Skip to main content

NDepend–Find out where a library is used directly and indirectly

A few weeks ago I was contacted by Patrick Smacchia, the creator of NDepend, if I would check out the latest edition of their code quality tool. As I had an upcoming software audit assignment planned, I thought it would be a great occasion to see what NDepend brings to the table and how it can help me to improve my understanding of an unfamiliar codebase.

In preparation of the software audit, the software architect told me that one of the problems of their current codebase is that their data access logic was spread out everywhere throughout the code. They already started an effort in isolating the data access logic but he had no clue how far this has progressed.

Let’s see if we can find the answer using NDepend.

I had read in the documentation that NDepend offers the ability to query the code model using CQLinq. As a developer I like to code, so let’s try that first…

I opened VisualNdepend, loaded the NDepend project I wanted to investigate and hit CTLR-R (or go through View –> View Editor Panel).

Now I could start writing queries using the CQLinq syntax. If your query compiles succesfully, the results are immediatelly shown:

Although the syntax is easy to read and understand I couldn’t figure out the correct query to write to return all classes that where using the RavenDB client(the data store that was used). This was how far I got just by using the provided intellisense:

Luckily NDepend is there to help me. There are multiple ways to let NDepend help you get the correct query.

Let’s see one way…

I switched to the Class Browser (View –> Class Browser).

There I scrolled to the Raven.Client.Lightweight assembly. I right clicked on it and choose ‘Select Types’ and ‘…That are using me Directly’.

And there it was, the query I was trying to write myself.

Now I can see all the places where the data access logic was used directly. Nice!

Popular posts from this blog

Podman– Command execution failed with exit code 125

After updating WSL on one of the developer machines, Podman failed to work. When we took a look through Podman Desktop, we noticed that Podman had stopped running and returned the following error message: Error: Command execution failed with exit code 125 Here are the steps we tried to fix the issue: We started by running podman info to get some extra details on what could be wrong: >podman info OS: windows/amd64 provider: wsl version: 5.3.1 Cannot connect to Podman. Please verify your connection to the Linux system using `podman system connection list`, or try `podman machine init` and `podman machine start` to manage a new Linux VM Error: unable to connect to Podman socket: failed to connect: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:2655: connectex: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. That makes sense as the podman VM was not running. Let’s check the VM: >podman machine list NAME         ...

Cache stampede: when our cache turned against us

While investigating some performance issues, we ran into an ASP.NET Core API that cached a fairly expensive aggregation query for 60 seconds. Under normal load, that was fine: one request rebuilds the cache, everyone else reads from it. Under peak load, dozens of requests would arrive in that same expiry window, all see a cache miss, and all fire the same expensive query in parallel. The database didn't like that. That was the moment when our caching layer stopped helping and started hurting. A burst of requests comes in at the same time, all miss the cache, and all go hammer the database or the downstream API at once. That's a cache stampede . The cache was supposed to protect our backend, and for a few hundred milliseconds it did the opposite. Why this happens IMemoryCache.GetOrCreate (and its async sibling) looks like it protects you, but it doesn't add any locking on its own. Look at the naive version: public async Task<Report> GetReportAsync(string key) ...

A complex system designed from scratch never works

A few years ago, I worked as an architect on a big mainframe rewrite. I still count it as one of my failures. Not because the technology was wrong, but because I couldn't convince the management team to simplify the approach. Years later, the organization is still struggling to get the new system up and running. I left the project at the time, because I couldn't put my name behind an approach that would take very long and cost a lot of money without a working system to show for it along the way. Gall’s Law That memory keeps coming back to me, because it's a textbook case of Gall's Law playing out in real life. Gall's Law , from John Gall's Systemantics , states it plainly: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and it cannot be patched to make it work. You have to start over with a simple system that works. What does that mean in practice,...