I've been asked to tune the performance of a specific function which loads every time a worksheet is opened (so it's important that it doesn't make things slow). One of the things that seems to make this function slow is that it does a long call to the database (which is remote), but there are a bunch of other possibilities too. So far, I've been stepping through the code, and when something seems to take a long time making a note of it as a candidate for tuning.
I'd like a more objective way to tell which calls are slowing me down. Searching for timing and VBA yields a lot of results which basically amount to "Write a counter, and start and stop it either side of the critical section" (often with the macro explicitly called). I was wondering whether there was a way to (in the debugger) do something like "Step to next line, and tell me the time elapsed".
If not, can someone suggest a reasonable macro that I could use in the Immediate window to get what I'm after? Specifically, I would like to be able to time an arbitrary line of code within a larger procedure (rather than a whole procedure at once, which is what I found through Google).
Keywords for your further search would be to look for a "Profiler" for VBA. I've heard of VB Watch and VBA Code Profiler System (VBACP) as well as from Stephen Bull's PerfMon, but sparing the latter they're mostly not free.
So far for the official part of my answer, and I toss in some extra in terms of maybe useless suggestions:
Identifying "slow" code by "humanly measurement" (run a line and say: "Woah, that takes forever") in the debugger is certainly helpful, and you can then start looking into why they're slow. Your remote database call may take quite long if it has to transmit a lot of data - in which cases it may be a good idea to timestamp the data on both ends and ask the DB whether data had been modified before you grab it.
Writing the data into the sheet may be slow depending on the way you write it - which can sometimes be improved by writing arrays to a range instead of some form of iteration.
And I probably don't need to tell you about ScreenUpdating and EnableEvents and so on?
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I have complex project without comments. The project is programed in Java but have more than one main class, use several .txt files like a template and use several .bat files. I don't know where to start and how to start discovering the project, because I need to make some changes in that project.
As with others I say this is a slow process.
However having done this in the past many times, this is my methodology:
Identify as many requirements that the code fulfils. This may give you the some reasons as to why certain things are the way they are when you look deeper. A common way of finding these is look for any tests that be available. The automated ones are best, but usually they're as missing as the comments.
Find the entry points to the code. These will give you places where you can poke the code to see how different inputs affect the flow. Common entry points are Code Loading 'Main' type functions, service interfaces, web page post backs etc..
Diagram the code. Look for tools that can build black/white box pictures of the code. For me this invaluable. I have on occasion printed out large listings and attacked then with markers and rulers. You're aim to create your own flow chart (mental or other wise) of the code flow.
Using the above (iteratively) build a set of outputs to the code that you think should occur, and add to these the outputs you may already know about such as logs, data files, database writes etc..
Finally if you have time, create some manual tests though preferably in automated test harnesses to verify the above. This where I start to involve the debugger to see detail in the code.
This methodology usually gives me confidence to make changes.
Note this is iterative process and can be done with portions of the code or overall as you see fit. I usually favour a top down approach to start with and then as I gain some insight I drill down till details become overwhelming and then I repeat. However this is just because my mind works in this way - you may be different. Good luck.
Find the main Main class. The starting point.
Start drawing a picture of the classes and the objects they own and the external entities they reference.
Follow all the branches until you can find a logical ending.
I've used UML reverse engineering tools in the past and while a visual picture is good, stepping through the code has always been the hardest and yet best methodology for me.
And, as you step through each piece you can add in your own comments..
I usually start with doxygen, turning on every extracting option (especially EXTRACT_ALL and EXTRACT_PRIVATE), and enable the SOURCE_BROWSER, HAVE_DOT, CALL_GRAPH and CALLER_GRAPH options (you also need to have dot installed). This gives good view of the software. For every function the calls are displayed and linked in a graph, also the sources are linked from there.
While doxygen is intended for C and C++, it also works with Java sources (set the OPTIMIZE_OUTPUT_JAVA option).
Auch. I'm afraid there is no speedy way to do this. Comment out a line (or two) -> test -> see what breaks. You could also put break statements here and there and run the debugger. That should give you some indication how you got there (ie. what the hierarchy between the classes is).
Hopefully the original developers used some patterns that you can recognize and make notes. Make lots of notes of everything. Start by trying to understand the high level structure and work down from there.
