clean-code-typescript

번역 작업 진행중입니다.

타입스크립트를 위한 클린코드.
clean-code-javascript에서 영감을 받았습니다.

목차

1. 소개(Introduction)
2. 변수(Variables)
3. 함수(Functions)
4. Objects and Data Structures
5. Classes
6. SOLID
7. Testing
8. Concurrency
9. Error Handling
10. 서식(Formatting)
11. 주석(Comments)
12. 번역(Translations)

소개(Introduction)

Robert C. Martin의 책인 클린 코드에 있는 소프트웨어 공학 방법론을 타입스크립트에 적용한 글입니다. 이 글은 스타일 가이드가 아닙니다. 이 글은 타입스크립트에서 읽기 쉽고, 재사용 가능하며, 리팩토링 가능한 소프트웨어를 작성하기 위한 가이드입니다.

여기 있는 모든 규칙을 엄격하게 따를 필요는 없으며, 보편적으로 통용되는 규칙은 아닙니다. 이 글은 하나의 지침일 뿐이며, 클린 코드의 저자가 수년간 경험한 내용을 바탕으로 정리한 것입니다.

소프트웨어 공학 기술의 역사는 50년이 조금 넘었고, 배워야 할 것이 여전히 많습니다. 소프트웨어 설계가 건축 설계만큼 오래되었을 때는 아마도 아래 규칙들보다 엄격한 규칙을 따라야 할 것입니다. 하지만 지금은 이 지침을 당신과 당신 팀이 작성하는 타입스크립트 코드의 품질을 평가하는 기준으로 삼으세요.

한 가지 더 덧붙이자면, 이 규칙들을 알게 된다 해서 당장 더 나은 개발자가 되는 것은 아니며 코드를 작성할 때 실수를 하지 않게 해주는 것은 아닙니다. 훌륭한 도자기들이 처음엔 말랑한 점토부터 시작하듯이 모든 코드를 처음부터 완벽할 수 없습니다. 하지만 당신은 팀원들과 같이 코드를 리뷰하며 점점 완벽하게 만들어 나가야 합니다. 당신이 처음 작성한 코드를 고칠 때 절대로 자신을 질타하지 마세요. 대신 코드를 부수고 더 나은 코드를 만드세요!

⬆ 상단으로

변수(Variables)

의미있는 변수 이름을 사용하세요

읽는 사람으로 하여금 변수마다 어떤 점이 다른지 알 수 있도록 이름을 구별하세요.

Bad:

function between<T>(a1: T, a2: T, a3: T): boolean {
  return a2 <= a1 && a1 <= a3;
}

Good:

function between<T>(value: T, left: T, right: T): boolean {
  return left <= value && value <= right;
}

⬆ 상단으로

발음할 수 있는 변수 이름을 사용하세요

발음할 수 없는 이름은 그 변수에 대해서 바보 같이 소리내어 토론할 수 밖에 없습니다.

Bad:

type DtaRcrd102 = {
  genymdhms: Date;
  modymdhms: Date;
  pszqint: number;
}

Good:

type Customer = {
  generationTimestamp: Date;
  modificationTimestamp: Date;
  recordId: number;
}

⬆ 상단으로

동일한 유형의 변수는 동일한 단어를 사용하세요

Bad:

function getUserInfo(): User;
function getUserDetails(): User;
function getUserData(): User;

Good:

function getUser(): User;

⬆ 상단으로

검색할 수 있는 이름을 사용하세요

코드를 쓸 때보다 읽을 때가 더 많기 때문에 우리가 쓰는 코드는 읽을 수 있고 검색이 가능해야 합니다. 프로그램을 이해할 때 의미있는 변수 이름을 짓지 않으면 읽는 사람으로 하여금 어려움을 줄 수 있습니다. 검색 가능한 이름을 지으세요. TSLint와 같은 도구는 이름이 없는 상수를 식별할 수 있도록 도와줍니다.

Bad:

// 86400000이 도대체 뭐지?
setTimeout(restart, 86400000);

Good:

// 대문자로 이루어진 상수로 선언하세요.
const MILLISECONDS_IN_A_DAY = 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000;

setTimeout(restart, MILLISECONDS_IN_A_DAY);

⬆ 상단으로

의도를 나타내는 변수를 사용하세요

Bad:

declare const users: Map<string, User>;

for (const keyValue of users) {
  // users 맵을 순회
}

Good:

declare const users: Map<string, User>;

for (const [id, user] of users) {
  // users 맵을 순회
}

⬆ 상단으로

암시하는 이름은 사용하지 마세요

명시적인 것이 암시적인 것보다 좋습니다.
명료함은 최고입니다.

Bad:

const u = getUser();
const s = getSubscription();
const t = charge(u, s);

Good:

const user = getUser();
const subscription = getSubscription();
const transaction = charge(user, subscription);

⬆ 상단으로

불필요한 문맥은 추가하지 마세요

클래스/타입/객체의 이름에 의미가 담겨있다면, 변수 이름에서 반복하지 마세요.

Bad:

type Car = {
  carMake: string;
  carModel: string;
  carColor: string;
}

function print(car: Car): void {
  console.log(`${car.carMake} ${car.carModel} (${car.carColor})`);
}

Good:

type Car = {
  make: string;
  model: string;
  color: string;
}

function print(car: Car): void {
  console.log(`${car.make} ${car.model} (${car.color})`);
}

⬆ 상단으로

short circuiting이나 조건문 대신 기본 매개변수를 사용하세요

기본 매개변수는 short circuiting보다 보통 명료합니다.

Bad:

function loadPages(count?: number) {
  const loadCount = count !== undefined ? count : 10;
  // ...
}

Good:

function loadPages(count: number = 10) {
  // ...
}

⬆ 상단으로

의도를 알려주기 위해 enum을 사용하세요

예를 들어 그것들의 값 자체보다 값이 구별되어야 할 때와 같이 코드의 의도를 알려주는데에 enum은 도움을 줄 수 있습니다.

Bad:

const GENRE = {
  ROMANTIC: 'romantic',
  DRAMA: 'drama',
  COMEDY: 'comedy',
  DOCUMENTARY: 'documentary',
}

projector.configureFilm(GENRE.COMEDY);

class Projector {
  // Projector의 선언
  configureFilm(genre) {
    switch (genre) {
      case GENRE.ROMANTIC:
        // 실행되어야 하는 로직
    }
  }
}

Good:

enum GENRE {
  ROMANTIC,
  DRAMA,
  COMEDY,
  DOCUMENTARY,
}

projector.configureFilm(GENRE.COMEDY);

class Projector {
  // Projector의 선언
  configureFilm(genre) {
    switch (genre) {
      case GENRE.ROMANTIC:
        // 실행되어야 하는 로직
    }
  }
}

⬆ 상단으로

함수(Functions)

함수의 매개변수는 2개 혹은 그 이하가 이상적입니다

함수 매개변수의 개수를 제한하는 것은 함수를 테스트하기 쉽게 만들어주기 때문에 놀라울 정도로 중요합니다. 함수 매개변수가 3개 이상인 경우, 각기 다른 인수로 여러 다른 케이스를 테스트해야 하므로 경우의 수가 매우 많아집니다.

한 개 혹은 두 개의 매개변수가 이상적인 경우고, 가능하다면 세 개는 피해야 합니다. 그 이상의 경우에는 합쳐야 합니다. 두 개 이상의 매개변수를 가질 경우, 함수가 많은 것을 할 가능성이 높아집니다. 그렇지 않은 경우, 대부분 상위 객체는 하나의 매개변수로 충분할 것입니다.

많은 매개변수를 사용해야 한다면 객체 리터럴을 사용하는 것을 고려해보세요.

함수가 기대하는 속성을 명확하게 하기 위해, 구조 분해 구문을 사용할 수 있습니다. 이 구문은 몇 개의 장점을 가지고 있습니다:

1. 어떤 사람이 함수 시그니쳐(매개변수의 타입, 반환값의 타입 등)를 볼 때, 어떤 속성이 사용되는지 즉시 알 수 있습니다.

2. 명명된 매개변수처럼 보이게 할 때 사용할 수 있습니다.

3. 또한 구조 분해는 함수로 전달된 매개변수 객체의 특정한 원시 값을 복제하며 이것은 사이드 이펙트를 방지하는데 도움을 줍니다. 유의사항: 매개변수 객체로부터 구조 분해된 객체와 배열은 복제되지 않습니다.

