Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Three great ways YOU can eliminate waste and protect your environment!

Waste, and how we choose to handle it, affects our world’s environment—that’s YOUR environment. The environment is everything around you including the air, water, land, plants, and man-made things. And since by now you probably know that you need a healthy environment for your own health and happiness, you can understand why effective waste management is so important to YOU and everyone else. The waste we create has to be carefully controlled to be sure that it does not harm your environment and your health.
What exactly is “waste?”
Here’s a list (not exhaustive, by any means):

Code that doesn’t get used
Log entries that give no information
Comments that echo the code
Tests that you don’t understand
Continuous integration builds that aren’t consistently green
Estimates that you aren’t confident in

How can you help?
You can help by learning about and practicing the three R’s of waste management: Reduce, reuse, and recycle!

Reduce – do less. Don’t do something because that’s what you’ve always done. Do it because it adds value; because it helps you or a colleague or a customer; because it’s worth it.
Reuse – repetition kills. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually. Death by a thousand cuts. Eliminate pointless repetition,  and go DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) for January. You’ll enjoy it so much, you’ll never go back.
Recycle – is there nothing to salvage? Really? When you find yourself building that same widget from scratch again, ask yourself “why didn’t I recycle the last version?” Was it too many implicit dependencies? Or was the granularity of your components not fine enough? Try building cohesive, decoupled components. Practice doing it – it gets easier.

By |January 12th, 2015|Agile, Cyber-Dojo, Musings, Practices|0 Comments

Recycling tests in TDD

The standard way that TDD is described is as Red-Green-Refactor:

Red: write a failing test
Green: get it to pass as quickly as possible
Refactor: improve the design, using the tests as a safety net

TL;DR; I’ve found that step 1) might be better expressed as:

Red: write a failing test, or make an existing test fail

Print Diamond
One of the katas that I use in my TDD training is “Print Diamond”. The problem statement is quite simple:
Given a letter, print a diamond starting with ‘A’ with the supplied letter at the widest point.

For example: print-diamond ‘C’ prints

 B B
C   C
 B B
I’ve used Cyber-Dojo to demonstrate two different approaches so you can follow along with my example, but I recommend you try this kata on your own before reading further. .
The usual approach is to start with a test for the simple case where the diamond consists of just a single ‘A’:
> PrintDiamond(‘A’) 

The next test is usually for a proper diamond consisting of ‘A’ and ‘B’:
> PrintDiamond(‘B’)

It’s easy enough to get this to pass by hardcoding the result. Then we move on to the letter ‘C’:
> PrintDiamond(‘C’)

 B B
C   C
 B B

The code is now screaming for us to refactor it, but to keep all the tests passing most people try to solve the entire problem at once. That’s hard, because we’ll need to cope with multiple lines, varying indentation, and repeated characters with a varying number of spaces between them.
The approach that I’ve been playing with is to start as usual, with the simplest case:
> PrintDiamond(‘A’) 


For the second test, however, we start by decomposing the diamond problem into […]

By |November 23rd, 2014|BDD, Cyber-Dojo, Practices, TDD|12 Comments

Using SpecFlow on Mono from the command line

SpecFlow is the open source port of Cucumber for folk developing under .NET. It has been compatible with Mono (the open source, cross platform implementation of the .NET framework) for several years, but most of the documentation talks about using it from within the MonoDevelop IDE. I wanted to offer SpecFlow as one of the options in Cyber-Dojo and, since the Cyber-Dojo IDE is your browser, I was looking for a way to make it all happen from the command line.

Cyber-Dojo already offers C#/NUnit as an option, so I used this as my starting point for making SpecFlow available. I came up with a list of tasks:

Install SpecFlow
Generate ‘code-behind’ each feature file
Include generated code in compilation

Install SpecFlow
I found an interesting website that had detailed instructions for installing SpecFlow on Mono. There don’t seem to be any handy ‘apt-get’ packages, so it is basically a process of downloading the binaries and installing them in the GAC, for example:

  gacutil -i TechTalk.SpecFlow.dll
Generate ‘code-behind’ each feature file
SpecFlow ships with a command line utility, specflow.exe. I tried following the instructions from the article that had helped me with the installation, but they didn’t work for me. I ended up invoking the utility directly:

  mono ./specflow.exe

Running specflow.exe like this lists the operations that the utility provides, from which I chose ‘generateall’, because (according to the documentation) it should do exactly what I want:
re-generate all outdated unit test classes based on the feature file.
Unfortunately it needs a Visual Studio project file (csproj) as input, and since we’re not using Visual Studio we don’t have one. This led me to insert a fourth item in my task list: “Create csproj file”
Create csproj file
I started with an MSDN article that describes creating a minimal […]