Be prepared to spend endless hours not understanding what the thing is doing.
Speak to the client and try to understand what the project is for, and what are all the things that it does. Someone somewhere had to put in some requirements for the stuff that's in there, if only in an email.
I would try to find the first entry point in the code closest to where you suspect you'll need to start making your changes, set a breakpoint, and start debugging. Check out the contents of local variables and work your way deeper as you get to become familiar with whats going on. Then, when you have a basic understanding of the area of code you're going to be working with, start fiddling with some small changes. Test your understanding of it. Try diagramming what you see happening. If you can do that confidently, you'll be able to decide if you need to go back and continue learning more about the code, or if you know enough to get done what you need to get done.
A start is to use an automated uml modeling tool (if you use eclipse you can use a plug-gin), and start creating UML diagrams of the various classes to see how they are related in a high level and visualize the code. This has helped many times
If there are log files being generated, have a look at it to understand the flow from the starting point (main class). Otherwise, put debug statements to understand the flow.
Ya, that sounds like a pretty bad spot to be in.
I would say that the best way is to just walk through the program line for line. Try to grasp the big picture in the code, and write alot of notes, both on paper and in comments in the code.
I would say, a good approach would be to generate documentation using javadoc or doxygen's class diagram feature, then as you run the code traverse through the class diagrams generated using doxygen and see who calls what. This works wonderfully for me everytime i am working on such a project.
I completely agree to most of the answers posted.
I can add to use a development tool that reverse engineering the code and create a class diagram, to have an overall picture of what is involved.
Then you need patience. But you will be a stronger and smarter developer when you'll get through...
Good luck!
One of the best and first things to do is to try to build and run the code. It might sound a bit simplistic but the problem when you take over undocumented code is that you can't even build it and run it. When have no clue were to start.
I read somewhere that somebody could access a config value during run time but not during design time. Whats the difference between run time and design time in this context?
Design time is when somebody signs off our word documents and our UML diagrams with a cheery "That looks fine!" Run time is when we execute our code and it fails with a horrible crash and burn.
The advantage of a technique like TDD is that it compresses the gap between design time and run time to the point where they are the same thing. This means we get instant feedback on how our design actually works when translated into code, which should result in a better design and fewer embarrassments when our code goes live. YMMV.
Design time is when you are creating a design based on the requirements, or creating some UML diagrams.
Run time is when you are implementing your design and running the code.
Are you talking about .NET applications? In that case design time probably means something more specific - when your GUI is presented within the Visual Studio designer. This gives you a working view of your application, but it is running in a design time environment. Many .NET controls have a DesignMode property that allows you tell whether the control is running in design time view or not.
design time is when you design some code
run time is when you execute the code you designed
Run time is when your program runs. Design time is when your program is designed.
Design time refers to processes that take place during development, Runtime refers to processes that take place while the application is running.
For instance, constants that are hardcoded in your application are set at design time, such as...
// you need to recompile your solution to change this,
// hence it is said that its value is set at design time.
const string value = "this is set at design time";
Whereas configuration values that are pulled from a config file would be said to be set at runtime. Such as...
// You do not need to recompile your solution to change this,
// hence the value is said to be set at runtime.
string value = ConfigurationManager.GetValue("section", "key");
As a developer, you must aim for the ideal equilibrium between design time (let's take it to mean 'the time you spend designing and developing the app', though it's a bit incorrect) and run time, which I take to mean 'the time the user stands looking at the hourglass waiting for his important report to be rendered'.
Too much focus on 'design time' and you might run out of the scheduled programming time, and your client will pull out of the contract, he'll badmouth you, and kittens will die. Too little, and your program will, as they say, suck. Remember that 'shipping is a feature, one your program should have'.
Unless what they meant by "run time" is "runtime" and that means something else entirely.
I want to know if there are method to quickly find bugs in the program.
It seems that the more you master the architecture of your software, the more quickly
you can locate the bugs.
How the programmers improve their ability to find a bug?
Logging, and unit tests. The more information you have about what happened, the easier it is to reproduce it. The more modular you can make your code, the easier it is to check that it really is misbehaving where you think it is, and then check that your fix solves the problem.