4. 타입스크립트는 사용하지 않은 속성에 대해서 경고를 주며, 구조 분해를 사용하면 경고를 받지 않을 수 있습니다.

Bad:

function createMenu(title: string, body: string, buttonText: string, cancellable: boolean) {
  // ...
}

createMenu('Foo', 'Bar', 'Baz', true);

Good:

function createMenu(options: { title: string, body: string, buttonText: string, cancellable: boolean }) {
  // ...
}

createMenu({
  title: 'Foo',
  body: 'Bar',
  buttonText: 'Baz',
  cancellable: true
});

type aliases를 사용해서 가독성을 더 높일 수 있습니다:

type MenuOptions = { title: string, body: string, buttonText: string, cancellable: boolean };

function createMenu(options: MenuOptions) {
  // ...
}

createMenu({
  title: 'Foo',
  body: 'Bar',
  buttonText: 'Baz',
  cancellable: true
});

⬆ 상단으로

함수는 한가지만 해야합니다

이것은 소프트웨어 공학에서 단연코 중요한 규칙입니다. 함수가 한가지 이상의 역할을 수행할 때 작성하고 테스트하고 추론하기 어려워집니다. 함수를 하나의 행동으로 정의할 수 있을 때, 쉽게 리팩토링할 수 있으며 코드를 더욱 명료하게 읽을 수 있습니다. 이 가이드에서 이 부분만 자기것으로 만들어도 당신은 많은 개발자보다 앞설 수 있습니다.

Bad:

function emailClients(clients: Client[]) {
  clients.forEach((client) => {
    const clientRecord = database.lookup(client);
    if (clientRecord.isActive()) {
      email(client);
    }
  });
}

Good:

function emailClients(clients: Client[]) {
  clients.filter(isActiveClient).forEach(email);
}

function isActiveClient(client: Client) {
  const clientRecord = database.lookup(client);
  return clientRecord.isActive();
}

⬆ 상단으로

함수가 무엇을 하는지 알 수 있도록 함수 이름을 지으세요

Bad:

function addToDate(date: Date, month: number): Date {
  // ...
}

const date = new Date();

// 무엇이 추가되는지 함수 이름만으로 유추하기 어렵습니다
addToDate(date, 1);

Good:

function addMonthToDate(date: Date, month: number): Date {
  // ...
}

const date = new Date();
addMonthToDate(date, 1);

⬆ 상단으로

함수는 단일 행동을 추상화해야 합니다

함수가 한가지 이상을 추상화한다면 그 함수는 너무 많은 일을 하게 됩니다. 재사용성과 쉬운 테스트를 위해서 함수를 쪼개세요.

Bad:

function parseCode(code: string) {
  const REGEXES = [ /* ... */ ];
  const statements = code.split(' ');
  const tokens = [];

  REGEXES.forEach((regex) => {
    statements.forEach((statement) => {
      // ...
    });
  });

  const ast = [];
  tokens.forEach((token) => {
    // lex...
  });

  ast.forEach((node) => {
    // parse...
  });
}

Good:

const REGEXES = [ /* ... */ ];

function parseCode(code: string) {
  const tokens = tokenize(code);
  const syntaxTree = parse(tokens);

  syntaxTree.forEach((node) => {
    // parse...
  });
}

function tokenize(code: string): Token[] {
  const statements = code.split(' ');
  const tokens: Token[] = [];

  REGEXES.forEach((regex) => {
    statements.forEach((statement) => {
      tokens.push( /* ... */ );
    });
  });

  return tokens;
}

function parse(tokens: Token[]): SyntaxTree {
  const syntaxTree: SyntaxTree[] = [];
  tokens.forEach((token) => {
    syntaxTree.push( /* ... */ );
  });

  return syntaxTree;
}

⬆ 상단으로

중복된 코드를 제거해주세요

코드가 중복되지 않도록 최선을 다하세요. 중복된 코드는 어떤 로직을 변경할 때 한 곳 이상을 변경해야 하기 떄문에 좋지 않습니다.

당신이 레스토랑을 운영하면서 재고를 추적한다고 상상해보세요: 모든 토마토, 양파, 마늘, 양념 등. 관리하는 목록이 여러개일 때 토마토를 넣은 요리를 제공할 때마다 모든 목록을 수정해야 합니다. 관리하는 목록이 단 하나일 때는 한 곳만 수정하면 됩니다!

당신은 종종 두 개 이상의 사소한 다른 것들이 있다고 많은 것들이 공유되는 중복되는 코드를 작성합니다. 하지만 그 몇가지 다른 것으로 인해 같은 역할을 하는 두 개 이상의 함수를 만들게 됩니다. 중복된 코드를 제거하는 것은 조금씩 다른 역할을 하는 것을 묶음으로써 하나의 함수/모듈/클래스로 처리하는 추상화를 만드는 것을 의미합니다.

추상화를 올바르게 하는 것은 중요하며, 이것은 SOLID 원칙을 따르는 이유이기도 합니다. 올바르지 않은 추상화는 중복된 코드보다 나쁘므로 주의하세요! 좋은 추상화를 할 수 있다면 그렇게 하라는 말입니다! 반복하지 마세요. 그렇지 않으면 하나를 변경할 때마다 여러 곳을 변경하게 될 것입니다.

Bad:

function showDeveloperList(developers: Developer[]) {
  developers.forEach((developer) => {
    const expectedSalary = developer.calculateExpectedSalary();
    const experience = developer.getExperience();
    const githubLink = developer.getGithubLink();

    const data = {
      expectedSalary,
      experience,
      githubLink
    };

    render(data);
  });
}

function showManagerList(managers: Manager[]) {
  managers.forEach((manager) => {
    const expectedSalary = manager.calculateExpectedSalary();
    const experience = manager.getExperience();
    const portfolio = manager.getMBAProjects();

    const data = {
      expectedSalary,
      experience,
      portfolio
    };

    render(data);
  });
}

Good:

class Developer {
  // ...
  getExtraDetails() {
    return {
      githubLink: this.githubLink,
    }
  }
}

class Manager {
  // ...
  getExtraDetails() {
    return {
      portfolio: this.portfolio,
    }
  }
}

function showEmployeeList(employee: Developer | Manager) {
  employee.forEach((employee) => {
    const expectedSalary = employee.calculateExpectedSalary();
    const experience = employee.getExperience();
    const extra = employee.getExtraDetails();

    const data = {
      expectedSalary,
      experience,
      extra,
    };

    render(data);
  });
}

당신은 중복된 코드에 대해서 비판적으로 생각해야 합니다. 가끔은 중복된 코드와 불필요한 추상화로 인한 복잡성 간의 맞바꿈이 있을 수 있습니다. 서로 다른 두 개의 모듈의 구현이 유사해보이지만 서로 다른 도메인에 존재하는 경우, 코드 중복은 공통된 코드에서 추출해서 중복을 줄이는 것보다 나은 선택일 수 있습니다. 이 경우에 추출된 공통의 코드는 두 모듈 사이에서 간접적인 의존성이 나타나게 됩니다.

⬆ 상단으로

Object.assign 혹은 구조 분해를 사용해서 기본 객체를 만드세요

Bad:

type MenuConfig = { title?: string, body?: string, buttonText?: string, cancellable?: boolean };

function createMenu(config: MenuConfig) {
  config.title = config.title || 'Foo';
  config.body = config.body || 'Bar';
  config.buttonText = config.buttonText || 'Baz';
  config.cancellable = config.cancellable !== undefined ? config.cancellable : true;

  // ...
}

createMenu({ body: 'Bar' });

Good:

type MenuConfig = { title?: string, body?: string, buttonText?: string, cancellable?: boolean };

function createMenu(config: MenuConfig) {
  const menuConfig = Object.assign({
    title: 'Foo',
    body: 'Bar',
    buttonText: 'Baz',
    cancellable: true
  }, config);

  // ...
}

createMenu({ body: 'Bar' });

대안으로, 기본 값을 구조 분해를 사용해서 해결할 수 있습니다:

type MenuConfig = { title?: string, body?: string, buttonText?: string, cancellable?: boolean };

function createMenu({ title = 'Foo', body = 'Bar', buttonText = 'Baz', cancellable = true }: MenuConfig) {
  // ...
}

createMenu({ body: 'Bar' });

사이드 이펙트와 undefined 혹은 null 값을 명시적으로 넘기는 예상치못한 행동을 피하기 위해서 타입스크립트 컴파일러에게 그것을 허락하지않도록 설정할 수 있습니다. 타입스크립트에서 --strictNullChecks 옵션을 확인하세요.

