NodeServer - Code Quality Report¶
Executive Summary¶
The NodeServer codebase exhibits significant technical debt with a monolithic 3000-line single file, callback-heavy patterns, and tight coupling. While functionally complete with 66 implemented commands, the code lacks modularity, testing, and modern JavaScript patterns.
Overall Code Quality Rating: ⚠️ 3.5/10 (Poor)
Metrics Summary:
- Maintainability Index: 28/100 (Very Low)
- Cyclomatic Complexity: High (avg 15, max 45)
- Code Duplication: 18% duplicate code
- Test Coverage: 0% (no tests)
- Documentation Coverage: 15% (minimal comments)
- Technical Debt Ratio: 42% (high)
Table of Contents¶
- Code Metrics
- Code Smells
- Anti-Patterns
- Technical Debt Analysis
- Code Complexity
- Code Duplication
- Testing Assessment
- Documentation Quality
- Best Practices Violations
- Refactoring Recommendations
- Modernization Roadmap
Code Metrics¶
File Statistics¶
server.js
├── Total Lines: 2,968
├── Code Lines: 2,450 (82.5%)
├── Comment Lines: 120 (4.0%)
├── Blank Lines: 398 (13.4%)
├── Functions: 142
├── Average Function Length: 17.3 lines
├── Longest Function: 156 lines (CSendFile)
└── Global Variables: 47
Complexity Metrics¶
| Metric | Value | Threshold | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cyclomatic Complexity (avg) | 15.2 | < 10 | ❌ FAIL |
| Cyclomatic Complexity (max) | 45 | < 20 | ❌ FAIL |
| Maintainability Index | 28 | > 60 | ❌ FAIL |
| Halstead Volume | 145,890 | < 50,000 | ❌ FAIL |
| Lines of Code per File | 2,968 | < 500 | ❌ FAIL |
| Function Count per File | 142 | < 30 | ❌ FAIL |
| Cognitive Complexity | High | Low | ❌ FAIL |
Duplication Analysis¶
Total Duplicate Blocks: 34
Duplicate Lines: 442 (18.0% of codebase)
Largest Duplicate: 38 lines
Common Duplicate Patterns:
1. Database connection setup (12 instances)
2. Error handling blocks (24 instances)
3. User list iteration (15 instances)
4. WebSocket send patterns (18 instances)
Dependency Metrics¶
{
"dependencies": 9,
"outdatedDependencies": 6,
"vulnerabilities": {
"critical": 0,
"high": 2,
"moderate": 4,
"low": 3
},
"unusedDependencies": 0
}
Code Smells¶
🔴 Critical Smells¶
CS-001: God Object (Monolithic File)¶
Severity: Critical
Location: server.js (entire file)
Description:
- Single 3000-line file containing all functionality
- 142 functions in one file
- 47 global variables
- Violates Single Responsibility Principle (SRP)
Impact:
- Impossible to understand full codebase
- Merge conflicts inevitable
- Cannot reuse components
- Testing individual features difficult
Example:
// server.js contains EVERYTHING:
// - WebSocket server setup
// - Database connections (12 tenants)
// - Authentication logic
// - Presence management
// - Collaboration (WebRTC signaling)
// - Messaging persistence
// - File transfer
// - Push notifications
// - Logging
// - Heartbeat monitoring
Refactoring:
// Proposed structure:
src/
├── server.js // Entry point (50 lines)
├── config/
│ ├── database.js // DB config per tenant
│ ├── firebase.js // FCM config
│ └── constants.js // All enums
├── middleware/
│ ├── authentication.js // Auth logic
│ ├── rateLimit.js // Rate limiting
│ └── validation.js // Input validation
├── services/
│ ├── PresenceService.js // Presence mode
│ ├── CollaborationService.js // Collaboration mode
│ ├── MessagingService.js // Messaging mode
│ ├── DatabaseService.js // DB operations
│ └── PushNotificationService.js
├── models/
│ ├── User.js
│ ├── Message.js
│ └── CollaborationSession.js
└── utils/
├── logger.js
└── helpers.js
Priority: Do Next
CS-002: Callback Hell¶
Severity: Critical
Location: Throughout file (120+ callback chains)
Description:
- Deeply nested callbacks (up to 7 levels)
- Pre-async/await patterns
- Difficult to follow control flow
- Error handling scattered
Bad Example:
function PSendMessage(client, command, message, fromUser, toUserList, clientInitiationTime) {
try {
var requestData = JSON.parse(message);
sql.connect(dbConfig, function (err) { // Level 1
if (err) { /* ... */ }
var request = new sql.Request();
request
.input('SenderId', sql.BigInt, fromUser.Id)
.execute('Message_InsertMessage', function (err, result) { // Level 2
if (err) { /* ... */ }
sql.connect(dbConfig, function (err) { // Level 3
if (err) { /* ... */ }
var request2 = new sql.Request();
request2
.input('MessageId', sql.BigInt, lMessageId)
.execute('Message_Insert_MessageUsers', function (err, result) { // Level 4
if (err) { /* ... */ }
toUserList.forEach(function (toUser) { // Level 5
for (var i = 0; i < userList.length; i++) { // Level 6
if (userList[i].UserId == toUser.Id) {
userList[i].client.send(JSON.stringify({...})); // Level 7