Divide and conquer. Whenever you are debugging, you should be thinking about cutting down the possible locations of the problem. Every time you run the app, you should be trying to eliminate a possible source and zero in on the actual location. This can be done with logging, with a debugger, assertions, etc.
Here's a prophylactic method after you have found a bug: I find it really helpful to take a minute and think about the bug.
What was the bug exactly in essence.
Why did it occur.
Could you have found it earlier, easier.
Anything else you learned from the bug.
I find taking a minute to think about these things will make it far less likely that you will produce the same bug in the future.
I will assume you mean logic bugs. The best way I have found to capture logic bugs is to implement some sort of testing scheme. Check out jUnit as the standard. Pretty much you define a set of accepted outputs of your methods. Every time you compile your system it checks all of your test cases. If you have introduced new logic that breaks your tests, you will know about it instantly and know exactly what you have to fix.
Test driven design is a pretty big movement in programming right now. You will be hard pressed to find a language that doesn't support some kind of testing. Even JavaScript has a multitude of test suites.
Experience makes you a better debugger. Pay close attention to the bugs that you AND others commonly make. Try to figure out if/how these bugs apply to ALL code that affects you, not the single instance of where the bug was seen.
Raymond Chen is famous for his powers of psychic debugging.
Most of what looks like psychic
debugging is really just knowing what
people tend to get wrong.
That means that you don't necessarily have to be intimately familiar with the architecture / system. You just need enough knowledge to understand the types of bugs that apply and are easy to make.
I personally take the approach of thinking about where the bug may be in the code before actually opening up the code and taking a look. When you first start with this approach, it may not actually work very well, especially if you are pretty unfamiliar with the code base. However, over time someone will be able to tell you the behavior they are experiencing and you'll have a good idea where the problem is located or you may even know what to fix in the code to remedy the problem before even looking at the code.
I was on a project for several years that maintained by a vendor. They were not very good debuggers and most of the time it was up to us to point them to an area of the code that had the problem. What made our problem worse was that we didn't have a nice way to view the source code, so a lot of our "debugging" was just feeling.
Error checking and reporting. The #1 newbie coder debugging mistake is to turn off error reporting, avoid checking for whether what's going on makes sense, etc etc. In general, people feel like if they can't see anything going wrong then nothing is going wrong. Which of course could not be further from the case.
Instead, your code should be chock full of error conditions that will make lots of noise, with detailed reporting, someplace you will see it. (This doesn't mean inside a production web page.) Then, instead of having to trace an error all over the place because it got passed through sixteen layers of execution before it finally got someplace that broke, your errors start happening proximately to the actual issue.
It seems that the more you master the
architecture of your software ,the
more quickly you can locate the bugs.
After understanding the architecture, one's ability to find bugs in the application increases with their ability to identify and write extensive tests.
Know your tools.
Make sure that you know how to use conditional breakpoints and watches in your debugger.
Use static analysis tools as well - they can point out the more obvious issues.
Sleep and rest.
Use programming methods that produce fewer bugs in the first place.
If to implement a single stand-alone functional requirement it takes N separate point-edits to source code, the number of bugs put into the code is roughly proportional to N, so find programming methods that minimize N. Ways to do this: DRY (don't repeat yourself), code generation, and DSL (domain-specific-language).
Where bugs are likely, have unit tests.
Obviously.IMHO, the best unit tests are monte-carlo.
Make intermediate results visible.
For example, compilers have intermediate representations, in the form of 4-tuples. If there is a bug, the intermediate code can be examined. That tells if the bug is in the first or second half of the compiler.
P.S. Most programmers are not aware that they have a choice of how much data structure to use. The less data structure you use, the less are the chances for bugs (and performance issues) caused by it.
I find tracepoints to be an invaluable debugging tool. They are a bit like logging, except you create them during a debugging session to solve a particular issue, like breakpoints.
Printing the stacktrace in a tracepoint can be especially useful. For example, you can print the hash code and stacktrace in the constructor of an object, and then later on when the object is used again you can search for its hashcode to see which client code created it. Same for seeing who disposed it or called a certain method etc.
They are also great for debugging issues related to window focus changes etc, where the debugger would interfere if you drop in break mode.
