Related
I tend to do a lot of projects on short deadlines and with lots of code that will never be used again, so there's always pressure/temptation to cut corners. One rule I always stick to is encapsulation/loose coupling, so I have lots of small classes rather than one giant God class. But what else should I never compromise on?
Update - thanks for the great response. Lots of people have suggested unit testing, but I don't think that's really appropriate to the kind of UI coding I do. Usability / User acceptance testing seems much important. To reiterate, I'm talking about the BARE MINIMUM of coding standards for impossible deadline projects.
Not OOP, but a practice that helps in both the short and long run is DRY, Don't Repeat Yourself. Don't use copy/paste inheritance.
Not a OOP practice, but common sense ;-).
If you are in a hurry, and have to write a hack. Always add a piece of comment with the reasons. So you can trace it back and make a good solution later.
If you never had the time to come back, you always have the comment so you know, why the solution was chosen at the moment.
Use Source control.
No matter how long it takes to set up (seconds..), it will always make your life easier! (still it's not OOP related).
Naming. Under pressure you'll write horrible code that you won't have time to document or even comment. Naming variables, methods and classes as explicitly as possible takes almost no additional time and will make the mess readable when you must fix it. From an OOP point of view, using nouns for classes and verbs for methods naturally helps encapsulation and modularity.
Unit tests - helps you sleep at night :-)
This is rather obvious (I hope), but at the very least I always make sure my public interface is as correct as possible. The internals of a class can always be refactored later on.
no public class with mutable public variables (struct-like).
Before you know it, you refer to this public variable all over your code, and the day you decide this field is a computed one and must have some logic in it... the refactoring gets messy.
If that day is before your release date, it gets messier.
Think about the people (may even be your future self) who have to read and understand the code at some point.
Application of the single responsibility principal. Effectively applying this principal generates a lot of positive externalities.
Like everyone else, not as much OOP practices, as much as practices for coding that apply to OOP.
Unit test, unit test, unit test. Defined unit tests have a habit of keeping people on task and not "wandering" aimlessly between objects.
Define and document all hierarchical information (namespaces, packages, folder structures, etc.) prior to writing production code. This helps to flesh out object relations and expose flaws in assumptions related to relationships of objects.
Define and document all applicable interfaces prior to writing production code. If done by a lead or an architect, this practice can additionally help keep more junior-level developers on task.
There are probably countless other "shoulds", but if I had to pick my top three, that would be the list.
Edit in response to comment:
This is precisely why you need to do these things up front. All of these sorts of practices make continued maintenance easier. As you assume more risk in the kickoff of a project, the more likely it is that you will spend more and more time maintaining the code. Granted, there is a larger upfront cost, but building on a solid foundation pays for itself. Is your obstacle lack of time (i.e. having to maintain other applications) or a decision from higher up? I have had to fight both of those fronts to be able to adopt these kinds of practices, and it isn't a pleasant situation to be in.
Of course everything should be Unit tested, well designed, commented, checked into source control and free of bugs. But life is not like that.
My personal ranking is this:
Use source control and actually write commit comments. This way you have a tiny bit of documentation should you ever wonder "what the heck did I think when I wrote this?"
Write clean code or document. Clean well-written code should need little documentation, as it's meaning can be grasped from reading it. Hacks are a lot different. Write why you did it, what you do and what you'd like to do if you had the time/knowledge/motivation/... to do it right
Unit Test. Yes it's down on number three. Not because it's unimportant but because it's useless if you don't have the other two at least halfway complete. Writing Unit tests is another level of documentation what you code should be doing (among others).
Refactor before you add something. This might sound like a typical "but we don't have time for it" point. But as with many of those points it usually saves more time than it costs. At least if you have at least some experience with it.
I'm aware that much of this has already been mentioned, but since it's a rather subjective matter, I wanted to add my ranking.
[insert boilerplate not-OOP specific caveat here]
Separation of concerns, unit tests, and that feeling that if something is too complex it's probably not conceptualised quite right yet.
UML sketching: this has clarified and saved any amount of wasted effort so many times. Pictures are great aren't they? :)
Really thinking about is-a's and has-a's. Getting this right first time is so important.
No matter how fast a company wants it, I pretty much always try to write code to the best of my ability.
I don't find it takes any longer and usually saves a lot of time, even in the short-term.