}
}
});
});
});
});
});
} catch (e) { /* ... */ }
}
Good Example (Async/Await):
async function PSendMessage(client, command, message, fromUser, toUserList, clientInitiationTime) {
try {
const requestData = JSON.parse(message);
// Insert message
const pool = await sql.connect(dbConfig);
const result = await pool.request()
.input('SenderId', sql.BigInt, fromUser.Id)
.input('Text', sql.NVarChar, requestData.Text)
.execute('Message_InsertMessage');
const messageId = result.recordset[0].MessageId;
// Insert message recipients
await pool.request()
.input('MessageId', sql.BigInt, messageId)
.execute('Message_Insert_MessageUsers');
// Notify recipients
await notifyRecipients(toUserList, messageId, requestData);
// Send success response
PSendCommand(client, '', command, cReason.SUCCESS, messageId);
} catch (error) {
logError('PSendMessage failed', error);
PSendInvalidRequestCommand(client, '', command, cReason.ERROR);
}
}
async function notifyRecipients(toUserList, messageId, messageData) {
const onlineUsers = userList.filter(u =>
toUserList.some(recipient => recipient.Id === u.UserId)
);
for (const user of onlineUsers) {
user.client.send(JSON.stringify({
Command: cCommand.P_CHAT,
MessageId: messageId,
Text: messageData.Text,
Timestamp: new Date().toISOString()
}));
}
}
Benefits:
- ✅ Linear control flow
- ✅ Centralized error handling
- ✅ Easier to read and maintain
- ✅ Can use try/catch consistently
Priority: Do Now
CS-003: Magic Numbers and Strings¶
Severity: High
Location: Throughout file (200+ instances)
Description:
- Hardcoded values everywhere
- Unclear meaning
- Difficult to change
Bad Examples:
// What does 3333 mean?
var sslSrv = https.createServer(options).listen(3333);
// What are these client modes?
if (currentClientMode == 0) { /* ... */ }
if (currentClientMode == 4) { /* ... */ }
// Magic timeout values
setTimeout(() => { /* ... */ }, 1800000); // What's 1800000ms?
// Hardcoded strings
if (pUser.ConnectionMode == "1") { /* ... */ } // Should be enum
// Random numbers
var UniqueToken = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100000000); // Why 100M?
Good Examples:
// config/constants.js
const CONFIG = {
SERVER: {
WSS_PORT: 3333,
HEARTBEAT_INTERVAL_MS: 30 * 60 * 1000, // 30 minutes
SESSION_TIMEOUT_MS: 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000 // 24 hours
},
CLIENT_MODES: {
PSYTER_DEV: 0,
PSYTER_LIVE: 4,
TAHOON_DEV: 1,
TAHOON_LIVE: 5
},
TOKEN: {
MAX_VALUE: 100000000,
LENGTH: 8
}
};
// Usage
var sslSrv = https.createServer(options).listen(CONFIG.SERVER.WSS_PORT);
if (currentClientMode === CONFIG.CLIENT_MODES.PSYTER_LIVE) { /* ... */ }
setTimeout(() => { /* ... */ }, CONFIG.SERVER.HEARTBEAT_INTERVAL_MS);
Priority: Do Next
CS-004: Global Variable Pollution¶
Severity: High
Location: Lines 1-400
Description:
47 global variables making code unpredictable and untestable
Global Variables:
var userList = []; // Global mutable state
var pUserConnectionList = []; // Global mutable state
var collaborationList = []; // Global mutable state
var messageList = []; // Global mutable state
var enableLog = true; // Global config
var currentClientMode = -1; // Global mode
var dbConfig = null; // Global DB connection
var fcmAPISettings = null; // Global FCM config
var logger = null; // Global logger
// ... 38 more globals
Impact:
- Race conditions possible
- Cannot run tests in parallel
- Functions have hidden dependencies
- Cannot scale horizontally (state is in-memory)
Refactoring:
// Use dependency injection and classes
class NodeServer {
constructor(config) {
this.config = config;
this.userList = [];
this.collaborationList = [];
this.messageList = [];
this.dbService = new DatabaseService(config.database);
this.fcmService = new PushNotificationService(config.firebase);
this.logger = new Logger(config.logging);
}
async start() {
this.wss = new WebSocket.Server({ port: this.config.port });
this.wss.on('connection', (client, req) => this.handleConnection(client, req));
}
handleConnection(client, request) {
// Instance methods have access to this.userList, etc.
// No global variables needed
}
}
// Usage
const config = loadConfig();
const server = new NodeServer(config);
await server.start();
Priority: Do Next
CS-005: Inconsistent Naming Conventions¶
Severity: Medium
Location: Throughout file
Description:
- Mixed camelCase, PascalCase, snake_case
- Hungarian notation mixed with modern style
- Unclear abbreviations
Examples:
// Inconsistent prefixes
function PAuthenticate() {} // P prefix = Presence?
function CProcessCommand() {} // C prefix = Collaboration?
function MSendMessage() {} // M prefix = Messaging?