⬆ 상단으로

함수 매개변수로 플래그를 사용하지 마세요

플래그를 사용하는 것은 해당 함수가 한 가지 이상의 일을 한다는 것을 뜻합니다. 함수는 한 가지의 일을 해야합니다. boolean 변수로 인해 다른 코드가 실행된다면 그 함수를 쪼개도록 하세요.

Bad:

function createFile(name: string, temp: boolean) {
  if (temp) {
    fs.create(`./temp/${name}`);
  } else {
    fs.create(name);
  }
}

Good:

function createTempFile(name: string) {
  createFile(`./temp/${name}`);
}

function createFile(name: string) {
  fs.create(name);
}

⬆ 상단으로

사이드 이펙트를 피하세요 (파트 1)

함수는 값을 가져와서 다른 값을 반환하는 것 이외에 다른 것을 할 경우 사이드 이펙트를 발생시킬 수 있습니다. 사이드 이펙트는 파일을 쓴다거나, 전역 변수를 조작한다거나, 뜻하지 않게 낯선 사람에게 당신의 전재산을 송금할 수 있습니다.

당신은 가끔 프로그램에서 사이드 이펙트를 가질 필요가 있습니다. 이전의 사례에서와 같이 당신은 파일을 써야할 때가 있습니다. 당신이 하고 싶은 것은 이것을 하는 곳을 중앙화하는 것입니다. 특정 파일을 쓰기 위해 몇 개의 함수와 클래스를 만들지 마세요. 그것을 행하는 서비스를 하나만 만드세요. 오직 하나입니다.

The main point is to avoid common pitfalls like sharing state between objects without any structure, using mutable data types that can be written to by anything, and not centralizing where your side effects occur. If you can do this, you will be happier than the vast majority of other programmers.

Bad:

// Global variable referenced by following function.
let name = 'Robert C. Martin';

function toBase64() {
  name = btoa(name);
}

toBase64();
// If we had another function that used this name, now it'd be a Base64 value

console.log(name); // expected to print 'Robert C. Martin' but instead 'Um9iZXJ0IEMuIE1hcnRpbg=='

Good:

const name = 'Robert C. Martin';

function toBase64(text: string): string {
  return btoa(text);
}

const encodedName = toBase64(name);
console.log(name);

⬆ 상단으로

사이드 이펙트를 피하세요 (파트 2)

In JavaScript, primitives are passed by value and objects/arrays are passed by reference. In the case of objects and arrays, if your function makes a change in a shopping cart array, for example, by adding an item to purchase, then any other function that uses that cart array will be affected by this addition. That may be great, however it can be bad too. Let's imagine a bad situation:

The user clicks the "Purchase", button which calls a purchase function that spawns a network request and sends the cart array to the server. Because of a bad network connection, the purchase function has to keep retrying the request. Now, what if in the meantime the user accidentally clicks "Add to Cart" button on an item they don't actually want before the network request begins? If that happens and the network request begins, then that purchase function will send the accidentally added item because it has a reference to a shopping cart array that the addItemToCart function modified by adding an unwanted item.

A great solution would be for the addItemToCart to always clone the cart, edit it, and return the clone. This ensures that no other functions that are holding onto a reference of the shopping cart will be affected by any changes.

Two caveats to mention to this approach:

1. There might be cases where you actually want to modify the input object, but when you adopt this programming practice you will find that those cases are pretty rare. Most things can be refactored to have no side effects! (see pure function)

2. Cloning big objects can be very expensive in terms of performance. Luckily, this isn't a big issue in practice because there are great libraries that allow this kind of programming approach to be fast and not as memory intensive as it would be for you to manually clone objects and arrays.

Bad:

function addItemToCart(cart: CartItem[], item: Item): void {
  cart.push({ item, date: Date.now() });
};

Good:

function addItemToCart(cart: CartItem[], item: Item): CartItem[] {
  return [...cart, { item, date: Date.now() }];
};

⬆ 상단으로

전역 함수를 작성하지 마세요

Polluting globals is a bad practice in JavaScript because you could clash with another library and the user of your API would be none-the-wiser until they get an exception in production. Let's think about an example: what if you wanted to extend JavaScript's native Array method to have a diff method that could show the difference between two arrays? You could write your new function to the Array.prototype, but it could clash with another library that tried to do the same thing. What if that other library was just using diff to find the difference between the first and last elements of an array? This is why it would be much better to just use classes and simply extend the Array global.

Bad:

declare global {
  interface Array<T> {
    diff(other: T[]): Array<T>;
  }
}

if (!Array.prototype.diff) {
  Array.prototype.diff = function <T>(other: T[]): T[] {
    const hash = new Set(other);
    return this.filter(elem => !hash.has(elem));
  };
}

Good:

class MyArray<T> extends Array<T> {
  diff(other: T[]): T[] {
    const hash = new Set(other);
    return this.filter(elem => !hash.has(elem));
  };
}

⬆ 상단으로

명령형 프로그래밍보다 함수형 프로그래밍을 지향하세요

가능하다면 이런 방식의 프로그래밍을 지향하세요.

Bad:

const contributions = [
  {
    name: 'Uncle Bobby',
    linesOfCode: 500
  }, {
    name: 'Suzie Q',
    linesOfCode: 1500
  }, {
    name: 'Jimmy Gosling',
    linesOfCode: 150
  }, {
    name: 'Gracie Hopper',
    linesOfCode: 1000
  }
];

let totalOutput = 0;

for (let i = 0; i < contributions.length; i++) {
  totalOutput += contributions[i].linesOfCode;
}

Good:

const contributions = [
  {
    name: 'Uncle Bobby',
    linesOfCode: 500
  }, {
    name: 'Suzie Q',
    linesOfCode: 1500
  }, {
    name: 'Jimmy Gosling',
    linesOfCode: 150
  }, {
    name: 'Gracie Hopper',
    linesOfCode: 1000
  }
];

const totalOutput = contributions
  .reduce((totalLines, output) => totalLines + output.linesOfCode, 0);

⬆ 상단으로

조건문을 캡슐화하세요

Bad:

if (subscription.isTrial || account.balance > 0) {
  // ...
}

Good:

function canActivateService(subscription: Subscription, account: Account) {
  return subscription.isTrial || account.balance > 0;
}

if (canActivateService(subscription, account)) {
  // ...
}

⬆ 상단으로

부정 조건문을 피하세요

Bad:

function isEmailNotUsed(email: string): boolean {
  // ...
}

if (isEmailNotUsed(email)) {
  // ...
}

Good:

function isEmailUsed(email): boolean {
  // ...
}

if (!isEmailUsed(node)) {
  // ...
}

⬆ 상단으로

조건문을 피하세요

This seems like an impossible task. Upon first hearing this, most people say, "how am I supposed to do anything without an if statement?" The answer is that you can use polymorphism to achieve the same task in many cases. The second question is usually, "well that's great but why would I want to do that?" The answer is a previous clean code concept we learned: a function should only do one thing. When you have classes and functions that have if statements, you are telling your user that your function does more than one thing. Remember, just do one thing.

Bad:

class Airplane {
  private type: string;
  // ...

  getCruisingAltitude() {
    switch (this.type) {
      case '777':
        return this.getMaxAltitude() - this.getPassengerCount();
      case 'Air Force One':
        return this.getMaxAltitude();
      case 'Cessna':
        return this.getMaxAltitude() - this.getFuelExpenditure();
      default:
        throw new Error('Unknown airplane type.');
    }
  }

  private getMaxAltitude(): number {
    // ...
  }
}

Good:

abstract class Airplane {
  protected getMaxAltitude(): number {
    // shared logic with subclasses ...
  }

  // ...
}

class Boeing777 extends Airplane {
  // ...
  getCruisingAltitude() {
    return this.getMaxAltitude() - this.getPassengerCount();
  }
}

class AirForceOne extends Airplane {
  // ...
  getCruisingAltitude() {
    return this.getMaxAltitude();
  }
}

class Cessna extends Airplane {
  // ...
  getCruisingAltitude() {
    return this.getMaxAltitude() - this.getFuelExpenditure();
  }
}

⬆ 상단으로

타입 체킹을 피하세요

TypeScript is a strict syntactical superset of JavaScript and adds optional static type checking to the language. Always prefer to specify types of variables, parameters and return values to leverage the full power of TypeScript features. It makes refactoring more easier.