I've can't remember ever writing code and never looking at it again, I always make a few passes over it to test and debug it, and even in those few passes practices like refactoring to keep my code DRY, documentation (to some degree), separation of concerns and cohesion all seem to save time.
This includes crating many more small classes than most people (One concern per class, please) and often extracting initialization data into external files (or arrays) and writing little parsers for that data... Sometimes even writing little GUIs instead of editing data by hand.
Coding itself is pretty quick and easy, debugging crap someone wrote when they were "Under pressure" is what takes all the time!
At almost a year into my current project I finally set up an automated build that pushes any new commits to the test server, and man, I wish I had done that on day one. The biggest mistake I made early-on was going dark. With every feature, enhancement, bug-fix etc, I had a bad case of the "just one mores" before I would let anyone see the product, and it literally spiraled into a six month cycle. If every reasonable change had been automatically pushed out it would have been harder for me to hide, and I would have been more on-track with regard to the stakeholders' involvement.
Go back to code you wrote a few days/weeks ago and spend 20 minutes reviewing your own code. With the passage of time, you will be able to determine whether your "off-the-cuff" code is organized well enough for future maintenance efforts. While you're in there, look for refactoring and renaming opportunities.
I sometimes find that the name I chose for a function at the outset doesn't perfectly fit the function in its final form. With refactoring tools, you can easily change the name early before it goes into widespread use.
Just like everybody else has suggested these recommendations aren't specific to OOP:
Ensure that you comment your code and use sensibly named variables. If you ever have to look back upon the quick and dirty code you've written, you should be able to understand it easily. A general rule that I follow is; if you deleted all of the code and only had the comments left, you should still be able to understand the program flow.
Hacks usually tend to be convoluted and un-intuitive, so some good commenting is essential.
I'd also recommend that if you usually have to work to tight deadlines, get yourself a code library built up based upon your most common tasks. This will allow you to "join the dots" rather than reinvent the wheel each time you have a project.
Regards,
Docta
An actual OOP practice I always make time for is the Single Responsibility Principle, because it becomes so much harder to properly refactor the code later on when the project is "live".
By sticking to this principle I find that the code I write is easily re-used, replaced or rewritten if it fails to match the functional or non-functional requirements. When you end up with classes that have multiple responsibilities, some of them may fulfill the requirements, some may not, and the whole may be entirely unclear.
These kinds of classes are stressful to maintain because you are never sure what your "fix" will break.
For this special case (short deadlines and with lots of code that will never be used again) I suggest you to pay attention to embedding some script engine into your OOP code.
Learn to "refactor as-you-go". Mainly from an "extract method" standpoint. When you start to write a block of sequential code, take a few seconds to decide if this block could stand-alone as a reusable method and, if so, make that method immediately. I recommend it even for throw-away projects (especially if you can go back later and compile such methods into your personal toolbox API). It doesn't take long before you do it almost without thinking.
Hopefully you do this already and I'm preaching to the choir.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
One of our developers is continually writing code and putting it into version control without testing it. The quality of our code is suffering as a result.
Besides getting rid of the developer, how can I solve this problem?
EDIT
I have talked to him about it number of times and even given him written warning
If you can do code reviews -- that's a perfect place to catch it.
We require reviews prior to merging to iteration trunk, so typically everything is caught then.
If you systematically perform code reviews before allowing a developer to commit the code, well, your problem is mostly solved. But this doesn't seem to be your case, so this is what I recommend:
Talk to the developer. Discuss the consequences for others in the team. Most developers want to be recognized by their peer, so this might be enough. Also point out it is much easier to fix bugs in the code that's fresh in your mind than weeks-old code. This part makes sense if you have some form of code owneship in place.
If this doesn't work after some time, try to put in place a policy that will make commiting buggy code unpleasant for the author. One popular way is to make the person who broke the build responsible for the chores of creating the next one. If your build process is fully automated, look for another menial task to take care of instead. This approach has the added benefit of not pinpointing anyone in particular, making it more acceptable for everybody.
Use disciplinary measures. Depending on the size of your team and of your company, those can take many forms.
Fire the developer. There is a cost associated with keeping bad apples. When you get this far, the developer doesn't care about his fellow developers, and you've got a people problem on your hands already. If the work environment becomes poisoned, you might lose far more - productivity-wise and people-wise - than this single bad developer.
As a developer who rarely tests his own code, I can tell you the one thing that's made me slowly shift my behavior...