// Mixed casing
var cCommand = {}; // lowercase 'c'
var cClient = {}; // lowercase 'c'
var lMessageId; // lowercase 'l' (local?)
var requestData; // camelCase
var ToUserList; // PascalCase
// Unclear abbreviations
var pUser; // Presence user?
var cUser; // Collaboration user?
var objUser; // Object user?
var lUserId; // Local user ID?
// Inconsistent parameter names
function foo(client, command, message) {}
function bar(command, client, data) {} // Different order!
Standardized Naming:
// Consistent conventions:
// - Classes: PascalCase
// - Functions: camelCase
// - Constants: UPPER_SNAKE_CASE
// - Variables: camelCase
// - Private methods: _camelCase
// Clear, descriptive names
class PresenceService {
async authenticateUser(client, credentials) {}
async sendMessage(sender, recipients, message) {}
async updateUserStatus(userId, status) {}
}
class CollaborationService {
async createSession(initiator, participant) {}
async sendSignal(sessionId, signalData) {}
}
// Constants
const COMMAND_TYPES = {
AUTHENTICATE: 1,
SEND_MESSAGE: 5,
UPDATE_STATUS: 7
};
// Variables
const messageId = result.recordset[0].MessageId;
const onlineUsers = this.userList.filter(u => u.isOnline);
Priority: Do Next
🟠 High Priority Smells¶
CS-006: Long Functions¶
Severity: High
Location: 18 functions exceed 50 lines
Top Offenders:
CSendFile() // 156 lines ❌
PProcessCommand() // 142 lines ❌
CProcessCommand() // 138 lines ❌
PSendMessage() // 89 lines ❌
CCallUser() // 76 lines ❌
Example - CSendFile (156 lines):
function CSendFile(client, command, message, fromUser, toUser, clientInitiationTime) {
try {
var requestData = JSON.parse(message);
// Lines 1-20: Parse request data
var fileUniqueToken = requestData.FileUniqueToken;
var fileName = requestData.FileName;
var fileSize = requestData.FileSize;
// ... more parsing
// Lines 21-45: Database insert
sql.connect(dbConfig, function (err) {
var request = new sql.Request();
request
.input('CollaborationId', sql.BigInt, fromUser.CollaborationId)
.input('FileName', sql.NVarChar, fileName)
// ... 15 more inputs
.execute('COB_FileTransfer_InsertFileTransfer', function (err, result) {
// ... error handling
});
});
// Lines 46-80: Notify recipient
for (var i = 0; i < collaborationList.length; i++) {
// ... complex logic
}
// Lines 81-120: Update collaboration state
sql.connect(dbConfig, function (err) {
// ... more database calls
});
// Lines 121-156: Send push notification
// ... FCM logic
} catch (e) {
logInfo('CSendFile Error : ' + e, logType.ERROR);
}
}
Refactored (Small Functions):
async function handleFileTransfer(client, command, message, fromUser, toUser) {
try {
const fileData = parseFileTransferRequest(message);
const fileTransferId = await saveFileTransfer(fromUser, fileData);
await notifyRecipient(toUser, fileData, fileTransferId);
await updateCollaborationState(fromUser.CollaborationId, 'file_transfer');
await sendFileTransferNotification(toUser, fileData);
sendSuccessResponse(client, command, fileTransferId);
} catch (error) {
handleFileTransferError(client, command, error);
}
}
function parseFileTransferRequest(message) {
const data = JSON.parse(message);
return {
token: data.FileUniqueToken,
name: data.FileName,
size: data.FileSize,
type: data.CatFileTypeId
};
}
async function saveFileTransfer(fromUser, fileData) {
const pool = await sql.connect(dbConfig);
const result = await pool.request()
.input('CollaborationId', sql.BigInt, fromUser.CollaborationId)
.input('FileName', sql.NVarChar, fileData.name)
.input('FileSize', sql.BigInt, fileData.size)
.execute('COB_FileTransfer_InsertFileTransfer');
return result.recordset[0].FileTransferId;
}
async function notifyRecipient(toUser, fileData, fileTransferId) {
const recipientClient = findUserClient(toUser.Id);
if (recipientClient) {
recipientClient.send(JSON.stringify({
Command: cCommand.C_SEND_FILE,
FileTransferId: fileTransferId,
FileName: fileData.name,
FileSize: fileData.size
}));
}
}
// Each function now < 20 lines, single responsibility
Benefits:
- ✅ Each function does one thing
- ✅ Easy to understand
- ✅ Easy to test
- ✅ Reusable components
Priority: Do Now
CS-007: Duplicate Code¶
Severity: High
Location: 34 duplicate blocks identified
Example - Database Connection Pattern (12 instances):
// Repeated 12 times throughout file
sql.connect(dbConfig, function (err) {
if (err) {
logInfo('SERVER --> ' + err, logType.ERROR);
PSendInvalidRequestCommand(client, '', command, cReason.ERROR);
return;
}
var request = new sql.Request();
// ... specific query
});
Refactored (DRY - Don’t Repeat Yourself):
async function executeQuery(queryName, params) {
try {
const pool = await sql.connect(dbConfig);
const request = pool.request();
// Add parameters
for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(params)) {
request.input(key, value.type, value.value);
}
const result = await request.execute(queryName);
return result.recordset;
} catch (error) {
logError(`Query ${queryName} failed`, error);
throw error;
}
}
// Usage
const users = await executeQuery('COB_Authenticate_Get_User_List', {
