Refactor as a service: Code quality on a button push?

Today I have a great declaration for you – one that probably has a real dream landscape for many developers. An idea that seems so impressive that you may be surprised why there has been such a thing for a long time. Certainly you also know the conversation in the team in which this desire is visible – mostly with a irony venture, but sometimes with a spark of hope.

Imagine that you can simply put your full code stand into a zip file, upload it on a service via HTTP and after a few minutes you get it completely back: better composed, with clear, clear dependence, sensiblely modified, speaking names, intelligent architecture and meaningful tests. Complete pin and formatted, including updated documents. Once uploaded, and the code then seems that an experienced senior architectural team worked deeply on it for three weeks. This is what we have now made reality and called it: “Refacting as a service”.

Refactor as a service: Code quality on a button push?

Refacting on a button push

This idea is as simple as simple: Do you have a repository whose position is not completely optimal now? No problem: You simply upload the code on our API or refer to a GIT repository with a valid tokens-the remaining passes into the background. Our service analyzes the code with stable and dynamic methods, analyzes a joint branch and graph, identifies structural weaknesses, identifies anti-pattern, evaluates the necessary matrix such as cyclomatic complexity, cohesion, coupling, test cover and architectural conformity and a reference to a reference, a reference, to the sound. The resulting code base is not only more beautiful and understanding, but also more modular, more waiting and better testing. Of course, the whole thing is basically integrated into CI/CD processes and can be fully automated through the Openapi interface.

Because it was not enough for us, an AI-supported comment is also made, which is added in the context of the code and project, which is fine on the understanding of the code at both code and architectural levels. The test cover is not only increased, but in a targeted range, with special attention to path cover, border cases, boundary status and semantic relevant combinations. All these orchestrates do a service baking, scaling on Kuberanet, which also overturns large projects in a short time. We also provide an audit function for particularly important projects: each change is individually understood, each committe is commented on semantics, each refacting phase is documented. In short: The right partner for software teams, who take quality seriously, want to focus on real development.

A clever combination of technologies

The real magic arises from a combination of various technologies and perspectives: stable analysis helps alone if it does not take into account the technical context. LLMs write code alone, but do not know that it actually fits for your project. Clean code principles are essential, but do not solve the basic problem of structural modification. Only the systematic relationship of these approaches makes something that can be described as refecting in actually narrow sense. This is the one that “refacting as a service” not only makes an interesting tool, but also a real game Changer.

Of course – and we knew about it from the beginning – “Refacting as a service” does not replace people. Our goal was never to make the expertise of experienced developers great. Conversely: We wanted to reduce these expertise, so it enables using it, regardless of personal availability, project reference or time pressure. This is why we have included all our knowledge, our experiences and principles in this service – so that other teams can always benefit from it without individually involving them.

This is not only exciting for developers, but is also equally interesting for all those who have intensively behaved intensively with software architects, teamlides and CTOs -the quality and maintenance of software. Because refractor is not just a technical support, but a strategic means. It decisively decides on lifetime, changeability and expandability – and eventually about the economic success of a project. This is why we would like to help more teams with “refractor as a service” to get the opportunity to place our code base on a solid and waiting foundation.

When, how, where, …?

At this point you are probably already thinking: seems to be – but what is its cost? When and how can I try it? Unfortunately, the answer to these questions is: not at all. Because today is April 1, and “refractoring as a service” is not present.

But before they disappoint: The idea behind the “Refacting as a service” – automatic, reproducible and scalable refacting desire – real and perfectly understand. Who among us does not know the frustration of fighting through contaminated sites, asking what one would have thought in a piece of code, and just the desire to be able to press a button: “Now Refactor” – Click, did, did. Unfortunately, it is not so easy, and there are good reasons for it.

Refactoring is a decision

Refactoring is not just a technical activity, but a conscious decision: a decision about how the code should be structured. Which concepts separated, which have to be merged. Which names are important. Which architectural principles are used when some patterns are useful and when you should avoid it consciously. All of this is directly related to a well -operated professional understanding: if you do not know what maping this structure you cannot build a good structure. If you do not understand that you cannot rate a meaningful structure then what are the requirements you have. This is the reason why refacting is nothing that can be purely automated according to Plan F. This is not a purely technical function, but an analytical and prudent process.

Of course there are equipment, plug-in and LLM. But none of these AIDS can answer you whether any method is related to a service or in the controller. Anyone firmly recognizes whether a certain implementation still fits on the current reality or only represents the remains of previous feature editing. No one decides for you whether a name is really suitable or only historically grown. No device abstract widely, does not replace communication or assumes responsibility. All these things require experience, understanding of reference, sympathy – eventually people.

Importance of teamwork

This is why good refacting is always good teamwork. This means, consciously read the code again, to understand what he wants to express, and then make something better than this in small, well -good stages. Some clear and more stable that makes everyday life easier and is difficult. This is exactly the responsibility for refacting. If you are refacted, you choose long -length quality -and against short -facilities. This is not always easy.

Many teams often lack time, courage or support. Features are developed, stories are supplied and throwput is optimized – but the soil on which everything stands is rarely stable. The longer it lasts, the more brittle the foundation becomes. At some point, refacting will develop in a huge project that no one wants to touch – even if only a few small steps will be necessary. This is what should not happen.

So what is a better way? Do not look at refacting as a unique, large task, rather as a continuous process. Create an integral part of your everyday life, every story, every facility, every sprint. Refacting is not something you do when time is left – but something that you should always do to make the future very easy. In particular, it means: small steps, regular reviews, clear responsibilities, courage to change and a general understanding in the team is that good software is never a coincidence, but the outlook, principles and the result of continuous care.

(May)