Visibility
If the environment allows pushing code out, waiting for users to find problems, and then essentially asking "How about now?" after making a change to the code, there's no real incentive to test your own stuff.
Code reviews and collaboration encourage you to work towards making a quality product much more than if you were just delivering 'Widget X' while your coworkers work on 'Widget Y' and 'Widget Z'
The more visible your work is, the more likely you are to care about how well it works.
Code review. Stick all of your dev's in a room every Monday morning and ask them to bring their most proud code-based accomplishment from the previous week along with them to the meeting.
Let them take the spotlight and get excited about explaining what they did. Have them bring copies of the code so other dev's can see what they're talking about.
We started this process a few months ago, and it's astonishing to see the amount of sub-conscious quality checks that take place. After all, if the dev's are simply asked to talk about what they're most excited about, they'll be totally stoked to show people their code. Then, other dev's will see the quality errors and publicly discuss why they're wrong and how the code should really be written instead.
If this doesn't get your dev to write quality code, he's probably not a good fit for your team.
Make it part of his Annual Review objectives. If he doesn't achieve it, no pay rise.
Sometimes though you do just have to accept that someone is just not right for your team/environment, it should be a last resort and can be tough to handle but if you have exhausted all other options it may be the best thing in the long run.
Tell the developer you would like to see a change in their practices within 2 weeks or you will begin your company's disciplinary procedure. Offer as much help and assistance as you can, but if you can't change this person, he's not right for your company.
Using Cruise Control or a similar tool, you can make checkins automatically trigger a build and unit tests. You would still need to ensure that there are unit tests for any new functionality he adds, which you can do by looking at his checkins.
However, this is a human problem, so a technical solution can only go so far.
Why not just talk to him? He probably won't actually bite you.
Make him "babysit" the build, and become the build manager. This will give him less time to develop code (thus increasing everyone's performance) and teach him why a good build is so necessary.
Enforce test cases - code cannot be submitted without unit test cases. Modify the build system so that if the test cases don't compile and run correctly, or don't exist, then the entire task checkin is denied.
-Adam
Publish stats on test code coverage per developer, this would be after talking to him.
Here are some ideas from a sea shanty.
Intro
What shall we do with a drunken sailor, (3×)
Early in the morning?
Chorus
Wey–hey and up she rises, (3×)
Early in the morning!
Verses
Stick him in a bag and beat him senseless, (3×)
Early in the morning!
Put him in the longboat till he’s sober, (3×)
Early in the morning!
etc. Replace "drunken sailor" with a "sloppy developer".
Depending on the type of version control system you are using you could set up check-in policies that force the code to pass certain requirements before being allowed to check-in. If you are using a sytem like Team Foundation Server it gives you the ability to specify code-coverage and unit testing requirements for check-ins.
You know, this is a perfect opportunity to avoid singling him out (though I agree you need to talk with him) and implement a Test-first process in-house. If the rules aren't clear and the expectations are known to all, I've found that what you describe isn't all that uncommon. I find that doing the test-first development scheme works well for me and improves the code quality.
They may be overly focused on speed rather than quality.
This can tempt some people into rushing through issues to clear their list and see what comes back in bug reports later.
To rectify this balance:
assign only a couple of items at a time in your issue tracking system,
code review and test anything they have "completed" as soon as possible so it will be back with them immediately if there are any problems
talk to them about your expectations about how long an item will take to do properly
Peer programming is another possibility. If he is with another skilled developer on the team who dies meet quality standards and knows procedure then this has a few benifits:
With an experienced developer over his shoulder he will learn what is expected of him and see the difference between his code and code that meets expectations
The other developer can enforce a test first policy: not allowing code to be written until tests have been written for it
Similarly, the other developer can verify that the code is up to standard before it is checked-in reduicing the nmber of bad check-ins
All of this of course requires the company and developers to be receptive to this process which they may not be.
It seems that people have come up with a lot of imaginative and devious answers to this problem. But the fact is that this isn't a game. Devising elaborate peer pressure systems to "name and shame" him is not going to get to the root of the problem, ie. why is he not writing tests?
I think you should be direct. I know you say that you've talked to him, but have you tried to find out why he isn't writing tests? Clearly at this point he knows that he should be, so surely there must be some reason why he isn't doing what he's been told to do. Is it laziness? Procrastination? Programmers are famous for their egos and strong opinions - perhaps he's convinced for some reason that testing is a waste of time, or that his code is always perfect and doesn't need testing. If he's an immature programmer, he might not fully understand the implications of his actions. If he's "too mature" he might be too set in his ways. Whatever the reason, address it.