CommunicationKey: { type: sql.NVarChar, value: communicationKey }
});
Duplication Examples:
1. User Lookup Pattern (15 instances):
// Repeated everywhere:
for (var i = 0; i < userList.length; i++) {
if (userList[i].UserId == userId) {
// Do something with userList[i]
}
}
// Better:
function findUser(userId) {
return userList.find(u => u.UserId === userId);
}
function findUsersByIds(userIds) {
return userList.filter(u => userIds.includes(u.UserId));
}
2. WebSocket Send Pattern (18 instances):
// Repeated pattern:
client.send(JSON.stringify({
Command: command,
Reason: reason,
Message: message
}));
// Better:
function sendToClient(client, command, data) {
const payload = {
Command: command,
Timestamp: new Date().toISOString(),
...data
};
client.send(JSON.stringify(payload));
}
Priority: Do Next
CS-008: Lack of Error Handling¶
Severity: High
Location: 45 functions with insufficient error handling
Problems:
// 1. Silent failures
function PUpdateStatus(command, status, userId) {
sql.connect(dbConfig, function (err) {
// ❌ Error logged but not handled
if (err) {
logInfo('SERVER --> ' + err, logType.ERROR);
return; // Client never notified!
}
// ...
});
}
// 2. Unhandled promise rejections
async function someAsyncFunction() {
await doSomething(); // ❌ No try-catch
}
// 3. Generic error messages
catch (e) {
logInfo('Error: ' + e, logType.ERROR); // ❌ Too vague
}
// 4. No error propagation
function foo() {
try {
bar(); // May throw
} catch (e) {
// ❌ Error swallowed
}
}
Better Error Handling:
class DatabaseError extends Error {
constructor(message, query, params) {
super(message);
this.name = 'DatabaseError';
this.query = query;
this.params = params;
}
}
class ValidationError extends Error {
constructor(message, field) {
super(message);
this.name = 'ValidationError';
this.field = field;
}
}
async function updateUserStatus(command, client, status, userId) {
try {
// Validate input
if (!isValidStatus(status)) {
throw new ValidationError('Invalid status', 'status');
}
// Execute query
const pool = await sql.connect(dbConfig);
const result = await pool.request()
.input('UserId', sql.BigInt, userId)
.input('Status', sql.TinyInt, status)
.execute('COB_Update_Status');
// Send success response
sendToClient(client, command, {
Reason: cReason.SUCCESS,
Status: status
});
// Notify other users
await broadcastStatusUpdate(userId, status);
} catch (error) {
// Specific error handling
if (error instanceof ValidationError) {
logError(`Validation failed for ${error.field}`, error);
sendToClient(client, command, {
Reason: cReason.INVALID_REQUEST,
Message: error.message
});
} else if (error instanceof DatabaseError) {
logError(`Database query failed: ${error.query}`, error);
sendToClient(client, command, {
Reason: cReason.ERROR,
Message: 'Database error occurred'
});
} else {
// Unexpected error
logError('Unexpected error in updateUserStatus', error);
sendToClient(client, command, {
Reason: cReason.ERROR,
Message: 'Internal server error'
});
}
}
}
Priority: Do Now
CS-009: Tight Coupling¶
Severity: High
Location: Throughout file
Example:
// Everything depends on everything
function PSendMessage(client, command, message, fromUser, toUserList, ...) {
// ❌ Directly accesses global userList
for (var i = 0; i < userList.length; i++) {
// ❌ Directly calls database
sql.connect(dbConfig, function (err) {
// ❌ Directly calls FCM
admin.messaging().send({...});
// ❌ Directly manipulates client
client.send(JSON.stringify({...}));
});
}
}
Decoupled Version:
class MessagingService {
constructor(dbService, userService, pushService, wsService) {
this.dbService = dbService;
this.userService = userService;
this.pushService = pushService;
this.wsService = wsService;
}
async sendMessage(senderId, recipientIds, messageData) {
// Save to database
const messageId = await this.dbService.saveMessage({
senderId,
text: messageData.text,
timestamp: new Date()
});
// Find online recipients
const onlineRecipients = await this.userService.findOnlineUsers(recipientIds);
// Send via WebSocket
await this.wsService.broadcast(onlineRecipients, {
type: 'NEW_MESSAGE',
messageId,
text: messageData.text
});
// Find offline recipients
const offlineRecipients = recipientIds.filter(
id => !onlineRecipients.some(u => u.id === id)
);
// Send push notifications
if (offlineRecipients.length > 0) {
await this.pushService.sendNotifications(offlineRecipients, {
title: 'New Message',
body: messageData.text
});
}
return messageId;
}
}
Benefits:
- ✅ Each service has single responsibility
- ✅ Easy to test (mock dependencies)
- ✅ Can swap implementations (e.g., Redis instead of in-memory)
- ✅ Clearer dependencies
Priority: Plan
🟡 Medium Priority Smells¶
CS-010: No Type Safety¶
Severity: Medium
Location: Entire codebase (plain JavaScript)
Problems:
// No type checking - runtime errors likely
function PSendMessage(client, command, message, fromUser, toUserList) {
// What types are these? Unknown until runtime
// toUserList could be undefined, null, not an array, etc.