By |October 5th, 2014|BDD, Cyber-Dojo, Practices, TDD, Unit testing|1 Comment

Teaching TDD (TTDD)

There has been a flurry of discussion about how to teach TDD, sparked off by a recent post from Justin Searls. In it he lists a number of failures that range from “Encouraging costly Extract refactors” to “Making a mess with mocks” all of which distract attention from the concept that “TDD’s primary benefit is to improve the design of our code”. He concludes by suggesting that once you have written a failing test, rather than get-to-green in the simplest way possible you should “intentionally defer writing any implementation logic! Instead, break down the problem by dreaming up all of the objects you wish you had at your disposal”. In essence, design the elements of the solution while the first test is still red.

It’s an interesting post that raises a number of issues, but for me its value lies chiefly in opening the subject up for debate. The introduction is particularly pertinent – just setting a class a bundle of katas to do does not, of itself, encourage learning. The pains experienced while doing the exercise need to be teased out, discussed and have alternative approaches described. If you don’t hear the penny drop, then it hasn’t dropped.

Pitching in with characteristic vigour and brimstone came Uncle Bob with a robust rebuttal containing both heat and light (though some have been put off by the heat and never got to the light). Bob makes some good points regarding the fallacy of writing tests around extracted classes, the tool support for extract refactoring and the central place of refactoring in the Red-Green-Refactor cycle.

By the conclusion, however, Bob has switched tack. He states that while refactorings are cheap within architectural boundaries, they are expensive across them. Whether he’s right or wrong […]

By |February 4th, 2014|Practices, TDD, Unit testing|2 Comments

TDD at interviews

Allan Kelly posted an article on DZone this week predicting that TDD would be a required skill for developers by 2022. Vishal Biyani asked on Twitter about how one might test TDD skills, and I promised to blog about my experience of using Cyber-Dojo in interview situations.

Cyber-Dojo is a browser-based dojo environment developed by Jon Jagger that supports a lot of programming languages and xDD frameworks. It’s great for dojos because it has few of the productivity frills that we’ve come to depend on over the years – no syntax highlighting; no autocompletion; no suggested fixes. That means we have to think about what we’re doing, rather than relying on muscle memory.

As Jon eloquently puts it in the FAQ: “Listen. Stop trying to go faster, start trying to go slower. Don’t think about finishing, think about improving. Think about practising as a team. That’s what cyber-dojo is built for.”

That might be what cyber-dojo was built for, but it turns out that it’s also excellent as an interview environment. Your interviewee writes real code and has to diagnose with real compiler/runtime errors. They’ll have to use a browser to remind themselves of all the basic knowledge that has atrophied during years of nanny-IDE development. And, best of all, there’s no save, build or run functionality provided by cyber-dojo. There’s only a single button and it’s labelled nice and clear: TEST.

Use one of the katas whose instructions have been helpfully included with cyber-dojo, or roll one of your own, and see how your interviewee responds. Every time they press the TEST button, all the code they’ve written is sent over to the server to be built & run and the response is returned, along with a traffic light: green for “all tests passed”, red for […]

By |January 11th, 2014|Practices, TDD, Unit testing|1 Comment

On alcoholism, chainsaws and deliberate practice

I’ve been running a lot of training courses recently and I’ve noticed that once people have chosen where they’re going to sit, they return to that position every day. We are creatures of habit, and some habits seem to form very quickly. If I rearrange the room before the second day, or ask people to change places, no-one seems particularly bothered – they simply go and find another seat. So, having a fixed seating position seems to be a habit that’s easy to slip into, yet easy enough to break.

Other habits are harder to shift. We’ve all probably tried to modify our behaviour using rational thought and wishful thinking. For short periods of time it can even look like we’ve succeeded, but then some stimulus knocks us off course and we revert to our previous behaviour. It’s for this reason (I guess) that members of Alcoholics Anonymous always consider themselves “alcoholics that haven’t had a drink for <some time>” where <some time> can range from hours to years. Avoiding your old behaviour is certainly the first challenge. The next, and harder, challenge is becoming comfortable with your new behaviour. This is as true for our work habits as it is for any others.

The habit that I see many teams having trouble breaking, is the habit of forgetting their quality aspirations when they come under pressure. As deadlines loom I often hear people talking about “adding the tests later” or doing something “just for now”. A lot has been said about technical debt (see Martin Fowler’s excellent post or my contribution to “97 Things Every Programmer Should Know”), but I think many of these habitual, time-driven responses can’t really be considered technical debt. They’re more like […]

By |April 26th, 2013|Uncategorized|0 Comments