MicroTip: ReSharper Navigation

I've read a couple times that the difference between the apprentice and the master performing a the same task isn't one big thing, it is many, many small things that together make a big difference. To that end, I am going to share the small things that help me work more efficiently under the title MicroTips. Here is the first of (hopefully) many:

ReSharper is a very powerful add-on for Visual Studio that improves the way one develops .NET code, but only if you know how to use it. (To see a ReSharper Jedi in action, go here.) One of the primary ways it improves one's ability to express thought in code is to eliminate the need to context switch from keyboard to mouse for navigation.

First of all, you need to configure the keyboard shortcuts. Do yourself a favor and learn the IntelliJ IDEA shortcuts now, because you will eventually find the Visual Studio flavored shortcuts are inefficient as they each require 2 keystrokes for common activities while the IDEA shortcuts only require 1.

Memorize and use (practice) these every time you need to navigate in your code:

Ctrl+N => Navigate to Type by Name. Learn to use the CamelHumps to save typing and time.
Ctrl+B => Navigate to Type under the cursor. This is the same as Ctrl+Click, but better.
Ctrl+Shift+B => Navigate to Derived Type (Implementation/Inheritor.) You will need this when properly coding to interfaces.
Ctrl+- => Navigate back to previous location.
Ctrl+F12 => Navigate to class member by Name.
Ctrl+Alt+L => Locate File in Solution Explorer. This one is useful when you need to move from the code behind to the markup in a web project. [Ctrl+Alt+L, Up Arrow, Enter]
Ctrl+Shift+N => Navigate to File by Name.

Thats it for this time. Just getting around in your code. If you can't live without your mouse, try unplugging it for an hour and see if you can't figure out how to navigate your code with your keyboard.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

TFS to SVN Conversion with History

Recently, the team I was on wanted to move our source code from Team Foundation Server to SVN for reasons that had almost nothing to do with source control directly. This would be a pretty simple operation, but we didn't want to lose access to the history when the operations team turned off the machine running TFS. We couldn't find any direct paths for moving history from TFS to SVN, so instead we chose to use git as an intermediary. Here's how we did it: Step 1 - Install the tools Install msysgit: http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/ Install git-tfs: https://github.com/git-tfs/git-tfs Step 2 - Pull TFS history to local git repository git tfs clone <tfs-project-url> "$/<tfs-project-name>/<tfs-project-folder>" <localfolder> example: git tfs clone http://tfs-001:8080/tfs/projectroot "$/Reference Architecture/ReferenceArchitecture" RefArch Step 3 - Initialize git-svn * User Lower Case - Caps will make it fail! * Change direc...
Read more

Simpler Tests: What kind of test are you writing?

One common problem that I see in test suites is confusion about what each test should cover. This confusion often leads to tests that are either too broad or too focused to accomplish the goal of the author. When writing a test, it is important to think about what kind of test it will be and the constraints that make that type of test effective. There are a few broad categories of tests that I keep in mind to help focus my testing: Unit Tests Also called micro tests, unit tests form the foundation of any good testing strategy. These are tests that test a single class or method in isolation from it's dependencies. Mocks and stubs help us isolate the code under test and make our tests more focused and expressive. A test that touches any external resource such as the database, the file system, a web service, etc is never a unit test. The primary purpose of unit tests is to validate that the subject under test is functionally correct for the expected inputs and outputs. Additiona...
Read more

Architecture at different levels of abstraction

Image
This week I am attending the O'Reilly Architecture Conference in NYC with my team and I had the pleasure of attending a two day training on Building Evolutionary Architectures presented by Neal Ford and Rebecca Parsons . During this session, on of the things we talked about extensively was coupling. We looked at dependency maps for different architectural styles including the big ball of mud . We saw something like the following and almost everyone agreed, "That is a bad architecture." Big Ball of Mud This reminded me of something I has seen elsewhere before, and after a quick search, I found it: Amazon and Netflix Death Star Architectures The ball of mud is considered obviously wrong by most architects, but the death star seems to be held up as an ideal by just as many and likely most of the same architects. Why is this? Are afferent coupling (inbound dependencies) and efferent coupling (outreaching dependencies) only important at a certain sc...
Read more