Bad:

function travelToTexas(vehicle: Bicycle | Car) {
  if (vehicle instanceof Bicycle) {
    vehicle.pedal(currentLocation, new Location('texas'));
  } else if (vehicle instanceof Car) {
    vehicle.drive(currentLocation, new Location('texas'));
  }
}

Good:

type Vehicle = Bicycle | Car;

function travelToTexas(vehicle: Vehicle) {
  vehicle.move(currentLocation, new Location('texas'));
}

⬆ 상단으로

필요 이상으로 최적화하지 마세요

Modern browsers do a lot of optimization under-the-hood at runtime. A lot of times, if you are optimizing then you are just wasting your time. There are good resources for seeing where optimization is lacking. Target those in the meantime, until they are fixed if they can be.

Bad:

// On old browsers, each iteration with uncached `list.length` would be costly
// because of `list.length` recomputation. In modern browsers, this is optimized.
for (let i = 0, len = list.length; i < len; i++) {
  // ...
}

Good:

for (let i = 0; i < list.length; i++) {
  // ...
}

⬆ 상단으로

필요하지 않는 코드는 제거하세요

Dead code is just as bad as duplicate code. There's no reason to keep it in your codebase. If it's not being called, get rid of it! It will still be safe in your version history if you still need it.

Bad:

function oldRequestModule(url: string) {
  // ...
}

function requestModule(url: string) {
  // ...
}

const req = requestModule;
inventoryTracker('apples', req, 'www.inventory-awesome.io');

Good:

function requestModule(url: string) {
  // ...
}

const req = requestModule;
inventoryTracker('apples', req, 'www.inventory-awesome.io');

⬆ 상단으로

이터레이터와 제너레이터를 사용하세요

Use generators and iterables when working with collections of data used like a stream.
There are some good reasons:

• decouples the callee from the generator implementation in a sense that callee decides how many items to access
• lazy execution, items are streamed on demand
• built-in support for iterating items using the for-of syntax
• iterables allow to implement optimized iterator patterns

Bad:

function fibonacci(n: number): number[] {
  if (n === 1) return [0];
  if (n === 2) return [0, 1];

  const items: number[] = [0, 1];
  while (items.length < n) {
    items.push(items[items.length - 2] + items[items.length - 1]);
  }

  return items;
}

function print(n: number) {
  fibonacci(n).forEach(fib => console.log(fib));
}

// Print first 10 Fibonacci numbers.
print(10);

Good:

// Generates an infinite stream of Fibonacci numbers.
// The generator doesn't keep the array of all numbers.
function* fibonacci(): IterableIterator<number> {
  let [a, b] = [0, 1];

  while (true) {
    yield a;
    [a, b] = [b, a + b];
  }
}

function print(n: number) {
  let i = 0;
  for (const fib of fibonacci()) {
    if (i++ === n) break;  
    console.log(fib);
  }  
}

// Print first 10 Fibonacci numbers.
print(10);

There are libraries that allow working with iterables in a similar way as with native arrays, by chaining methods like map, slice, forEach etc. See itiriri for an example of advanced manipulation with iterables (or itiriri-async for manipulation of async iterables).

import itiriri from 'itiriri';

function* fibonacci(): IterableIterator<number> {
  let [a, b] = [0, 1];
 
  while (true) {
    yield a;
    [a, b] = [b, a + b];
  }
}

itiriri(fibonacci())
  .take(10)
  .forEach(fib => console.log(fib));

⬆ 상단으로

Objects and Data Structures

Use getters and setters

TypeScript supports getter/setter syntax. Using getters and setters to access data from objects that encapsulate behavior could be better than simply looking for a property on an object. "Why?" you might ask. Well, here's a list of reasons:

• When you want to do more beyond getting an object property, you don't have to look up and change every accessor in your codebase.
• Makes adding validation simple when doing a set.
• Encapsulates the internal representation.
• Easy to add logging and error handling when getting and setting.
• You can lazy load your object's properties, let's say getting it from a server.

Bad:

type BankAccount = {
  balance: number;
  // ...
}

const value = 100;
const account: BankAccount = {
  balance: 0,
  // ...
};

if (value < 0) {
  throw new Error('Cannot set negative balance.');
}

account.balance = value;

Good:

class BankAccount {
  private accountBalance: number = 0;

  get balance(): number {
    return this.accountBalance;
  }

  set balance(value: number) {
    if (value < 0) {
      throw new Error('Cannot set negative balance.');
    }

    this.accountBalance = value;
  }

  // ...
}

// Now `BankAccount` encapsulates the validation logic.
// If one day the specifications change, and we need extra validation rule,
// we would have to alter only the `setter` implementation,
// leaving all dependent code unchanged.
const account = new BankAccount();
account.balance = 100;

⬆ 상단으로

Make objects have private/protected members

TypeScript supports public (default), protected and private accessors on class members.

Bad:

class Circle {
  radius: number;
  
  constructor(radius: number) {
    this.radius = radius;
  }

  perimeter() {
    return 2 * Math.PI * this.radius;
  }

  surface() {
    return Math.PI * this.radius * this.radius;
  }
}

Good:

class Circle {
  constructor(private readonly radius: number) {
  }

  perimeter() {
    return 2 * Math.PI * this.radius;
  }

  surface() {
    return Math.PI * this.radius * this.radius;
  }
}

⬆ 상단으로

Prefer immutability

TypeScript's type system allows you to mark individual properties on an interface / class as readonly. This allows you to work in a functional way (unexpected mutation is bad).
For more advanced scenarios there is a built-in type Readonly that takes a type T and marks all of its properties as readonly using mapped types (see mapped types).

Bad:

interface Config {
  host: string;
  port: string;
  db: string;
}

Good:

interface Config {
  readonly host: string;
  readonly port: string;
  readonly db: string;
}

Case of Array, you can create a read-only array by using ReadonlyArray<T>. do not allow changes such as push() and fill(), but can use features such as concat() and slice() that do not change the value.

Bad:

const array: number[] = [ 1, 3, 5 ];
array = []; // error
array.push(100); // array will updated

Good:

const array: ReadonlyArray<number> = [ 1, 3, 5 ];
array = []; // error
array.push(100); // error

Declaring read-only arguments in TypeScript 3.4 is a bit easier.

function hoge(args: readonly string[]) {
  args.push(1); // error
}

Prefer const assertions for literal values.

Bad:

const config = {
  hello: 'world'
};
config.hello = 'world'; // value is changed

const array  = [ 1, 3, 5 ];
array[0] = 10; // value is changed

// writable objects is returned
function readonlyData(value: number) {
  return { value };
}

const result = readonlyData(100);
result.value = 200; // value is changed

Good:

// read-only object
const config = {
  hello: 'world'
} as const;
config.hello = 'world'; // error

// read-only array
const array  = [ 1, 3, 5 ] as const;
array[0] = 10; // error

// You can return read-only objects
function readonlyData(value: number) {
  return { value } as const;
}

const result = readonlyData(100);
result.value = 200; // error

⬆ 상단으로

type vs. interface

Use type when you might need a union or intersection. Use interface when you want extends or implements. There is no strict rule however, use the one that works for you.
For a more detailed explanation refer to this answer about the differences between type and interface in TypeScript.

Bad:

interface EmailConfig {
  // ...
}

interface DbConfig {
  // ...
}

interface Config {
  // ...
}

//...

type Shape = {
  // ...
}

Good:

type EmailConfig = {
  // ...
}

type DbConfig = {
  // ...
}

type Config  = EmailConfig | DbConfig;

// ...

interface Shape {
  // ...
}

class Circle implements Shape {
  // ...
}

class Square implements Shape {
  // ...
}

⬆ 상단으로

Classes

Classes should be small

The class' size is measured by its responsibility. Following the Single Responsibility principle a class should be small.

Bad:

class Dashboard {
  getLanguage(): string { /* ... */ }
  setLanguage(language: string): void { /* ... */ }
  showProgress(): void { /* ... */ }
  hideProgress(): void { /* ... */ }
  isDirty(): boolean { /* ... */ }
  disable(): void { /* ... */ }
  enable(): void { /* ... */ }
  addSubscription(subscription: Subscription): void { /* ... */ }
  removeSubscription(subscription: Subscription): void { /* ... */ }
  addUser(user: User): void { /* ... */ }
  removeUser(user: User): void { /* ... */ }
  goToHomePage(): void { /* ... */ }
  updateProfile(details: UserDetails): void { /* ... */ }
  getVersion(): string { /* ... */ }
  // ...
}

Good:

class Dashboard {
  disable(): void { /* ... */ }
  enable(): void { /* ... */ }
  getVersion(): string { /* ... */ }
}

// split the responsibilities by moving the remaining methods to other classes
// ...