If it does come down to a matter of opinion, you need to make him understand that he needs to set his own personal opinion aside and just follow the rules. Make it clear that if he can't be trusted to follow the rules then he will be replaced. If he still doesn't, do just that.
One last thing - document all of your discussions along with any problems that occur as a result of his changes. If it comes to the worst you may be forced to justify your decisions, in which case, having documentary evidence will surely be invaluable.
Stick him on his own development branch, and only bring his stuff into the trunk when you know it's thoroughly tested. This might be a place where a distributed source control management tool like GIT or Mercurial would excel. Although with the increased branching/merging support in SVN, you might not have too much trouble managing it.
EDIT
This is only if you can't get rid of him or get him to change his ways. If you simply can't get this behaviour to stop (by changing or firing), then the best you can do is buffer the rest of the team from the bad effects of his coding.
If you are at a place where you can affect the policies, make some changes. Do code reviews before check ins and make testing part of the development cycle.
It seems pretty simple. Make it a requirement and if he can't do it, replace him. Why would you keep him?
I usually don't advocate this unless all else fails...
Sometimes, a publicly-displayed chart of bug-count-by-developer can apply enough peer pressure to get favorable results.
Try the Carrot, make it a fun game.
E.g The Continuous Integration Game plugin for Hudson
http://wiki.hudson-ci.org/display/HUDSON/The+Continuous+Integration+Game+plugin
Put your developers on branches of your code, based on some logic like, per feature, per bug fix, per dev team, whatever. Then bad check-ins are isolated to those branches. When it comes time to do a build, merge to a testing branch, find problems, resolve, and then merge your release back to a main branch.
Or remove commit rights for that developer and have them send their code to a younger developer for review and testing before it can be committed. That might motivate a change in procedure.
You could put together a report with errors found in the code with the name of the programmer that was responsible for that piece of software.
If he's a reasonable person, discuss the report with him.
If he cares for his "reputation" publish the report regularly and make it available to all his peers.
If he only listens to the "authority", do the report and escalate the issue to his manager.
Anyway, I've seen often that when people are made aware of how bad they seem from outside, they change their behaviour.
Hey this reminds me of something I read on xkcd :)
Are you referring to writing automated unit test or manually unit testing prior to check-in?
If your shop does not write automated tests then his checking in of code that does not work is reckless. Is it impacting the team? Do you have a formalized QA department?
If you are all creating automated unit tests then I would suggest that part of your code review process include the unit tests as well. It will become obvious that the code is not acceptable per your standards during your review.
Your question is rather broad but I hope I provided some direction.
I would agree with Phil that the first step is to individually talk to him and explain the importance of quality. Poor quality can often be linked to the culture of the team, department and company.
Make executed test cases one of the deliverables before something is considered "done."
If you don't have executed test cases, then the work is not complete, and if the deadline passes before you have the documented test case execution, then he has not delivered on time, and the consequences would be the same as if he had not completed the development.
If your company's culture would not allow for this, and it values speed over accuracy, then that's probably the root of the problem, and the developer is simply responding to the incentives that are in place -- he is being rewarded for doing a lot of things half-assed rather than fewer things correctly.
Make the person clean latrines. Worked in the Army. And if you work in a group with individuals who eat a lot of Indian food, it wont take long for them to fall in line.
But that's just me...
Every time a developer checks something in that does not compile, put some money in a jar. You'll think twice before checking in then.
Unfortunately if you have already spoken to him many times and given him written warnings I would say it is about time to eliminate him from the team.
You might find some helpful answers here: How to make junior programmers write tests?
I'd be tempted to suggest elaborating a bit on what you've tried and what results you got as this may have changed a bit but here are my initial suggestions:
Is it any tests or comprehensive tests? Some may code blindly and do zero tests, but this is rather rare, IME. Usually there are some tests done but not enough to cover most of the cases that would be comprehensive testing.
Group dynamics may help. I'd assume he is part of a team and that the team's view may be of some help here. In a way this is trying to get peer pressure which is usually a bad thing but sometimes it can be used in good ways.
How well spelled out were the warnings? In a way this can seem childish but there is a chance that what you think of as testing may not be the same as his. Do you want nUnit tests, an excel spreadsheet, logs from his computer, or something else as proof of the existence and use of tests? From what you've described there isn't anything to confirm that he did understand what you meant, was going to use tests and provide evidence of doing so.
