Sometimes I feel good after fixing a bug. More likely though, I feel like I’ve made things worse. Fixing bugs often makes the code a little harder to read and a little more difficult to understand. Worse, fixing bugs may accidentally introduce even more bugs.
Most of the time, bugs occur because programmers can’t envision all possible runtime behaviors of a program. These unhandled behaviors are sometimes called edge cases. Usually, edge cases can be easily addressed with a simple
if statement: if we encounter this case, do something else. However, doing so can make programs more difficult to comprehend because the reader now has to visualize multiple code paths in their head. It gets worse when there are multiple edge cases for which we pile on
if statements. When it’s time to refactor some related code, these
ifs would have to carry through the refactoring, and this increases the likelihood of a regression.
When I find myself piling on
if statements to fix bugs, I ask myself if there are better ways to address the issue without making the program more difficult to understand and without the possibility of introducing more bugs. When there are, it usually involves refactoring the way data is modeled and handled. Below is a recount of one of those times.
At Rescale, users can launch desktop instances in the cloud. These desktops can be in the
stopped state. The desktops and their latest known state are returned from an API endpoint for which we polled when displaying the desktops to the user.
There was a bug regarding the local UI state of the desktop. The state of the desktop is optimistically set to
stopping when the user requests a desktop to be stopped. This is optimistic because it is set regardless of whether the stop request, which sends a message to queue a task for the desktop to be stopped, is successful.
There was a window of time in which if the user requested the list of desktops again, the API would return
running for the desktop that was just requested to be stopped because the task for stopping the desktop is stilled queued and hasn’t run yet. The UI would update with the latest status and the user would see that the desktop went from
running. When the stop task finally runs, the user would see a transition from
stopping is a jarring experience for the user, so we needed to fix this.
An approach to fixing this would be to check whether the desktop is in the
stopping state locally, and if so, skip updating its status to
running. This is the “pile on an
if statement” approach.
Instead, I decided to hold a set of statuses for each desktop. Then, whenever the desktops’ list API response came back, I would add the latest status of each desktop to their respective status set. I have a function that takes a set of statuses and displays the appropriate status to the user. For example, if
stopping are in the set, it will just display
stopping, but this function also has rules for handling
This fixes the issue because the order in which the statuses arrive no longer mattered because the status displayed depends purely on what’s in the status set and not on the order in which they arrived. In other words, it was no longer possible to see
running, then back to
What’s great about this is that it fixed a similar issue that I had forgotten: when the user launches a desktop, the UI optimistically shows that the desktop is in the
starting state, but the next API call may respond with
not_started, and so the user could see that the desktop went from
not_started, then eventually back to
starting. This issue had been effectively fixed for free.
In conclusion, when tasked to fix a bug, a simple solution may appear fine at first, but we should be thinking whether the solution encourages further complexity down the road. For example, in the previous example, I could have solved both cases with simple
if statements. But if there were an issue with the status changing from
stopping, then another programmer may be encouraged to pile on another
if statement. Sometimes, it’s worth it to spend a little more time thinking about solving not just the bug, but the class of bugs that the issue represents.