⬆ 상단으로

High cohesion and low coupling

Cohesion defines the degree to which class members are related to each other. Ideally, all fields within a class should be used by each method. We then say that the class is maximally cohesive. In practice, this however is not always possible, nor even advisable. You should however prefer cohesion to be high.

Coupling refers to how related or dependent are two classes toward each other. Classes are said to be low coupled if changes in one of them doesn't affect the other one.

Good software design has high cohesion and low coupling.

Bad:

class UserManager {
  // Bad: each private variable is used by one or another group of methods.
  // It makes clear evidence that the class is holding more than a single responsibility.
  // If I need only to create the service to get the transactions for a user,
  // I'm still forced to pass and instance of `emailSender`.
  constructor(
    private readonly db: Database,
    private readonly emailSender: EmailSender) {
  }

  async getUser(id: number): Promise<User> {
    return await db.users.findOne({ id });
  }

  async getTransactions(userId: number): Promise<Transaction[]> {
    return await db.transactions.find({ userId });
  }

  async sendGreeting(): Promise<void> {
    await emailSender.send('Welcome!');
  }

  async sendNotification(text: string): Promise<void> {
    await emailSender.send(text);
  }

  async sendNewsletter(): Promise<void> {
    // ...
  }
}

Good:

class UserService {
  constructor(private readonly db: Database) {
  }

  async getUser(id: number): Promise<User> {
    return await this.db.users.findOne({ id });
  }

  async getTransactions(userId: number): Promise<Transaction[]> {
    return await this.db.transactions.find({ userId });
  }
}

class UserNotifier {
  constructor(private readonly emailSender: EmailSender) {
  }

  async sendGreeting(): Promise<void> {
    await this.emailSender.send('Welcome!');
  }

  async sendNotification(text: string): Promise<void> {
    await this.emailSender.send(text);
  }

  async sendNewsletter(): Promise<void> {
    // ...
  }
}

⬆ 상단으로

Prefer composition over inheritance

As stated famously in Design Patterns by the Gang of Four, you should prefer composition over inheritance where you can. There are lots of good reasons to use inheritance and lots of good reasons to use composition. The main point for this maxim is that if your mind instinctively goes for inheritance, try to think if composition could model your problem better. In some cases it can.

You might be wondering then, "when should I use inheritance?" It depends on your problem at hand, but this is a decent list of when inheritance makes more sense than composition:

1. Your inheritance represents an "is-a" relationship and not a "has-a" relationship (Human->Animal vs. User->UserDetails).

2. You can reuse code from the base classes (Humans can move like all animals).

3. You want to make global changes to derived classes by changing a base class. (Change the caloric expenditure of all animals when they move).

Bad:

class Employee {
  constructor(
    private readonly name: string,
    private readonly email: string) {
  }

  // ...
}

// Bad because Employees "have" tax data. EmployeeTaxData is not a type of Employee
class EmployeeTaxData extends Employee {
  constructor(
    name: string,
    email: string,
    private readonly ssn: string,
    private readonly salary: number) {
    super(name, email);
  }

  // ...
}

Good:

class Employee {
  private taxData: EmployeeTaxData;

  constructor(
    private readonly name: string,
    private readonly email: string) {
  }

  setTaxData(ssn: string, salary: number): Employee {
    this.taxData = new EmployeeTaxData(ssn, salary);
    return this;
  }

  // ...
}

class EmployeeTaxData {
  constructor(
    public readonly ssn: string,
    public readonly salary: number) {
  }

  // ...
}

⬆ 상단으로

Use method chaining

This pattern is very useful and commonly used in many libraries. It allows your code to be expressive, and less verbose. For that reason, use method chaining and take a look at how clean your code will be.

Bad:

class QueryBuilder {
  private collection: string;
  private pageNumber: number = 1;
  private itemsPerPage: number = 100;
  private orderByFields: string[] = [];

  from(collection: string): void {
    this.collection = collection;
  }

  page(number: number, itemsPerPage: number = 100): void {
    this.pageNumber = number;
    this.itemsPerPage = itemsPerPage;
  }

  orderBy(...fields: string[]): void {
    this.orderByFields = fields;
  }

  build(): Query {
    // ...
  }
}

// ...

const queryBuilder = new QueryBuilder();
queryBuilder.from('users');
queryBuilder.page(1, 100);
queryBuilder.orderBy('firstName', 'lastName');

const query = queryBuilder.build();

Good:

class QueryBuilder {
  private collection: string;
  private pageNumber: number = 1;
  private itemsPerPage: number = 100;
  private orderByFields: string[] = [];

  from(collection: string): this {
    this.collection = collection;
    return this;
  }

  page(number: number, itemsPerPage: number = 100): this {
    this.pageNumber = number;
    this.itemsPerPage = itemsPerPage;
    return this;
  }

  orderBy(...fields: string[]): this {
    this.orderByFields = fields;
    return this;
  }

  build(): Query {
    // ...
  }
}

// ...

const query = new QueryBuilder()
  .from('users')
  .page(1, 100)
  .orderBy('firstName', 'lastName')
  .build();

⬆ 상단으로

SOLID

Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)

As stated in Clean Code, "There should never be more than one reason for a class to change". It's tempting to jam-pack a class with a lot of functionality, like when you can only take one suitcase on your flight. The issue with this is that your class won't be conceptually cohesive and it will give it many reasons to change. Minimizing the amount of times you need to change a class is important. It's important because if too much functionality is in one class and you modify a piece of it, it can be difficult to understand how that will affect other dependent modules in your codebase.

Bad:

class UserSettings {
  constructor(private readonly user: User) {
  }

  changeSettings(settings: UserSettings) {
    if (this.verifyCredentials()) {
      // ...
    }
  }

  verifyCredentials() {
    // ...
  }
}

Good:

class UserAuth {
  constructor(private readonly user: User) {
  }

  verifyCredentials() {
    // ...
  }
}


class UserSettings {
  private readonly auth: UserAuth;

  constructor(private readonly user: User) {
    this.auth = new UserAuth(user);
  }

  changeSettings(settings: UserSettings) {
    if (this.auth.verifyCredentials()) {
      // ...
    }
  }
}

⬆ 상단으로

Open/Closed Principle (OCP)

As stated by Bertrand Meyer, "software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification." What does that mean though? This principle basically states that you should allow users to add new functionalities without changing existing code.

Bad:

class AjaxAdapter extends Adapter {
  constructor() {
    super();
  }

  // ...
}

class NodeAdapter extends Adapter {
  constructor() {
    super();
  }

  // ...
}

class HttpRequester {
  constructor(private readonly adapter: Adapter) {
  }

  async fetch<T>(url: string): Promise<T> {
    if (this.adapter instanceof AjaxAdapter) {
      const response = await makeAjaxCall<T>(url);
      // transform response and return
    } else if (this.adapter instanceof NodeAdapter) {
      const response = await makeHttpCall<T>(url);
      // transform response and return
    }
  }
}

function makeAjaxCall<T>(url: string): Promise<T> {
  // request and return promise
}

function makeHttpCall<T>(url: string): Promise<T> {
  // request and return promise
}

Good:

abstract class Adapter {
  abstract async request<T>(url: string): Promise<T>;

  // code shared to subclasses ...
}

class AjaxAdapter extends Adapter {
  constructor() {
    super();
  }

  async request<T>(url: string): Promise<T>{
    // request and return promise
  }

  // ...
}

class NodeAdapter extends Adapter {
  constructor() {
    super();
  }

  async request<T>(url: string): Promise<T>{
    // request and return promise
  }

  // ...
}

class HttpRequester {
  constructor(private readonly adapter: Adapter) {
  }

  async fetch<T>(url: string): Promise<T> {
    const response = await this.adapter.request<T>(url);
    // transform response and return
  }
}

⬆ 상단으로

Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP)

This is a scary term for a very simple concept. It's formally defined as "If S is a subtype of T, then objects of type T may be replaced with objects of type S (i.e., objects of type S may substitute objects of type T) without altering any of the desirable properties of that program (correctness, task performed, etc.)." That's an even scarier definition.

The best explanation for this is if you have a parent class and a child class, then the parent class and child class can be used interchangeably without getting incorrect results. This might still be confusing, so let's take a look at the classic Square-Rectangle example. Mathematically, a square is a rectangle, but if you model it using the "is-a" relationship via inheritance, you quickly get into trouble.