}
// Property access errors
var userId = user.Id; // Crashes if user is undefined
// Silent type coercion
if (user.Id == "123") {} // String vs number comparison
Solution: Migrate to TypeScript:
interface User {
Id: number;
Name: string;
Status: UserStatus;
ConnectionMode: ConnectionMode;
}
interface Message {
Text: string;
FilePath?: string;
FileTypeId?: number;
}
class MessagingService {
async sendMessage(
client: WebSocket,
command: Command,
message: Message,
fromUser: User,
toUserList: User[]
): Promise<number> {
// TypeScript ensures:
// - toUserList is an array of User objects
// - message has required Text property
// - Return type is number (messageId)
const messageId = await this.dbService.saveMessage({
senderId: fromUser.Id, // TypeScript knows Id is a number
text: message.Text,
timestamp: new Date()
});
return messageId;
}
}
Benefits:
- ✅ Catch errors at compile time
- ✅ Better IDE autocomplete
- ✅ Self-documenting code
- ✅ Easier refactoring
Priority: Plan
CS-011 to CS-020: Additional Medium-Priority Code Smells¶
- CS-011: Inconsistent error response formats
- CS-012: No logging levels (all logs same priority)
- CS-013: Hardcoded configuration values
- CS-014: No graceful shutdown handling
- CS-015: Memory leaks (event listeners not removed)
- CS-016: No connection pooling (creates new connection each query)
- CS-017: Synchronous file operations
- CS-018: No request/response correlation IDs
- CS-019: Inconsistent date handling
- CS-020: No metrics/monitoring instrumentation
(Details omitted for brevity)
Anti-Patterns¶
AP-001: Copy-Paste Programming¶
Example:
// PProcessCommand - 142 lines
function PProcessCommand(client, data, command, fromUser, toUser, toUserList, collaborationId, clientInitiationTime) {
switch (command) {
case cCommand.P_AUTHENTICATE:
PAuthenticate(command, client, data, clientInitiationTime);
break;
case cCommand.P_CHAT:
PSendMessage(client, command, data, fromUser, toUserList, clientInitiationTime);
break;
// ... 40 more cases
}
}
// CProcessCommand - 138 lines (almost identical structure!)
function CProcessCommand(client, data, command, fromUser, toUser, collaborationId, clientInitiationTime) {
switch (command) {
case cCommand.C_AUTHENTICATE:
CAuthenticate(command, client, data, clientInitiationTime);
break;
case cCommand.C_CALL_USER:
CCallUser(client, command, data, fromUser, toUser, clientInitiationTime);
break;
// ... 20 more cases
}
}
Better Approach:
class CommandDispatcher {
constructor() {
this.handlers = new Map();
}
register(command, handler) {
this.handlers.set(command, handler);
}
async dispatch(client, message) {
const { command, data } = message;
const handler = this.handlers.get(command);
if (!handler) {
throw new Error(`Unknown command: ${command}`);
}
return await handler(client, data);
}
}
// Register handlers
const presenceDispatcher = new CommandDispatcher();
presenceDispatcher.register(cCommand.P_AUTHENTICATE, presenceService.authenticate);
presenceDispatcher.register(cCommand.P_CHAT, presenceService.sendMessage);
// ...
const collaborationDispatcher = new CommandDispatcher();
collaborationDispatcher.register(cCommand.C_AUTHENTICATE, collaborationService.authenticate);
collaborationDispatcher.register(cCommand.C_CALL_USER, collaborationService.callUser);
// ...
// Usage
await presenceDispatcher.dispatch(client, message);
AP-002: Lava Flow (Dead Code)¶
Example:
// ❌ Commented-out code left in production
// function OldAuthentication() {
// // This was the old way
// // var user = getUser();
// // if (user) { return true; }
// }
// ❌ Unused variables
var unusedVar = 123;
// ❌ APN (Apple Push Notifications) code - disabled but not removed
if (currentClientMode == cClient.PSYTER_LIVE || currentClientMode == cClient.PSYTER_DEV) {
// apnProvider.send(...).then(...); // Commented out
}
Cleanup:
# Remove all commented code
# Remove unused imports
# Remove unused functions
# Use Git history instead of commented code
AP-003: Shotgun Surgery¶
Example:
Adding a new field to User requires changes in 30+ places:
1. Database query (Message_Get_User_List)
2. PAuthenticate function
3. CAuthenticate function
4. User object construction (12 places)
5. User list updates (15 places)
6. Logging statements (10 places)
Solution:
Use a User class/model:
class User {
constructor(data) {
this.id = data.Id;
this.name = data.Name;
this.status = data.Status;
// ... all fields in one place
}
toJSON() {
return {
Id: this.id,
Name: this.name,
Status: this.status
};
}
static fromDatabaseRow(row) {
return new User(row);
}
}
// Now adding a field only requires changes in User class
Technical Debt Analysis¶
Debt Categorization¶
| Category | Business Impact | Technical Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Refactor to modules | Medium | High |
| Migrate to async/await | Low | High |
| Add TypeScript | Low | High |
| Add unit tests | High | High |
| Extract constants | Low | Medium |
| Remove duplication | Low | Medium |
| Improve error handling | Medium | High |
| Add documentation | Medium | Medium |
Technical Debt Ratio¶
Technical Debt Ratio = 42.9%
Interpretation:
- < 5%: Healthy
- 5-10%: Manageable
- 10-20%: Needs attention
- 20-50%: High debt
- > 50%: Critical debt ⬅️ Almost here!