Check-in policy question. Some places, such as my current workplace, encourage committing often which can mean that one does commit code without tests. Is there a known, accepted and well-followed policy where you are? That's another aspect here.
How useful, if at all, is for the testers on a product team to know about the internal code details of a product. This does not mean they need to know every line of code but a good idea of how the code is structured, what is the object model, how the various modules are inter-linked, what are the inter-dependencies between various features etc.? This can argubaly help them in finding related issues or defects once they hit one. On the other side, this can potentially 'bias' their "user-centric" approach towards evaluating and certifying the product and can effect the testing results in the end.
I have not heard of any specific model for such interaction. (Lets assume a product that users, potentially non-technical consume, and not a framework or API that the testers are testing - in the latter case the testers may need to understand the code to test that because the user is another programmer).
That entirely depends upon the type of testing being done.
For functional system testing, the testers can and probably should be oblivious to the details of the implementation -- if they know the details they may inadvertently account for that in their test strategy and not properly test the product.
For performance and scalability testing it's often helpful for the testers to have some high-level knowledge of the structure of the codebase, as it's beneficial in identifying potential performance hotspots, and therefore writing targetted test cases. The reason this is important is that generally performance testing is a broad open-ended process, so anything that can be done to focus the testing to get results is beneficial to everybody.
This sounds similiar to this previous question: Should QA test from a strictly black-box perspective?
I've never seen a circumstance where a tester who knew a lot about the internals of system was disadvantaged.
I would assert that there are self justifying myths that an informed tester is as adequate or even better than a deeply technical one because:
It allows project managers to use 'random or low quality resources' for testing. The 'as uninformed as the user myth'. If you want this type of testing - get some 'real' users to test your stuff.
Testers are still often seen as cheaper and less valuable than developers. The 'anybody can do blackbox testing myth'.
Development can defer proper testing to the test team. Two myths in one 'we don't need to train testers' and 'only the test team does testing' myths.
What you are looking at here is the difference between black box (no knowledge of the internals), white box (all knowledge) and grey box (some select knowledge).
The answer really depends on the purpose of the code. For integration heavy projects then where and how they communicate, even if it is entirely behind the scenes, allows testers to produce appropriate non-functional test cases.
These test cases are determining whether or not a component will gracefully handle the lack of availability of a dependency. It can also be used to identify performance related issues.
For example: As a tester if I know that the Web UI component defers a request to a orchestration service that does the real work then I can construct a scenario where the orchestration takes a long time (high load). If the user then performs another request (simulating user impatience) and the web service will receive a second request while the first is still going. If we continually repeat this the web service will eventually die from stress. Without knowing the underlying model it would not be easy to find the problem
In most cases for functionality testing then black box is preferred, as soon as you move towards non-functional or system integration then understanding the interactions can assist in ensuring appropriate test coverage.
Not all testers are skilled or comfortable working/understanding the component interactions or internals so it is on a per tester/per system basis on whether it is appropriate.
In almost all cases we start with black box and head towards white as the need sees.
A tester does not need to know internal details.
The application should be tested without any knowledge of interal structure, development problems, externals depenedncies.
If you encumber the tester with those additional info you push him into a certain testing scheme and the tester should never be pushed in a direction he should just test from a non coder view.
There are multiple testing methodologies that require code reviewing, and also those that don't.
The advantages to white-box testing (i.e. reading the code) is that you can tailor your testing to only test areas that you know (from reading the code) will fail.
Disadvantages include time wasted from actual testing to understand the code.
Black-box testing (i.e. not reading the code) can be just as good (or better?) at finding bugs than white-box.
Normally both types of testing can happen on one project, developers white-box unit testing, and testers black-box integration testing.
I prefer Black Box testing for final test regimes
In an ideal world...
Testers should know nothing about the internals of the code
They should know everything the customer will - i.e. have the documents/help required to use the system/application.(this definetly includes the API description/documents if it's some sort of code deliverable)
If the testers can't manage to find the defects with these limitations, you haven't documented your API/application enough.
If they are dedicated testers (Only thing they do) then I think they should know as little about the code as possible that they are attempting to test.
Too often they try to determine why its failing, that is the responsibility of the developer not the tester.
That said I think developers make great testers, because we tend to know the edge cases for certain types of functionality.