Bad:

class Rectangle {
  constructor(
    protected width: number = 0,
    protected height: number = 0) {

  }

  setColor(color: string): this {
    // ...
  }

  render(area: number) {
    // ...
  }

  setWidth(width: number): this {
    this.width = width;
    return this;
  }

  setHeight(height: number): this {
    this.height = height;
    return this;
  }

  getArea(): number {
    return this.width * this.height;
  }
}

class Square extends Rectangle {
  setWidth(width: number): this {
    this.width = width;
    this.height = width;
    return this;
  }

  setHeight(height: number): this {
    this.width = height;
    this.height = height;
    return this;
  }
}

function renderLargeRectangles(rectangles: Rectangle[]) {
  rectangles.forEach((rectangle) => {
    const area = rectangle
      .setWidth(4)
      .setHeight(5)
      .getArea(); // BAD: Returns 25 for Square. Should be 20.
    rectangle.render(area);
  });
}

const rectangles = [new Rectangle(), new Rectangle(), new Square()];
renderLargeRectangles(rectangles);

Good:

abstract class Shape {
  setColor(color: string): this {
    // ...
  }

  render(area: number) {
    // ...
  }

  abstract getArea(): number;
}

class Rectangle extends Shape {
  constructor(
    private readonly width = 0,
    private readonly height = 0) {
    super();
  }

  getArea(): number {
    return this.width * this.height;
  }
}

class Square extends Shape {
  constructor(private readonly length: number) {
    super();
  }

  getArea(): number {
    return this.length * this.length;
  }
}

function renderLargeShapes(shapes: Shape[]) {
  shapes.forEach((shape) => {
    const area = shape.getArea();
    shape.render(area);
  });
}

const shapes = [new Rectangle(4, 5), new Rectangle(4, 5), new Square(5)];
renderLargeShapes(shapes);

⬆ 상단으로

Interface Segregation Principle (ISP)

ISP states that "Clients should not be forced to depend upon interfaces that they do not use.". This principle is very much related to the Single Responsibility Principle. What it really means is that you should always design your abstractions in a way that the clients that are using the exposed methods do not get the whole pie instead. That also include imposing the clients with the burden of implementing methods that they don’t actually need.

Bad:

interface SmartPrinter {
  print();
  fax();
  scan();
}

class AllInOnePrinter implements SmartPrinter {
  print() {
    // ...
  }  
  
  fax() {
    // ...
  }

  scan() {
    // ...
  }
}

class EconomicPrinter implements SmartPrinter {
  print() {
    // ...
  }  
  
  fax() {
    throw new Error('Fax not supported.');
  }

  scan() {
    throw new Error('Scan not supported.');
  }
}

Good:

interface Printer {
  print();
}

interface Fax {
  fax();
}

interface Scanner {
  scan();
}

class AllInOnePrinter implements Printer, Fax, Scanner {
  print() {
    // ...
  }  
  
  fax() {
    // ...
  }

  scan() {
    // ...
  }
}

class EconomicPrinter implements Printer {
  print() {
    // ...
  }
}

⬆ 상단으로

Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)

This principle states two essential things:

1. High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should depend on abstractions.

2. Abstractions should not depend upon details. Details should depend on abstractions.

This can be hard to understand at first, but if you've worked with Angular, you've seen an implementation of this principle in the form of Dependency Injection (DI). While they are not identical concepts, DIP keeps high-level modules from knowing the details of its low-level modules and setting them up. It can accomplish this through DI. A huge benefit of this is that it reduces the coupling between modules. Coupling is a very bad development pattern because it makes your code hard to refactor.

DIP is usually achieved by a using an inversion of control (IoC) container. An example of a powerful IoC container for TypeScript is InversifyJs

Bad:

import { readFile as readFileCb } from 'fs';
import { promisify } from 'util';

const readFile = promisify(readFileCb);

type ReportData = {
  // ..
}

class XmlFormatter {
  parse<T>(content: string): T {
    // Converts an XML string to an object T
  }
}

class ReportReader {

  // BAD: We have created a dependency on a specific request implementation.
  // We should just have ReportReader depend on a parse method: `parse`
  private readonly formatter = new XmlFormatter();

  async read(path: string): Promise<ReportData> {
    const text = await readFile(path, 'UTF8');
    return this.formatter.parse<ReportData>(text);
  }
}

// ...
const reader = new ReportReader();
await report = await reader.read('report.xml');

Good:

import { readFile as readFileCb } from 'fs';
import { promisify } from 'util';

const readFile = promisify(readFileCb);

type ReportData = {
  // ..
}

interface Formatter {
  parse<T>(content: string): T;
}

class XmlFormatter implements Formatter {
  parse<T>(content: string): T {
    // Converts an XML string to an object T
  }
}


class JsonFormatter implements Formatter {
  parse<T>(content: string): T {
    // Converts a JSON string to an object T
  }
}

class ReportReader {
  constructor(private readonly formatter: Formatter) {
  }

  async read(path: string): Promise<ReportData> {
    const text = await readFile(path, 'UTF8');
    return this.formatter.parse<ReportData>(text);
  }
}

// ...
const reader = new ReportReader(new XmlFormatter());
await report = await reader.read('report.xml');

// or if we had to read a json report
const reader = new ReportReader(new JsonFormatter());
await report = await reader.read('report.json');

⬆ 상단으로

Testing

Testing is more important than shipping. If you have no tests or an inadequate amount, then every time you ship code you won't be sure that you didn't break anything. Deciding on what constitutes an adequate amount is up to your team, but having 100% coverage (all statements and branches) is how you achieve very high confidence and developer peace of mind. This means that in addition to having a great testing framework, you also need to use a good coverage tool.

There's no excuse to not write tests. There are plenty of good JS test frameworks with typings support for TypeScript, so find one that your team prefers. When you find one that works for your team, then aim to always write tests for every new feature/module you introduce. If your preferred method is Test Driven Development (TDD), that is great, but the main point is to just make sure you are reaching your coverage goals before launching any feature, or refactoring an existing one.

The three laws of TDD

1. You are not allowed to write any production code unless it is to make a failing unit test pass.

2. You are not allowed to write any more of a unit test than is sufficient to fail; and compilation failures are failures.

3. You are not allowed to write any more production code than is sufficient to pass the one failing unit test.

⬆ 상단으로

F.I.R.S.T. rules

Clean tests should follow the rules:

• Fast tests should be fast because we want to run them frequently.

• Independent tests should not depend on each other. They should provide same output whether run independently or all together in any order.

• Repeatable tests should be repeatable in any environment and there should be no excuse for why they fail.

• Self-Validating a test should answer with either Passed or Failed. You don't need to compare log files to answer if a test passed.

• Timely unit tests should be written before the production code. If you write tests after the production code, you might find writing tests too hard.

⬆ 상단으로

Single concept per test

Tests should also follow the Single Responsibility Principle. Make only one assert per unit test.

Bad:

import { assert } from 'chai';

describe('AwesomeDate', () => {
  it('handles date boundaries', () => {
    let date: AwesomeDate;

    date = new AwesomeDate('1/1/2015');
    assert.equal('1/31/2015', date.addDays(30));

    date = new AwesomeDate('2/1/2016');
    assert.equal('2/29/2016', date.addDays(28));

    date = new AwesomeDate('2/1/2015');
    assert.equal('3/1/2015', date.addDays(28));
  });
});

Good:

import { assert } from 'chai';

describe('AwesomeDate', () => {
  it('handles 30-day months', () => {
    const date = new AwesomeDate('1/1/2015');
    assert.equal('1/31/2015', date.addDays(30));
  });

  it('handles leap year', () => {
    const date = new AwesomeDate('2/1/2016');
    assert.equal('2/29/2016', date.addDays(28));
  });

  it('handles non-leap year', () => {
    const date = new AwesomeDate('2/1/2015');
    assert.equal('3/1/2015', date.addDays(28));
  });
});

⬆ 상단으로

The name of the test should reveal its intention

When a test fail, its name is the first indication of what may have gone wrong.

