1 files changed, 131 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/usth/ICT2.7/P4L5 Software Refactoring Subtitles/9 - Consolidate Conditional Expression - lang_en_vs4.srt b/usth/ICT2.7/P4L5 Software Refactoring Subtitles/9 - Consolidate Conditional Expression - lang_en_vs4.srt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..be2b3fe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/usth/ICT2.7/P4L5 Software Refactoring Subtitles/9 - Consolidate Conditional Expression - lang_en_vs4.srt
@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+1
+00:00:00,070 --> 00:00:00,860
+We're now going to talk about
+
+2
+00:00:00,860 --> 00:00:03,390
+the consolidate conditional expression refactoring.
+
+3
+00:00:03,390 --> 00:00:05,730
+A common situation in code is that you have a set
+
+4
+00:00:05,730 --> 00:00:08,530
+of conditionals with the same result. What that means that
+
+5
+00:00:08,530 --> 00:00:12,090
+sometimes the code contains a series of conditional checks in which
+
+6
+00:00:12,090 --> 00:00:14,760
+each check is different, yet the resulting action is the
+
+7
+00:00:14,760 --> 00:00:18,440
+same. In these cases, the code could be improved by combining
+
+8
+00:00:18,440 --> 00:00:22,100
+the conditionals using, for example, and, and or, as connectors. So
+
+9
+00:00:22,100 --> 00:00:25,390
+as to have a single conditional check, with a single result.
+
+10
+00:00:25,390 --> 00:00:28,500
+At that point you can also extract those conditional into a
+
+11
+00:00:28,500 --> 00:00:32,310
+method. And replace the conditional with a call, to debt matter consolidating
+
+12
+00:00:32,310 --> 00:00:35,110
+the conditional code in this way can make the checks clearer
+
+13
+00:00:35,110 --> 00:00:38,170
+by showing that you're really making a single check rather than multiple
+
+14
+00:00:38,170 --> 00:00:41,150
+checks, and extracted that condition and having that matter instead of
+
+15
+00:00:41,150 --> 00:00:44,550
+a condition can clarify your code by explaining why you're doing a
+
+16
+00:00:44,550 --> 00:00:47,350
+given check, rather than how you're doing it. You can see an
+
+17
+00:00:47,350 --> 00:00:52,020
+example of that situation in this code, which is the disabilityAmount method.
+
+18
+00:00:52,020 --> 00:00:54,580
+As the name of the method says, the purpose of this code
+
+19
+00:00:54,580 --> 00:00:58,300
+is to compute the disability amount for a given, for example, employee.
+
+20
+00:00:58,300 --> 00:01:01,250
+And there is a set of initial checks in the methods whose
+
+21
+00:01:01,250 --> 00:01:05,090
+goal is to decide whether there's this disabilityAmount should be instead zero.
+
+22
+00:01:05,090 --> 00:01:07,750
+And as you can see, there's multiple conditions. For example, there's a
+
+23
+00:01:07,750 --> 00:01:10,630
+check about the seniority level, and about the number of months that
+
+24
+00:01:10,630 --> 00:01:14,350
+the employee's been disabled. So far, whether the employee is part time
+
+25
+00:01:14,350 --> 00:01:17,060
+and the outcome of all these check is always the same. If they're
+
+26
+00:01:17,060 --> 00:01:19,740
+true, if the check is satisfied then there is no disability
+
+27
+00:01:19,740 --> 00:01:22,564
+amount. So the disabilityAmount is zero. So what I will do
+
+28
+00:01:22,564 --> 00:01:25,986
+if I apply the consolidate conditional expression to this matter, is
+
+29
+00:01:25,986 --> 00:01:29,690
+that I will take these three conditionals. I will put them together
+
+30
+00:01:29,690 --> 00:01:32,772
+by saying basically that if seniority is less than 2 or
+
+31
+00:01:32,772 --> 00:01:36,524
+monthsDisabled is greater than 12 or isPartTime is true then the
+
+32
+00:01:36,524 --> 00:01:40,170
+return should be zero. And once I have this combined conditional,
+
+33
+00:01:40,170 --> 00:01:42,601
+as I see here, I will just extract that into a method.