Spotting Structural Changes (From "Spaghetti" to "Zen")

 This is where the power of LII learning really shines in a GitHub Flow context – moving from frantic "spaghetti" remediation to a zen-like state of continuous, collaborative architectural refinement. Spotting and executing structural changes (like improving separation of concerns or "do one thing well") across a whole project isn't about one heroic refactoring branch, but a sustained, team-wide effort driven by deutero-learning.

Let's break down how to spot these deeper structural issues and then orchestrate the LII learning process to achieve "Zen and the Art of Refactoring with Others."

Spotting Structural Changes (From "Spaghetti" to "Zen")

Structural issues (like poor separation of concerns, tight coupling, low cohesion, or violations of "do one thing well") manifest as patterns of friction within your GitHub Flow. They're rarely a single "bug" but recurring symptoms that point to a deeper architectural malaise.

Here's how you'd spot them:

Phase 1: Diagnostic Signals from GitHub Flow (Observing the "Spaghetti" Symptoms)

This phase is about collecting data, often unconsciously at first, then deliberately.

  1. Code Review Friction (The Most Obvious Signal):

    • GitHub Activity:

      • Long-running PRs: PRs that stay open for days or weeks, accumulate hundreds of comments, or frequently get marked "needs work."

      • Excessive Reviewer Comments: Reviewers consistently pointing out:

        • "This change touches too many unrelated parts."

        • "This class does too much."

        • "Why is the UI component directly calling the database here?"

        • "I can't tell what this method is supposed to do."

        • "This change broke tests in an unrelated module."

      • "Fixing" vs. "Improving": Review comments that focus on patching a symptom rather than addressing the underlying design flaw.

    • LII Learning Connection: This signals that the shared understanding of "good code" or "architectural boundaries" is either weak, inconsistent, or constantly being violated. The "frame" for how code should be structured is breaking down.

  2. Frequent & Unexpected Merge Conflicts:

    • GitHub Activity: Developers constantly battling merge conflicts, especially in modules that shouldn't be frequently modified by different people simultaneously (e.g., core business logic, foundational utilities).

    • LII Learning Connection: Suggests poor separation of concerns or SRP violations. Multiple features are trying to modify the same "bloated" class or function. The "rules" for how responsibilities are distributed are unclear or being ignored.

  3. Low Test Coverage / Fragile Tests / Slow Tests:

    • GitHub Activity: CI/CD runs are consistently slow, tests are flaky (pass/fail randomly), or developers are reluctant to write new tests for certain parts of the codebase.

    • LII Learning Connection: Signals tight coupling and poor modularity. Code that does "one thing well" and has clear inputs/outputs is easy to test. "Spaghetti" is inherently hard to test. The team's habit of testing is hampered by the code's structure.

  4. "Tribal Knowledge" & Onboarding Difficulties:

    • GitHub Activity: New team members struggle significantly to contribute effectively. Pull requests from juniors are disproportionately problematic. Lots of "pinging" on Slack/Teams for basic understanding of a module.

    • LII Learning Connection: The implicit "rules" of the codebase are not documented or obvious from the code itself. The shared mental model of the system is not well-established, leading to a constant re-learning of its intricacies.

  5. Reluctance to Implement New Features / High Estimation Times:

    • GitHub Activity: Feature requests linger in issues. Developers express dread about touching certain parts of the code. Estimates for seemingly simple features become disproportionately high.

    • LII Learning Connection: The current architectural "frame" is perceived as rigid or brittle, making it hard to extend without breaking existing functionality. The team has learned that adding features is painful.

  6. "Magic" or Implicit Dependencies:

    • GitHub Activity: Code that relies heavily on global state, side effects, or undocumented behavior. Reviewers can't easily trace the flow of data or control.

    • LII Learning Connection: Violations of explicit contracts and interfaces. The "rules" for how components interact are not clear, leading to unpredictable behavior.

Phase 2: The LII Learning Micropractice for Structural Improvement (Achieving "Zen")

This isn't a one-off task; it's an ongoing, meta-level iteration.