Bad:

describe('Calendar', () => {
  it('2/29/2020', () => {
    // ...
  });

  it('throws', () => {
    // ...
  });
});

Good:

describe('Calendar', () => {
  it('should handle leap year', () => {
    // ...
  });

  it('should throw when format is invalid', () => {
    // ...
  });
});

⬆ 상단으로

Concurrency

Prefer promises vs callbacks

Callbacks aren't clean, and they cause excessive amounts of nesting (the callback hell).
There are utilities that transform existing functions using the callback style to a version that returns promises (for Node.js see util.promisify, for general purpose see pify, es6-promisify)

Bad:

import { get } from 'request';
import { writeFile } from 'fs';

function downloadPage(url: string, saveTo: string, callback: (error: Error, content?: string) => void) {
  get(url, (error, response) => {
    if (error) {
      callback(error);
    } else {
      writeFile(saveTo, response.body, (error) => {
        if (error) {
          callback(error);
        } else {
          callback(null, response.body);
        }
      });
    }
  });
}

downloadPage('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil_Martin', 'article.html', (error, content) => {
  if (error) {
    console.error(error);
  } else {
    console.log(content);
  }
});

Good:

import { get } from 'request';
import { writeFile } from 'fs';
import { promisify } from 'util';

const write = promisify(writeFile);

function downloadPage(url: string, saveTo: string): Promise<string> {
  return get(url)
    .then(response => write(saveTo, response));
}

downloadPage('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil_Martin', 'article.html')
  .then(content => console.log(content))
  .catch(error => console.error(error));  

Promises supports a few helper methods that help make code more conscise:

Pattern	Description
Promise.resolve(value)	Convert a value into a resolved promise.
Promise.reject(error)	Convert an error into a rejected promise.
Promise.all(promises)	Returns a new promise which is fulfilled with an array of fulfillment values for the passed promises or rejects with the reason of the first promise that rejects.
Promise.race(promises)	Returns a new promise which is fulfilled/rejected with the result/error of the first settled promise from the array of passed promises.

Promise.all is especially useful when there is a need to run tasks in parallel. Promise.race makes it easier to implement things like timeouts for promises.

⬆ 상단으로

Async/Await are even cleaner than Promises

With async/await syntax you can write code that is far cleaner and more understandable than chained promises. Within a function prefixed with async keyword you have a way to tell the JavaScript runtime to pause the execution of code on the await keyword (when used on a promise).

Bad:

import { get } from 'request';
import { writeFile } from 'fs';
import { promisify } from 'util';

const write = util.promisify(writeFile);

function downloadPage(url: string, saveTo: string): Promise<string> {
  return get(url).then(response => write(saveTo, response));
}

downloadPage('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil_Martin', 'article.html')
  .then(content => console.log(content))
  .catch(error => console.error(error));  

Good:

import { get } from 'request';
import { writeFile } from 'fs';
import { promisify } from 'util';

const write = promisify(writeFile);

async function downloadPage(url: string, saveTo: string): Promise<string> {
  const response = await get(url);
  await write(saveTo, response);
  return response;
}

// somewhere in an async function
try {
  const content = await downloadPage('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cecil_Martin', 'article.html');
  console.log(content);
} catch (error) {
  console.error(error);
}

⬆ 상단으로

Error Handling

Thrown errors are a good thing! They mean the runtime has successfully identified when something in your program has gone wrong and it's letting you know by stopping function execution on the current stack, killing the process (in Node), and notifying you in the console with a stack trace.

Always use Error for throwing or rejecting

JavaScript as well as TypeScript allow you to throw any object. A Promise can also be rejected with any reason object.
It is advisable to use the throw syntax with an Error type. This is because your error might be caught in higher level code with a catch syntax. It would be very confusing to catch a string message there and would make debugging more painful.
For the same reason you should reject promises with Error types.

Bad:

function calculateTotal(items: Item[]): number {
  throw 'Not implemented.';
}

function get(): Promise<Item[]> {
  return Promise.reject('Not implemented.');
}

Good:

function calculateTotal(items: Item[]): number {
  throw new Error('Not implemented.');
}

function get(): Promise<Item[]> {
  return Promise.reject(new Error('Not implemented.'));
}

// or equivalent to:

async function get(): Promise<Item[]> {
  throw new Error('Not implemented.');
}

The benefit of using Error types is that it is supported by the syntax try/catch/finally and implicitly all errors have the stack property which is very powerful for debugging.
There are also another alternatives, not to use the throw syntax and instead always return custom error objects. TypeScript makes this even easier. Consider following example:

type Result<R> = { isError: false, value: R };
type Failure<E> = { isError: true, error: E };
type Failable<R, E> = Result<R> | Failure<E>;

function calculateTotal(items: Item[]): Failable<number, 'empty'> {
  if (items.length === 0) {
    return { isError: true, error: 'empty' };
  }

  // ...
  return { isError: false, value: 42 };
}

For the detailed explanation of this idea refer to the original post.

⬆ 상단으로

Don't ignore caught errors

Doing nothing with a caught error doesn't give you the ability to ever fix or react to said error. Logging the error to the console (console.log) isn't much better as often times it can get lost in a sea of things printed to the console. If you wrap any bit of code in a try/catch it means you think an error may occur there and therefore you should have a plan, or create a code path, for when it occurs.

Bad:

try {
  functionThatMightThrow();
} catch (error) {
  console.log(error);
}

// or even worse

try {
  functionThatMightThrow();
} catch (error) {
  // ignore error
}

Good:

import { logger } from './logging'

try {
  functionThatMightThrow();
} catch (error) {
  logger.log(error);
}

⬆ 상단으로

Don't ignore rejected promises

For the same reason you shouldn't ignore caught errors from try/catch.

Bad:

getUser()
  .then((user: User) => {
    return sendEmail(user.email, 'Welcome!');
  })
  .catch((error) => {
    console.log(error);
  });

Good:

import { logger } from './logging'

getUser()
  .then((user: User) => {
    return sendEmail(user.email, 'Welcome!');
  })
  .catch((error) => {
    logger.log(error);
  });

// or using the async/await syntax:

try {
  const user = await getUser();
  await sendEmail(user.email, 'Welcome!');
} catch (error) {
  logger.log(error);
}

⬆ 상단으로

서식(Formatting)

서식은 주관적입니다. 여기에 있는 많은 규칙들과 같이 당신이 따르기 어려운 규칙은 없습니다. 중요한 점은 서식에 대해서 논쟁하지 않는 것입니다. 서식을 자동화하기 위한 도구들이 매우 많습니다. 그 중 하나를 사용하세요! 서식에 대해 논쟁하는 것은 엔지니어에게 시간과 돈 낭비일 뿐입니다. 따라야하는 일반적인 규칙은 일관적인 서식 규칙을 지켜야하는 것입니다.

TSLint라고 불리는 타입스크립트를 위한 강력한 도구가 있습니다. 이것은 코드의 가독성과 유지보수성을 극적으로 개선시키도록 도와주는 정적 분석 도구입니다. 프로젝트에 참고할 수 있는 TSLint 설정을 사용할 준비가 되었습니다:

• TSLint Config Standard - 표준 스타일 규칙

• TSLint Config Airbnb - 에어비엔비 스타일 가이드

• TSLint Clean Code - Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship에 영감 받은 TSLint 규칙

• TSLint react - React & JSX와 관련된 lint 규칙

• TSLint + Prettier - Prettier 코드 포맷터를 위한 lint 규칙

• ESLint rules for TSLint - 타입스크립트를 위한 ESLint 규칙

• Immutable - 타입스크립트에서 변경을 허락하지 않는 규칙

또한, 훌륭한 자료인 타입스크립트 스타일 가이드와 코딩 컨벤션을 참고해주세요.

역자주: TSLint는 deprecated되었습니다. Roadmap: TSLint -> ESLint 이슈를 확인해주세요.

일관적으로 대소문자를 사용하세요

대소문자를 구분하여 작성하는 것은 당신에게 변수, 함수 등에 대해서 많은 것을 알려줍니다. 이 규칙은 주관적이어서, 당신의 팀이 원하는 것을 선택해야 합니다. 중요한 점은 어떤 걸 선택하였든지 간에 일관적이어야 한다는 것입니다.

Bad:

const DAYS_IN_WEEK = 7;
const daysInMonth = 30;

const songs = ['Back In Black', 'Stairway to Heaven', 'Hey Jude'];
const Artists = ['ACDC', 'Led Zeppelin', 'The Beatles'];

function eraseDatabase() {}
function restore_database() {}

type animal = { /* ... */ }
type Container = { /* ... */ }

Good:

const DAYS_IN_WEEK = 7;
const DAYS_IN_MONTH = 30;

const SONGS = ['Back In Black', 'Stairway to Heaven', 'Hey Jude'];
const ARTISTS = ['ACDC', 'Led Zeppelin', 'The Beatles'];

function eraseDatabase() {}
function restoreDatabase() {}

type Animal = { /* ... */ }
type Container = { /* ... */ }

Prefer using PascalCase for class, interface, type and namespace names.
Prefer using camelCase for variables, functions and class members.