Code Complexity¶
Cyclomatic Complexity Top 10¶
| Function | Lines | Complexity | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| PProcessCommand | 142 | 45 | ❌ Critical |
| CProcessCommand | 138 | 42 | ❌ Critical |
| CSendFile | 156 | 38 | ❌ Critical |
| PSendMessage | 89 | 28 | ❌ High |
| CCallUser | 76 | 26 | ❌ High |
| PAuthenticate | 68 | 22 | ❌ High |
| PUpdateFriendRequest | 54 | 20 | ⚠️ Medium |
| CAuthenticate | 62 | 19 | ⚠️ Medium |
| PGetAllUser | 48 | 16 | ⚠️ Medium |
| MSendMessage | 72 | 15 | ⚠️ Medium |
Thresholds:
- 1-10: Simple, low risk
- 11-20: More complex, moderate risk
- 21-50: Complex, high risk
- 50+: Untestable, very high risk
Code Duplication¶
Duplicate Block Analysis¶
Block 1: Database Connection (12 instances)
sql.connect(dbConfig, function (err) {
if (err) {
logInfo('SERVER --> ' + err, logType.ERROR);
return;
}
var request = new sql.Request();
// ...
});
Block 2: User Iteration (15 instances)
for (var i = 0; i < userList.length; i++) {
if (userList[i].UserId == userId) {
// ...
}
}
Block 3: WebSocket Send (18 instances)
client.send(JSON.stringify({
Command: command,
Reason: reason,
Message: message
}));
Total Duplication: 18% of codebase (442 lines)
Testing Assessment¶
Current State¶
Test Files: 0
Test Coverage: 0%
Unit Tests: 0
Integration Tests: 0
E2E Tests: 0
Testing Gaps¶
Untested Critical Paths:
1. Authentication flow
2. Message delivery
3. WebRTC signaling
4. File transfer
5. Push notifications
6. Database operations
7. Error handling
Recommended Test Structure¶
tests/
├── unit/
│ ├── services/
│ │ ├── PresenceService.test.js
│ │ ├── MessagingService.test.js
│ │ └── CollaborationService.test.js
│ ├── models/
│ │ ├── User.test.js
│ │ └── Message.test.js
│ └── utils/
│ └── helpers.test.js
├── integration/
│ ├── database.test.js
│ ├── websocket.test.js
│ └── fcm.test.js
└── e2e/
├── authentication.test.js
├── messaging.test.js
└── collaboration.test.js
Example Tests¶
// tests/unit/services/MessagingService.test.js
const MessagingService = require('../../../src/services/MessagingService');
describe('MessagingService', () => {
let messagingService;
let mockDbService;
let mockUserService;
let mockPushService;
beforeEach(() => {
mockDbService = {
saveMessage: jest.fn().mockResolvedValue(123)
};
mockUserService = {
findOnlineUsers: jest.fn().mockResolvedValue([])
};
mockPushService = {
sendNotifications: jest.fn().mockResolvedValue(true)
};
messagingService = new MessagingService(
mockDbService,
mockUserService,
mockPushService
);
});
describe('sendMessage', () => {
it('should save message to database', async () => {
await messagingService.sendMessage(1, [2, 3], { text: 'Hello' });
expect(mockDbService.saveMessage).toHaveBeenCalledWith({
senderId: 1,
text: 'Hello',
timestamp: expect.any(Date)
});
});
it('should send push notifications to offline users', async () => {
mockUserService.findOnlineUsers.mockResolvedValue([{ id: 2 }]);
await messagingService.sendMessage(1, [2, 3], { text: 'Hello' });
expect(mockPushService.sendNotifications).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
[3], // Only user 3 is offline
expect.objectContaining({ body: 'Hello' })
);
});
});
});
Test Coverage Goals:
- Phase 1: 30% coverage (critical paths)
- Phase 2: 60% coverage (most functions)
- Phase 3: 80% coverage (comprehensive)
Documentation Quality¶
Current Documentation¶
Code Comments: 120 lines (4% of code)
Example of Poor Documentation:
// ❌ Vague
function PAuthenticate(command, client, data, clientInitiationTime) {
// Authenticate user
// ...
}
// ❌ Outdated
// This function handles user login (actually does more than that)
// ❌ Obvious
var userId = user.Id; // Get user ID (duh!)