Static code tools like FindBugs
Assertions, assertions, and assertions.
Some areas of our code has 4 or 5 assertions for each line of real code. When we get a bug report the first thing that happens is that the customer data is processed in our debug build 99 times out a hundred an assert will fire near the cause of the bug.
Additionally our debug build perform redundant calculations to ensure that an optimized algorithm is returning the correct result, and also debug functions are used to examine the sanity of data structures.
The hardest thing new developers have to contend with is getting their code to survive the assertions of the code gthey are calling.
Additionally we do not allow any code to be putback to toplevel that causes any integration or unit test to fail.
Stepping through the code, examining flow/state where unexpected behavior is occurring. (Then develop a test for it, of course).
Writing Debug.Write(message) in your code and using DebugView is another option. And then run your application find out what is going on.
"Architecture" in software means something like:
Several components
The components interact across clearly-defined interfaces
Each component has a well-defined responsibility
The responsibility of one component is unlike the responsibilities of other components
So, as you said, the better the architecture the easier it is to find bugs.
First: knowing the bug, you can decide which functionality is broken, and therefore know which component implements that functionality. For example, if the bug is that something isn't being logged properly, therefore this bug should be in one of 3 places:
In the component that's responsible for logging (your logging library)
Or, above that in the application code which is using this library
Or, below that in the system code which this library is using
Second: examine the data transfered across the interfaces between components. To continue the previous example above:
Set a debugger breakpoint on the application code which invokes the logger API, to verify whether the logger API is being used correctly (e.g. whether it's being invoked at all, whether parameters are as-expected, etc.).
Doing this tells you whether the bug is in the component above this interface, or in the component that's below this interface.
Repeat (perhaps using binary search if the call stack is very deep) until you've found which component is at fault.
When you come to the point that you think there must be a bug in the OS, check your assertions -- and put them into the code with "assert" statements.
Conversely, as you are writing the code, think of the range of valid inputs for your algorithms and put in assertions to make sure you have what you think you have. Same goes for output: Check that you produced what you think you produced.
E.g. if you expect a non-empty list:
l = getList(input)
assert l, "List was empty for input: %s" % str(input)
I'm part of the QA team # work, and knowing anything about the product and how it is developed, helps a lot in finding bugs, also when I make new QA tools I pass it to our dev team to test it, finding bugs in your own code is just plain hard!
Some people say programmers are tainted, so we cannot see bugs in their own product; we are not talking about code here, we are beyond that, usability and functionality itself.
Meanwhile unit testing seams to be a nice solution to find bugs in your own code, its totally pointless if you're wrong even before writing the unit test, how are you going to find the bugs then? you don't!, let your co-worker find them, hire a QA guy.
Scientific debugging is what I always used, and it greatly helps.
Basically, if you can replicate a bug, you can track its origin. You should then experiment some tests, observe the results, and infer hypotheses on why the bug happens.
Writing about all your hypotheses, attempts, expected results and observed results can help you track down the bugs, particularly if they're nasty.
There are automated tools that can help you with that process, particularly git-bisect (and similar bisection tools on other revision systems) to quickly find which change introduced the bug, unit testing to reproduce a bug and prevent regressions in your code (can be used in combination with bisect), and delta debugging to find the culprit in your code (similar to git-bisect but whereas git-bisect works on the code history, delta debugging works on the code directly).
But whatever the tools you are using, the most important benefit is in the scientific methodology, as this is the formalization of what most experienced debuggers do.
Does midiOutPrepareHeader, midiInPrepareHeader just setup some data fields, or does it do something that is more time intensive?
I am trying to decide whether to build and destroy the MIDIHDR's as needed, or to maintain a pool of them.
You really have only two ways to tell (without the Windows source):
1) Profile it. Depending on your findings for how long it takes, have a debug-only scoped timer that logs when it suddenly takes longer than what you think is acceptable for your application, or do your pool solution. Though the docs say not to modify the buffer once you call the prepare function, and it seems if you wanted to re-use it you may have to modify it. I'm not familiar enough with the docs to say one way or the other if your proposed solution would work.
2) Step through the assembly and see. Don't be afraid. Get the MSFT public symbols and see if it looks like it's just filling out fields or if it's doing something complicated.