  1. Acknowledge and Name the Pattern (The "Oh St!" Moment):**

    • Action: During a retrospective, team meeting, or dedicated "architectural sync," articulate the recurring symptoms you've observed. Give the "spaghetti" monster a name. "We have a recurring problem with our ServiceA class – every PR that touches it is a nightmare because it does too many things."

    • LII Connection: This is the first step of Deutero-learning: recognizing that the problem isn't just a series of individual bugs (Learning I failures), but a pattern stemming from a flawed context or assumption (the architectural "frame").

    • Tool: GitHub Issues: Create a new "Architectural Debt" issue (or similar) to track this meta-problem, referencing specific PRs or code sections as examples.

  2. Deep Dive & Root Cause Analysis (Why is it Spaghetti?):

    • Action: Dedicate time (e.g., a "spike" or a small team session) to analyze why the code is structured that way and why it causes so much friction.

      • Is it a misunderstanding of SRP?

      • Are architectural layers being bypassed?

      • Is there a missing abstraction?

      • Did deadlines force shortcuts that became permanent?

    • LII Connection: This goes beyond what is wrong to why it's wrong, addressing the "habit of expectation" that led to the structure.

    • Tool: Whiteboards, shared documents, code walkthroughs (potentially recorded and linked in GitHub Issues).

  3. Define the "Improved Frame" (The "Zen" Vision):

    • Action: Based on the root cause, collaboratively define what the ideal structure for that problematic area should look like, adhering to Clean Architecture/OOP principles.

      • "This ServiceA needs to be split into ServiceA_Reader, ServiceA_Writer, and ServiceA_Validator."

      • "We need to introduce a new FooGateway interface to properly separate the Use Case from the database detail."

      • "We will enforce that no UI component directly accesses a repository."

    • LII Connection: This is explicitly defining the new context or new rule for future development in this area. It's the vision of "Zen" for this part of the codebase.

    • Tool: Architectural RFCs (Request for Comments) in your repo, updated CONTRIBUTING.md sections, or dedicated architectural diagrams (linked from GitHub).

  4. Experiment & Prototype (The "Refactoring Branch" for Change):

    • Action: Instead of one giant "refactor-everything" branch, identify the smallest, most impactful refactoring that moves towards the "improved frame." This might be splitting just one class, or introducing one new interface.

      • Create a dedicated branch: refactor/split-service-a

      • Implement the change: Make the structural improvement.

      • Run all tests: Ensure no regressions.

      • Create small, focused commits: Each commit should be a logical step in the refactoring.

    • LII Connection: This is a controlled experiment of the new frame. It's not about making a quick fix, but testing a new way of structuring this code.

    • Tool: GitHub branches and local development.

  5. Propose & Review the Structural Change (The "Co-Flow" on GitHub):

    • Action: Open a Pull Request for your refactoring branch.

    • Crucial PR Content:

      • Motivation: Explain why this refactoring is needed (link to the "Architectural Debt" issue). Describe the symptoms it's addressing (e.g., "This addresses the constant merge conflicts in ServiceA and improves testability.").

      • Proposed New Structure: Clearly outline the new class/module responsibilities. Show a before/after diagram if helpful.

      • Expected Benefits: How will this improve review speed, maintainability, testability, or future feature development?

      • Scope: Be clear that this PR is only about structural change, not new features (unless the feature is simple and provides a strong reason to refactor).

    • Team Review: Reviewers aren't just checking correctness; they're reviewing the architectural decision. They might discuss:

      • "Does this new separation truly adhere to SRP?"

      • "Is this the right place for this new interface?"

      • "Will this make future development easier or harder?"

    • LII Connection: This is where the collective frame is challenged, discussed, and potentially adopted. The team learns together about the new, better way of structuring this part of the system. This is the heart of "co-flow" – shared understanding and collaborative improvement of the underlying structure.

  6. Iterative Integration & Reinforcement (The "Art of Refactoring with Others"):

    • Action: Merge the refactoring PR. Then, crucially, integrate this new "frame" into subsequent development.

