Suggestion: Increases readability of `PageableExecutionUtils` code
erie0210 opened this issue · comments
I noticed PageableExecutionUtils code could potentially benefit from refactoring. I found it too complex due to multiple branches of if statements. I think these adjustments could improve readability of the codebase. I am open to any feedback or suggestions you might have. I would be happy to open a pull request with these changes if needed. Please let me know your thoughts.
Here's the suggested code. All tests passed.
Thank you.
AS_IS
public abstract class PageableExecutionUtils {
private PageableExecutionUtils() {}
public static <T> Page<T> getPage(List<T> content, Pageable pageable, LongSupplier totalSupplier) {
Assert.notNull(content, "Content must not be null");
Assert.notNull(pageable, "Pageable must not be null");
Assert.notNull(totalSupplier, "TotalSupplier must not be null");
if (pageable.isUnpaged() || pageable.getOffset() == 0) {
if (pageable.isUnpaged() || pageable.getPageSize() > content.size()) {
return new PageImpl<>(content, pageable, content.size());
}
return new PageImpl<>(content, pageable, totalSupplier.getAsLong());
}
if (content.size() != 0 && pageable.getPageSize() > content.size()) {
return new PageImpl<>(content, pageable, pageable.getOffset() + content.size());
}
return new PageImpl<>(content, pageable, totalSupplier.getAsLong());
}
}TO_BE
public abstract class PageableExecutionUtils {
private PageableExecutionUtils() {}
public static <T> Page<T> getPage(List<T> content, Pageable pageable, LongSupplier totalSupplier) {
Assert.notNull(content, "Content must not be null");
Assert.notNull(pageable, "Pageable must not be null");
Assert.notNull(totalSupplier, "TotalSupplier must not be null");
if (pageable.isUnpaged() || isFirstPageWithLessThanOneFullPage(content, pageable)) {
return new PageImpl<>(content, pageable, content.size());
}
if (isSubsequentPageWithLessThanOneFullPage(content, pageable)) {
return new PageImpl<>(content, pageable, pageable.getOffset() + content.size());
}
return new PageImpl<>(content, pageable, totalSupplier.getAsLong());
}
private static <T> boolean isFirstPageWithLessThanOneFullPage(List<T> content, Pageable pageable) {
return pageable.getOffset() == 0 && pageable.getPageSize() > content.size();
}
private static <T> boolean isSubsequentPageWithLessThanOneFullPage(List<T> content, Pageable pageable) {
return pageable.getOffset() != 0 && !content.isEmpty() && pageable.getPageSize() > content.size();
}
}
Readability is subjective. I find isSubsequentPageWithLessThanOneFullPage hard to parse although it makes the concept explicit. It's always a balance between tradeoffs.
Thank you for your feedback on the naming of the method isSubsequentPageWithLessThanOneFullPage. I understand the importance of balancing explicitness and readability in method names. I took the current name directly from the test code to maintain consistency and clarity regarding its functionality. However, I agree that the name can be quite lengthy and difficult to parse.
If you think it's worth refactoring, I could try changing the name. @mp911de
If you think it's worth refactoring, I could try changing the name. @mp911de
In general a refactoring would be a good thing.
Maybe the solution for good names comes with splitting the methods differently, like separating the question first/subsequent Page from the question of full/partial page.
Do you want to come up with a PR?