Say you have a worksheet that contains a table with various settings, or options to run some macro with. Whatever the macro does, whatever it uses these values for, it must somehow solve this problem: how to get these values out of the worksheet and into the program?
We have a ListObject to play with, and since the table is in a specific worksheet, that’s the worksheet module we’re going to be editing. Since the very existence of that table matters for the rest of whatever this macro ends up doing, we’re going to make it clear it’s not an accident by making it a property of the worksheet (class) module – something like this:
Private Const TableName As String = "Table1"
Public Property Get SettingsTable() As ListObject
Static Value As ListObject
If Value Is Nothing Then
On Error Resume Next
Set Value = Me.ListObjects(TableName)
On Error GoTo 0
End If
Set SettingsTable = Value
End Property
Property Get procedures usually do not raise an error – here if the table doesn’t exist the property will return Nothing, which should cause the calling code to blow up with error 91, and this would be reasonably expected behavior in this case. The Static local stands in for a module-scoped variable declaration that would be needed if the property had a setter procedure; because it’s only needed in one place, we can declare it locally and retain the module-scoped behavior with the Static keyword.
“Static” in VBA basically means “shared”, and “Shared” in VB.NET means what “static” means in essentially every other language with such semantics. Static as a scope modifier in .NET means a member belongs to the type (as opposed to an instance of the type in question), but in Classic-VB it is used for declaring local variables that retain their value between procedure calls, and if used as a modifier at procedure level it makes all locals behave as such… which [very likely] isn’t a good idea.
So we have now given ourselves access to the table, and we can just do Sheet1.SettingsTable to access it from anywhere.
But what if we don’t want that? If we know the settings each have a unique name and have a value that might be a String, a Double, a Date, or a Boolean. The table might just as well be empty for now, anyway.
If we don’t formalize access to the settings, then every place that needs them might be doing things differently! Imagine the chaos if sometimes an option is retrieved with Application.VLookup, elsewhere with a loop over SettingsTable.Rows, and then another one could be getting the value with an offset from the result of SettingsTable.DataBodyRange.Find, and there’s another couple of different but not always equivalently dangerous or misguided ways to go about retrieving a value from that table, and there’s no need to have all of them around.
We could write a function that accepts the name of a setting and returns a Variant holding the associated value if it exists, but what if we need to get the value multiple times, we’re going to read it off the worksheet every time?
Writing to a Range is perhaps the most expensive thing a macro can do, but reading anything from one comes close. In fact, a macro that performs well is usually a macro that limits its interactions with worksheets and the …entire Excel object model.
What we want is a method that iterates the table rows once, yielding an OptionValue class instance for each setting value. So we add this new class module and define an OptionValue class with a Name (String) and a Value (Variant) property.
But then if we call that method every time we want to get a setting value, things are going to be much worse than if we just used Application.VLookup every time, so what gives?
Grabbing every row of that table and turning them into as many OptionValue instances is an action, it wants to be a verb. Things we do with any kind of state are very often well described with a method’s name that starts with a verb, and that’s great already (especially if the rest of the name is actually somewhat descriptive), but a free-floating verb is up for grabs by anyone.
So we’re going to encapsulate it by making that method a member of a class for which SettingsService might be a good name: it’s a service that has the means to abstract away the worksheet and only expose OptionValue objects, and with it the rest of the code no longer needs to deal with the nitty-gritty details of how these objects come into existence, or how long they’ve been around.
Because we can write this class in such a way that we read the settings once from the worksheet (say, in the Initialize handler of the class itself), cache them in a private keyed collection (or private dictionary), and as long as our instance is alive we can return the cached option values whenever someone asks for them, and then they’ll be getting them without needing to hit the worksheet.
By adding an indexed property, we can even have a default member that makes sense, and the rest of the code can read its configuration like this:
Dim Settings As SettingsService
Set Settings = New SettingsService
If Settings("SomeSetting") Then
Debug.Print "SomeSetting is ON"
Else
Debug.Print "SomeSetting is OFF"
End If
Settings(“SomeSetting”) stands in for so many things here, all of which would distract from what this macro is supposed to be doing, however working with Variant like this is annoying, and the use of default members is abstracting away mechanics that we’d usually rather be explicit about, so we should instead expose typed methods, so we know (we/us, but also the compiler and Rubberduck here) what actual types and members we’re dealing with:
Dim Settings As SettingsService
Set Settings = New SettingsService
If Settings.GetBoolean("SomeSetting") Then
Debug.Print "SomeSetting is ON"
Else
Debug.Print "SomeSetting is OFF"
End If
Where GetBoolean being a method/function rather than a property should make us feel much better about throwing errors: if the setting doesn’t exist, we blow up. If the setting exists but its Variant subtype isn’t Boolean then we probably want to blow up rather than return gibberish. If it exists and it’s of the expected data type, we return the setting value, converted to an actual Boolean.
That means SettingsService also needs GetDate, GetDouble (and maybe GetInteger), and of course GetString, leaving the Variant values completely encapsulated in the service: callers don’t need to care about any of that, and that’s neat.
There is no Worksheet
The only thing that needs to do anything with SettingsSheet is the SettingsService. Nothing else needs to access it for any reason whatsoever, because we have a service that fully abstracts it away, so it might as well not be there.
And the macro should still work, assuming it knows how to deal with and recover from a missing setting value.
Settings could be moved to a flat file, another workbook, or a database, and only one method would need to change: the one that’s reading and caching the settings from the worksheet, would instead be connecting and querying a database – and would still only need to hit it once.
And none of anything else would need to change, because it’s all completely yielding that responsibility to this service.
Compare to what it would be like to change inline VLookups and Range.Find calls (wherever they are) to read from another source, and you can quickly see the benefits of having sane abstraction levels.
Code that desperately wants to control how everything is done at the lowest level of detail, is tedious and heavy. It’s hard to tell what the role of such a procedure is, because too many things are going on and the signal gets drowned in noise.
There doesn’t need to be a service class, or even an OptionValue class: any distinct procedure scope that’s clearly responsible for retrieving a valid setting value is a good step forward. But moving the state into an object makes it easier to control its lifetime, and by encapsulating behavior we clean up the calling modules the same way extracting procedure out of a larger scope cleans up that larger scope. It reduces the cognitive load and complexity by moving away code that’s concerned with the peripherals of any given macro’s purpose, and thus increases the cohesion of the macro’s module because things that aren’t directly related to what the macro is specifically responsible for, are simply elsewhere, where they belong.
Rubberduck News 