      • Follow-up PRs: Future feature branches that touch the refactored area must adhere to the new structure.

      • Code Review Enforcement: Reviewers actively look for adherence to the new structural rules. "Remember our refactor of ServiceA? This new code in your PR doesn't use the new ServiceA_Reader abstraction."

      • Automated Checks: Implement static analysis, linters, or architectural tests (e.g., ArchUnit in Java, custom Python linters) into CI/CD to automatically detect violations of the new structural rules. (This is a huge LII enabler).

      • Knowledge Sharing: Update documentation, onboarding guides, and perform quick brown-bag sessions to explain the new structure.

    • LII Connection: This is the continuous reinforcement of the deutero-learning. The team's "habit of expectation" (how they expect to build this type of functionality) shifts. The "Zen" state emerges not from a single act of refactoring, but from a continuous commitment to shared principles and ongoing refinement, where GitHub becomes the transparent ledger of their architectural evolution.

By systematically applying this LII-driven micropractice within GitHub Flow, a team can move from the chaos of a "spaghetti monster" to a disciplined, collaborative, and continuously improving codebase where refactoring is a natural, predictable, and even enjoyable part of the development "co-flow."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Using throw away app to help me get back into the vibe space post stack/structure/perfection enlightenment

Image
Here is the refactored HTML for your Blogger post, designed to be more uniform and disciplined while keeping the gritty, weird aesthetic. This version uses CSS within a ` >> CODING MUSE ASLEEP Waking it up is the same as writing that sci-fi novel that never gets written. The Diagnosis: The Intermediate's Dilemma What you're describing is a classic phenomenon. It's the moment a creator (programmer, writer, artist) moves from blissful ignorance to a state of self-aware incompetence. The Beginner's Joy: When you first built your app, your only goal was "make it work." This is a pure, joyful, and incredibly effective way to learn. You have a working app . That puts you ahead of so many people. The Curse of Knowledge: Then you encountered "clean architecture." This new knowledge is powerful, but it instantly casts a shadow on everything you've done before. Your "spaghetti code" now seems "...
Read more

Code-Gurus Wanted: Bridging the gap - supporting the transition.

Anatomy of a Clean App: A Technical Guide Anatomy of a Clean App A Technical Reference for Application Architecture [ next>> ] my_new_app/ ├── main.py ├── config.py # For settings and API keys ├── app/ │ ├── __init__.py │ ├── core/ │ │ ├── __init__.py │ │ ├── app/core/services.py │ │ ├── app/core/models.py # Defines data structures (e.g., User, Post) │ │ └── exceptions.py # Custom exceptions for your app │ ├── data/ │ │ ├── __init__.py │ │ └── app/data/repository.py # Manages all database operations for models │ ├── ui/ │ │ ├── __init__.py │ │ ├── app/ui/main_window.py │ │ ├── widgets/ # Reusable custom widgets │ │ │ └── user_card.py │ │ └── dialogs/ │ │ └── settings_dialog.py │ └── ai/ │ ├── __init__.py │ └── analysis_service.py ...
Read more

Blogger HTML Transformation: The Ironist's Field Guide

Image
## Blogger HTML Transformation: The Ironist's Field Guide Here is the transformed HTML for your Blogger post, "The Ironist's Field Guide to Code Archaeology." ### Design Philosophy This HTML structure embodies the principles from the text itself: * **Clarity and Structure:** The design uses a clean, modern, dark-theme aesthetic popular in developer circles. It maintains the clear `Part` and `Chapter` hierarchy from the source text, using distinct header styles to create a readable, navigable structure. The code is the hero, rendered in a fixed-width font with syntax highlighting. * **Metamodern 'AR4T Artifact' Quality:** The HTML is the message. It is intentionally clean, well-structured, and uses modern CSS-in-HTML techniques. It is an *artifact* of the very refactoring philosophy it describes—a direct contrast to the "spaghetti code" being critiqued. The subtle use of a 'glitch' effect on the main title evokes the idea of digital ar...
Read more