I'm pretty sure I do now.

Real programmers use butterflies

#realJSOP2-Mar-21 5:29

2-Mar-21 5:29

If I was tasked with actually implementing a given piece of code, the commenting wouldn't be nearly as heavy as it is in this case. I'd put in intellisense for method/property prototypes and mostly leave it at that, and maybe a sufficiently descriptive narrative comment at the top of the file if the code task involves creating a moderately complex class. This particular code is unique, because it wasn't tasked, or even outright requested. I did it because there was a perceived need (truthfully, I identified the need three years ago), and I like to solve problems with code.

I know the kinds of questions the other devs on the team will ask, and I hate having to re-explain stuff verbally, so what/why comments serve that role, and in this case, I actually had to back-up my thought processes.

I'm not actually offended, I'm just old and set in my ways.

BTW, I also tend to "over-comment" code I write for CP articles. In my most recent one, I actually included the recommended implementation of an interface as a comment block because people using the code may not recall where they got it, and it's nice to have info when you're re-implementing it blind and with no backward reference material.

honey the codewitch2-Mar-21 7:24

honey the codewitch

2-Mar-21 7:24

I'm glad I didn't offend you. I am not trying to change the way you do things, so much as understand them - even poke at them here and there to see if they bite.

Laugh | :laugh:

Real programmers use butterflies

NightPen3-Mar-21 6:45

NightPen

3-Mar-21 6:45

Comments are necessary for one simple reason, "I don't know what you are thinking when you wrote or changed this code". Documentation is removed from the code does not live with the code and can and will be lost. I don't know how many times I have heard, "We don't know what happened to the docs".

Still don't think comments are needed? Ok then try this exercise. Write some code to solve a problem you have today. Ok now put the code away and don't look at it for 6 weeks. In 6 weeks go back to the code and make a change, fix a bug do something to it. Time how long it takes you to 'remember' how the code works and what you need to do to make the fix.

Still not convinced? Perform the same process, but this time put comment headers in explaining what you were thinking when you wrote the code. Put the code away for 6 weeks and then perform the same test again only this time with the comments.

Don't have time for all this process? What to jump to the result? In the first case, it will take you a fair amount of time reading and trying to remember what you were trying to do and how something worked. In the second case, you will find that you can make the update and or fix it in less than a few minutes.

Now put yourself in someone else's shoes. If you went through this with your code and you wrote that code imagine how the next developer to pick up your code will feel? Ever wonder why the next devs end up throwing out, refactoring, or reworking lots of code? Guess what it's not as self-documenting as you want to think.

I learned this lesson back in the assembler days. I wrote a one-off tool to solve the problem I had at the time. A week later (yes only 1 week) I needed the code again to solve the same problem, but it did not work on this 'slightly' different set of data. No problem I thought, I'll just fix the bug. Two hours later I was finally starting to understand how the tool was supposed to work and where the problems were. That was the last time I ever wrote code that did not have comments.

#realJSOP3-Mar-21 7:01

3-Mar-21 7:01

If I'm heads-down in a project during a coding frenzy, I forget after just a few minutes a lot of times. Smile | :)

Of course, I'm old, and I have to consciously put brain time toward trying to get to the bathroom in time, so unimportant stuff like what a method that I just wrote does takes a back seat to the more immediate need... Smile | :)

NightPen3-Mar-21 14:17

NightPen

3-Mar-21 14:17

Of course, there is the other school of thought I don't subscribe to personally. If the code was hard to write it should be extremely difficult to modify, and impossible change". From time to time get to work with SDEs that think this is the way code should be.

pkfox5-Mar-21 2:00