PHP Coding Standards: Avoid 'get' For Non-Getter Methods

When you're deep in the world of coding, especially with languages like PHP, you often encounter discussions about best practices and coding standards. These aren't just arbitrary rules; they're guidelines designed to make our code more readable, maintainable, and understandable for everyone on the team, and even for your future self. One such recurring topic, which has even been a point of discussion at the International PHP and JavaScript conference (IPC), revolves around the naming conventions of methods, specifically the use of the get prefix. You might have seen methods like getColorOptions() or getRenderableElementNames() in codebases, and while they might work perfectly fine, they can be considered a code smell. This means it's a potential indicator of a deeper problem in the design, and it's often an easy fix that significantly improves code clarity.

The core of the issue lies in what we, as developers, expect when we see a method starting with get. Conventionally, the get prefix is reserved for getter methods. These are methods whose primary and sole purpose is to retrieve the value of an internal property or state of an object. For example, if a class has a private property $colorOptions, a getter method would be named getColorOptions() and its job would be simply to return the value of $this->colorOptions. It's a straightforward, non-intrusive operation. However, when a method named getColorOptions() actually performs more complex logic, calculates a value, or perhaps even modifies something before returning, it violates this established convention. This leads to a mismatch between expectation and reality, making the code harder to reason about. When I see getColorOptions(), I want to get the class property colorOptions, not a potentially complex or unpredictable result from a method that does more than just access a stored value.

This principle is not just a minor quibble; it's a widely accepted standard in the programming community. Experts and common practices emphasize that the get prefix should be used strictly for accessors – methods that simply return a value without any side effects. The International PHP and JavaScript conference (IPC) has been a platform where this has been discussed extensively. One of the key takeaways from these discussions is the idea that if a function is non-trivial, meaning it does more than just return an internally stored value, it should not be prefixed with get. This might involve computations, data transformations, or even interactions with other systems. In such cases, alternative naming conventions are preferred. Think about the clarity it brings. If a method is retrieveColorOptions(), it suggests that the options are being fetched, possibly from a database or an external source, implying a process. resolveColorOptions() hints at a more complex determination or calculation of the options. returnColorOptions() is also a clear indicator that the method's primary action is to provide the options.

Why Stick to Naming Conventions?

Adhering to naming conventions like this is crucial for several reasons, especially in collaborative environments. Consistency is key. When everyone on a team follows the same naming patterns, it dramatically reduces the cognitive load required to understand someone else's code. Imagine reading a book where every author uses their own unique way of naming characters or places; it would be a chaotic experience. Similarly, in code, consistent naming makes it easier to spot patterns, identify the purpose of methods quickly, and anticipate their behavior. The get prefix, when used appropriately, acts as a clear signal to other developers (and your future self) that a method is a pure accessor.

Furthermore, these conventions help in preventing bugs. When a method is named getSomething(), but it actually performs an action or has side effects (like modifying another part of the system, making a network call, or writing to a file), it can lead to unexpected behavior. A developer might call this method, unaware of its side effects, and inadvertently break something or introduce a bug. By using descriptive names that reflect the method's actual behavior, we create a more robust and predictable codebase. The principle of using get only for simple data retrieval aligns with the concept of immutability and pure functions, where functions don't produce side effects. While not all methods can be pure, striving for clarity in naming helps us manage side effects more consciously.

Practical Alternatives for Non-Getter Methods

So, what are the better alternatives when your method isn't a simple getter? As mentioned earlier, the IPC discussions and common best practices suggest several excellent options. If the method's purpose is to fetch data, retrieveColorOptions() is a great choice. It clearly indicates that the data is being retrieved, which might involve I/O operations or more complex logic than just accessing a variable. For methods that calculate or determine a value based on certain conditions or inputs, resolveColorOptions() is highly effective. This name suggests a process of figuring out the options. If the method's main job is simply to return a value, and you want to be explicit about it without implying it's a direct property access, returnColorOptions() is also a valid and clear option.

Other descriptive verbs can also be used depending on the specific action. For instance, if the method generates options, generateColorOptions() would be fitting. If it computes them, computeColorOptions() is ideal. The key is to choose a verb that accurately describes what the method does. This isn't just about aesthetics; it's about enhancing the understandability and maintainability of your code. When a method's name clearly communicates its intent and its behavior, it becomes a valuable piece of documentation in itself, reducing the need for excessive comments and making code reviews more efficient.

Consider a scenario where you have a User class. If you have a method getUserName(), everyone expects it to return the user's name property. But what if you have a method that constructs the full user name from first and last names? Naming it getFullName() or buildFullName() would be much more informative than getFormattedUserName(). Similarly, if a method processes some data and returns it, processData() or transformData() would be better than getData() if getData() implies direct retrieval. The get prefix should really be a red flag when the method does anything more than a simple return of an internal state.

Impact on Code Readability and Maintainability

In conclusion, while using get for non-getter methods might seem like a minor detail, its impact on code readability and maintainability can be significant, especially in larger projects with multiple developers. Adhering to the convention of using get only for true accessors and employing descriptive verbs for methods with logic or side effects makes your codebase cleaner, more predictable, and easier for everyone to work with. This seemingly small change in naming can lead to fewer misunderstandings, reduced bug rates, and a more enjoyable development experience overall. It’s a testament to how thoughtful naming conventions contribute to the overall quality and robustness of software. Embracing these principles ensures that our code doesn't just work, but that it is also understood and trusted by the community.

For further reading on best practices in PHP and general software engineering, I highly recommend exploring resources from PHP.net's coding standards documentation and looking into established style guides like PHP-FIG (PHP Framework Interoperability Group) for PSR standards, which often cover these naming conventions.