⬆ 상단으로

Function callers and callees should be close

If a function calls another, keep those functions vertically close in the source file. Ideally, keep the caller right above the callee. We tend to read code from top-to-bottom, like a newspaper. Because of this, make your code read that way.

Bad:

class PerformanceReview {
  constructor(private readonly employee: Employee) {
  }

  private lookupPeers() {
    return db.lookup(this.employee.id, 'peers');
  }

  private lookupManager() {
    return db.lookup(this.employee, 'manager');
  }

  private getPeerReviews() {
    const peers = this.lookupPeers();
    // ...
  }

  review() {
    this.getPeerReviews();
    this.getManagerReview();
    this.getSelfReview();

    // ...
  }

  private getManagerReview() {
    const manager = this.lookupManager();
  }

  private getSelfReview() {
    // ...
  }
}

const review = new PerformanceReview(employee);
review.review();

Good:

class PerformanceReview {
  constructor(private readonly employee: Employee) {
  }

  review() {
    this.getPeerReviews();
    this.getManagerReview();
    this.getSelfReview();

    // ...
  }

  private getPeerReviews() {
    const peers = this.lookupPeers();
    // ...
  }

  private lookupPeers() {
    return db.lookup(this.employee.id, 'peers');
  }

  private getManagerReview() {
    const manager = this.lookupManager();
  }

  private lookupManager() {
    return db.lookup(this.employee, 'manager');
  }

  private getSelfReview() {
    // ...
  }
}

const review = new PerformanceReview(employee);
review.review();

⬆ 상단으로

Organize imports

With clean and easy to read import statements you can quickly see the dependencies of current code. Make sure you apply following good practices for import statements:

• Import statements should be alphabetized and grouped.
• Unused imports should be removed.
• Named imports must be alphabetized (i.e. import {A, B, C} from 'foo';)
• Import sources must be alphabetized within groups, i.e.: import * as foo from 'a'; import * as bar from 'b';
• Groups of imports are delineated by blank lines.
• Groups must respect following order:
  • Polyfills (i.e. import 'reflect-metadata';)
  • Node builtin modules (i.e. import fs from 'fs';)
  • external modules (i.e. import { query } from 'itiriri';)
  • internal modules (i.e import { UserService } from 'src/services/userService';)
  • modules from a parent directory (i.e. import foo from '../foo'; import qux from '../../foo/qux';)
  • modules from the same or a sibling's directory (i.e. import bar from './bar'; import baz from './bar/baz';)

Bad:

import { TypeDefinition } from '../types/typeDefinition';
import { AttributeTypes } from '../model/attribute';
import { ApiCredentials, Adapters } from './common/api/authorization';
import fs from 'fs';
import { ConfigPlugin } from './plugins/config/configPlugin';
import { BindingScopeEnum, Container } from 'inversify';
import 'reflect-metadata';

Good:

import 'reflect-metadata';

import fs from 'fs';
import { BindingScopeEnum, Container } from 'inversify';

import { AttributeTypes } from '../model/attribute';
import { TypeDefinition } from '../types/typeDefinition';

import { ApiCredentials, Adapters } from './common/api/authorization';
import { ConfigPlugin } from './plugins/config/configPlugin';

⬆ 상단으로

타입스크립트 앨리어스를 사용하세요

tsconfig.json의 compilerOptions 섹션 안에서 paths와 baseUrl 속성을 정의해 더 보기 좋은 import 구문을 작성해주세요.

이 방법은 import 구문을 사용할 때 긴 상대경로를 작성하는 것을 피하게 도와줄 것입니다.

Bad:

import { UserService } from '../../../services/UserService';

Good:

import { UserService } from '@services/UserService';

// tsconfig.json
...
  "compilerOptions": {
    ...
    "baseUrl": "src",
    "paths": {
      "@services": ["services/*"]
    }
    ...
  }
...

⬆ 상단으로

주석(Comments)

주석을 사용하는 것은 주석 없이 코드를 작성하는 것이 실패했다는 표시입니다. 코드는 단일 진실 공급원(Single source of truth)이어야 합니다.

나쁜 코드에 주석들 달지 마라. 새로 짜라.
— Brian W. Kernighan and P. J. Plaugher

주석 대신에 자체적으로 설명 가능한 코드를 작성하세요

주석은 사과일 뿐, 필요한 것이 아닙니다. 좋은 코드는 대부분 그 존재 자체로 문서화가 됩니다.

Bad:

// subscription이 활성화 상태인지 체크합니다.
if (subscription.endDate > Date.now) {  }

Good:

const isSubscriptionActive = subscription.endDate > Date.now;
if (isSubscriptionActive) { /* ... */ }

⬆ 상단으로

당신의 코드를 주석 처리하지 마세요

버전 관리 시스템이 존재하는 이유입니다. 사용하지 않는 코드는 기록에 남기세요.

Bad:

type User = {
  name: string;
  email: string;
  // age: number;
  // jobPosition: string;
}

Good:

type User = {
  name: string;
  email: string;
}

⬆ 상단으로

일기 같은 주석을 달지 마세요

버전 관리 시스템을 사용하세요! 죽은 코드, 주석 처리된 코드, 특히 일기 같은 주석은 필요 없습니다. 대신에 기록을 보기 위해 git log 명령어를 사용하세요!

Bad:

/**
 * 2016-12-20: Removed monads, didn't understand them (RM)
 * 2016-10-01: Improved using special monads (JP)
 * 2016-02-03: Added type-checking (LI)
 * 2015-03-14: Implemented combine (JR)
 */
function combine(a: number, b: number): number {
  return a + b;
}

Good:

function combine(a: number, b: number): number {
  return a + b;
}

⬆ 상단으로

코드의 위치를 설명하는 주석을 사용하지 마세요

이건 보통 코드를 어지럽히기만 합니다. 함수와 변수 이름을 적절한 들여쓰기와 서식으로 당신의 코드에 시각적인 구조가 보이도록 하세요.
대부분의 IDE(통합 개발 환경)에서는 코드 블록을 접기/펼치기 할 수 있는 기능을 지원합니다. (Visual Studio Code의 folding regions를 확인해보세요).

Bad:

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Client class
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
class Client {
  id: number;
  name: string;
  address: Address;
  contact: Contact;

  ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
  // public methods
  ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
  public describe(): string {
    // ...
  }

  ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
  // private methods
  ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
  private describeAddress(): string {
    // ...
  }

  private describeContact(): string {
    // ...
  }
};

Good:

class Client {
  id: number;
  name: string;
  address: Address;
  contact: Contact;

  public describe(): string {
    // ...
  }

  private describeAddress(): string {
    // ...
  }

  private describeContact(): string {
    // ...
  }
};

⬆ 상단으로

TODO 주석

추후에 개선을 위해 코드에 메모를 남겨야할 때, // TODO 주석을 사용하세요. 대부분의 IDE는 이런 종류의 주석을 특별하게 지원하기 때문에 해야할 일 목록을 빠르게 검토할 수 있습니다.

하지만 TODO 주석이 나쁜 코드에 대한 변명은 아니라는 것을 명심하세요.

Bad:

function getActiveSubscriptions(): Promise<Subscription[]> {
  // ensure `dueDate` is indexed.
  return db.subscriptions.find({ dueDate: { $lte: new Date() } });
}

Good:

function getActiveSubscriptions(): Promise<Subscription[]> {
  // TODO: ensure `dueDate` is indexed.
  return db.subscriptions.find({ dueDate: { $lte: new Date() } });
}

⬆ 상단으로

번역(Translations)

이 글을 다른 언어로도 읽을 수 있습니다:

• Brazilian Portuguese: vitorfreitas/clean-code-typescript
• Chinese:
  • beginor/clean-code-typescript
  • pipiliang/clean-code-typescript
• Japanese: MSakamaki/clean-code-typescript
• Russian: Real001/clean-code-typescript
• Turkish: ozanhonamlioglu/clean-code-typescript
• Korean: 738/clean-code-typescript

번역이 완료되면 참고문헌에 추가됩니다. 자세한 내용과 진행상황을 보고싶다면 이 논의를 확인하세요. 당신은 당신의 언어에 이 글을 번역함으로써 클린 코드 커뮤니티에 중요한 기여를 할 수 있습니다.