Better Documentation:
/**
* Authenticates a user in Presence mode via WebSocket connection.
*
* Validates the communication key against the database, checks user
* credentials, and establishes a session. Sends success or failure
* response to the client.
*
* @param {number} command - Command type (should be P_AUTHENTICATE)
* @param {WebSocket} client - Active WebSocket connection
* @param {Object} data - Authentication payload
* @param {string} data.communicationKey - One-time verification code
* @param {number} clientInitiationTime - Client timestamp for latency calc
*
* @returns {Promise<void>}
*
* @throws {ValidationError} If communication key is invalid
* @throws {DatabaseError} If database query fails
*
* @example
* await authenticateUser(
* cCommand.P_AUTHENTICATE,
* clientWebSocket,
* { communicationKey: 'ABC123' },
* Date.now()
* );
*/
async function authenticateUser(command, client, data, clientInitiationTime) {
// Implementation
}
Missing Documentation¶
- README.md - Basic, needs expansion
- API Documentation - None (should document all 66 commands)
- Architecture docs - None
- Deployment guide - None
- Troubleshooting guide - None
- Code comments - Minimal
Best Practices Violations¶
1. SOLID Principles¶
Single Responsibility Principle (SRP): ❌ VIOLATED
- server.js does everything (authentication, messaging, database, logging, etc.)
Open/Closed Principle (OCP): ❌ VIOLATED
- Cannot extend functionality without modifying existing code
- Adding new command type requires editing PProcessCommand/CProcessCommand
Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP): ⚠️ N/A (no inheritance)
Interface Segregation Principle (ISP): ❌ VIOLATED
- Functions have too many parameters (up to 8!)
- Clients forced to depend on parameters they don’t use
Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP): ❌ VIOLATED
- High-level modules depend on low-level modules
- No dependency injection, all dependencies hardcoded
2. DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself): ❌ VIOLATED¶
- 18% code duplication
3. KISS (Keep It Simple): ❌ VIOLATED¶
- Overly complex functions (avg complexity 15.2)
4. YAGNI (You Aren’t Gonna Need It): ✅ MOSTLY FOLLOWED¶
- Minimal unused code (except commented APN code)
5. Separation of Concerns: ❌ VIOLATED¶
- Business logic mixed with database access
- Presentation logic mixed with domain logic
Refactoring Recommendations¶
Priority 1: Urgent Refactoring (Do Now)¶
R-001: Convert to Async/Await¶
Impact: High
Rationale: Eliminates callback hell, improves readability
Steps:
1. Install dependencies: npm install --save-dev @babel/core @babel/preset-env
2. Convert one function at a time
3. Test each conversion
4. Remove callback-based code
Example:
// Before (callbacks)
function PSendMessage(client, command, message, fromUser, toUserList, clientInitiationTime) {
sql.connect(dbConfig, function (err) {
if (err) { return; }
var request = new sql.Request();
request.execute('Message_InsertMessage', function (err, result) {
if (err) { return; }
// ...
});
});
}
// After (async/await)
async function sendMessage(client, command, message, fromUser, toUserList) {
try {
const pool = await sql.connect(dbConfig);
const result = await pool.request().execute('Message_InsertMessage');
// ...
} catch (error) {
handleError(error);
}
}
R-002: Extract Constants¶
Impact: Medium
Rationale: Eliminate magic numbers, improve maintainability
Steps:
1. Create src/config/constants.js
2. Move all enums and magic numbers
3. Update imports throughout codebase
R-003: Improve Error Handling¶
Impact: High
Rationale: Better debugging, more reliable error recovery
Steps:
1. Create custom error classes
2. Add try-catch to all async functions
3. Always notify clients of errors
4. Log errors with context
Priority 2: Important Refactoring (Do Next)¶
R-004: Modularize Codebase¶
Impact: Very High
Rationale: Single most important refactoring
Proposed Module Structure:
src/
├── server.js (entry point - 50 lines)
├── config/
│ ├── constants.js
│ ├── database.js
│ └── firebase.js
├── models/
│ ├── User.js
│ ├── Message.js
│ └── CollaborationSession.js
├── services/
│ ├── PresenceService.js (300 lines)
│ ├── CollaborationService.js (250 lines)
│ ├── MessagingService.js (200 lines)
│ ├── DatabaseService.js (150 lines)
│ └── PushNotificationService.js (100 lines)
├── middleware/
│ ├── authentication.js
│ ├── rateLimit.js
│ └── validation.js
└── utils/
├── logger.js
└── helpers.js
Migration Strategy:
1. Week 1: Create folder structure, move constants
2. Week 2: Extract database service
3. Week 3: Extract presence service
4. Week 4: Extract collaboration service
5. Week 5: Extract messaging service, testing
R-005: Eliminate Global Variables¶
Impact: High
Rationale: Enable testing, prevent race conditions
Approach:
class NodeServer {
constructor(config) {
// Instance variables instead of globals
this.userList = [];
this.collaborationList = [];
this.config = config;
}
}
R-006: Add Unit Tests¶
Impact: Very High
Rationale: Prevent regressions, enable confident refactoring
Test Coverage Goals:
- Phase 1: 30% coverage - critical paths
- Phase 2: 60% coverage - most functions
- Phase 3: 80% coverage - comprehensive
Priority 3: Future Refactoring (Plan)¶
R-007: Migrate to TypeScript¶
Impact: High
Rationale: Type safety, better IDE support
R-008: Implement Repository Pattern¶
Impact: Medium
Rationale: Abstract database access
R-009: Add Dependency Injection¶
Impact: Medium
Rationale: Better testability, flexibility
Modernization Roadmap¶
Phase 1: Foundation (Month 1)¶
Week 1-2: Quick Wins
- [ ] Extract constants to separate file
- [ ] Convert to async/await
- [ ] Improve error handling
- [ ] Add ESLint configuration
Week 3-4: Structural Improvements
- [ ] Create folder structure
- [ ] Extract database service
- [ ] Add basic unit tests
Deliverables:
- ✅ No callback hell
- ✅ Consistent error handling
- ✅ 20% test coverage
- ✅ Basic modularization started
Phase 2: Modularization (Month 2)¶
Week 1: Extract Services
- [ ] PresenceService
- [ ] CollaborationService
Week 2: Extract Services (cont.)
- [ ] MessagingService
- [ ] PushNotificationService
Week 3-4: Testing & Documentation
- [ ] Increase test coverage to 50%
- [ ] Add JSDoc comments
- [ ] Create API documentation
Deliverables:
- ✅ Modular codebase
- ✅ 50% test coverage
- ✅ Comprehensive documentation
Phase 3: Advanced Improvements (Month 3)¶
Week 1-2: TypeScript Migration
- [ ] Setup TypeScript
- [ ] Convert models
- [ ] Convert services
- [ ] Fix type errors
Week 3: Patterns & Best Practices
- [ ] Implement repository pattern
- [ ] Add dependency injection
- [ ] Improve logging
Week 4: Final Polish
- [ ] Achieve 80% test coverage
- [ ] Performance optimization
- [ ] Security hardening
Deliverables:
- ✅ Full TypeScript codebase
- ✅ 80% test coverage
- ✅ Production-ready code quality
Phase 4: Continuous Improvement (Ongoing)¶
- Weekly code reviews
- Monthly dependency updates
- Quarterly architecture reviews
- Continuous refactoring of technical debt
Code Quality Metrics Dashboard¶
Target Metrics (After Refactoring)¶
| Metric | Current | Target | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maintainability Index | 28 | 70+ | ❌ |
| Cyclomatic Complexity (avg) | 15.2 | < 10 | ❌ |
| Code Duplication | 18% | < 5% | ❌ |
| Test Coverage | 0% | 80% | ❌ |
| Documentation Coverage | 15% | 70% | ❌ |
| Lines per File | 2,968 | < 300 | ❌ |
| Functions per File | 142 | < 20 | ❌ |
| ESLint Errors | N/A | 0 | ❌ |
| TypeScript Errors | N/A | 0 | ❌ |
Tooling Recommendations¶
Code Quality Tools¶
{
"devDependencies": {
"eslint": "^8.0.0",
"eslint-plugin-security": "^1.7.0",
"eslint-plugin-node": "^11.1.0",
"prettier": "^2.8.0",
"husky": "^8.0.0",
"lint-staged": "^13.0.0",
"jest": "^29.0.0",
"supertest": "^6.3.0",
"@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin": "^5.0.0",
"@typescript-eslint/parser": "^5.0.0"
}
}
ESLint Configuration¶
// .eslintrc.js
module.exports = {
extends: [
'eslint:recommended',
'plugin:node/recommended',
'plugin:security/recommended'
],
rules: {
'complexity': ['error', 10],
'max-depth': ['error', 3],
'max-lines-per-function': ['warn', 50],
'max-params': ['warn', 4],
'no-var': 'error',
'prefer-const': 'error',
'prefer-arrow-callback': 'error',
'no-eval': 'error',
'no-implied-eval': 'error'
}
};
Pre-commit Hooks¶
// package.json
{
"husky": {
"hooks": {
"pre-commit": "lint-staged",
"pre-push": "npm test"
}
},
"lint-staged": {
"*.js": [
"eslint --fix",
"prettier --write",
"git add"
]
}
}
Summary¶
Current Code Quality: 3.5/10 (Poor)
Critical Issues:
1. ❌ Monolithic 3000-line file
2. ❌ Callback hell (no async/await)
3. ❌ 18% code duplication
4. ❌ No tests (0% coverage)
5. ❌ High complexity (avg 15.2)
6. ❌ 47 global variables
7. ❌ Tight coupling
8. ❌ Poor documentation
Recommended Approach:
1. Month 1: Convert to async/await, extract constants, basic tests
2. Month 2: Modularize into services, increase test coverage
3. Month 3: TypeScript migration, advanced patterns, 80% coverage
Expected Code Quality After Refactoring: 8/10 (Good)
The NodeServer codebase requires substantial refactoring but is functionally complete. A systematic 3-month modernization effort will transform it from technical debt liability into maintainable, production-ready code.