Here's an example of a bug which you can't find if you don't know the code internals, because you simply can't test all inputs:
long long int increment(long long int l) {
if (l == 475636294934LL) return 3;
return l + 1;
}
However, in this case it would be found if the tester had 100% code coverage as a target, and looked at only enough of the internals to write tests to achieve that.
Here's an example of a bug which you quite likely won't find if you do know the code internals, because false confidence is contagious. In particular, it is usually not possible for the author of the code to write a test which catches this bug:
int MyConnect(socket *sock) {
/* socket must have been bound already, but that's OK */
return RealConnect(sock);
}
If the documentation of MyConnect fails to mention that the socket must be bound, then something unexpected will happen some day (someone will call it unbound, and presumably the socket implementation will select an arbitrary local address). But a tester who can see the code often doesn't have the mindset of "testing" the documentation. Unless they're really on form, they won't notice that there's an assumption in the code not mentioned in the docs, and will just accept the assumption. In contrast, a tester writing from the docs could easily spot the bug, because they'll think "what possible states can a socket be in? I'll do a test for each". Since no constraints are mentioned, there's no reason they won't try the case that fails.
Answer: do both. One way to do this is to write a test suite before you see/write the code, and then add more tests to cover any special cases you introduce in your implementation. This applies whether or not the tester is the same person as the programmer, although obviously if the programmer writes the second kind of test, then only one person in the organisation has to understand the code. It's arguable whether it's a good long-term strategy to have code only one person has ever understood, but it's widespread, because it certainly saves time getting something out the door.
[Edit: I decline to say how these bugs came about. Maybe the programmer of the first one was clinically insane, and for the second one there are some restrictions on the port used, in order to workaround some weird network setup known to occur, and the socket is supposed to have been created via some de-weirdifying API whose existence is mentioned in the general sockets docs, but they neglect to require its use. Clearly in both these cases the programmer has been very careless. But that doesn't affect the point: the examples don't need to be realistic, since if you don't catch bugs that only a very careless programmer would make, then you won't catch all the actual bugs in your code unless you never have a bad day, make a crazy typo, etc.]
I guess it depends how good of testing you want. If you just want to sanity check the common scenarios, then by all means, just give the testers / pizza-eaters the application and tell them to go crazy.
However, if you'd like to have a chance at finding edge cases, performance or load issues, or a whole lot of other issues that hide in the depths of your code, you'd probably be better off hiring testers who know how and when to use white box techniques.
Your call.
IMHO, I think the industry view of testers is completely wrong.
Think about it ... you have two plumbers, one is extremely experienced, knows all the rules, the building codes, and can quickly look at something and know if the work is done right or not. The other plumber is good, and get the job done reliably.
Which one would you want to do the final inspection to make sure you don't come home to a flooded house? In fact, in what other industry do they allow someone who knows hardly anything about the system they are inspecting to actually do the inspection?
I have seen the bar for QA go up over the years, and that makes me happy. In time, QA may become something that devs aspire to be.
In short, not only should they be familiar with the code being tested, but they should have an understanding that rivals the architects of the product, as well as be able to effectively interface with the product owner(s) / customers to ensure that what is being created is actually what they want. But now I am going into a whole seperate conversation ...
Will it happen? Probably sooner than you think. I have been able to reduce the number of people needed to do QA, increase the overall effectiveness of the team, and increase the quality of the product simply by hiring very skilled people with dev / architect backgrounds with a strong aptitude for QA. I have lower operating costs, and since the software going out is higher quality, I end up with lower support costs. FWIW ... I have found that while I can backfill the QA guys effectively into a dev role when needed, the opposite is almost always not true.
If there is time, a tester should definitely go through a developers code. This way, you can improve your tests to get better coverage.
So, maybe if you write your black box tests looking at the spec and think you have the time to execute all of those and will still be left with time, going through code cannot be a bad idea.
Basically it all depends on how much time you have.. Another thing you can do to improve coverage is look at the developers design documents. Those should give you a good idea of what the code is going to look like...
Testers have the advantage of being familiar with both the dev code and the test code!
I would say they don't need to know the internal code details at all. However they do need to know the required functionality and system rules in full detail - like an analyst. Otherwise they won't test all the functionality, or won't realise when the system misbehaves.
For user acceptance testing the tester does not need to know the internal code details of the app. They only need to know the expected functionality, the business rules. When a bug is reported
Whoever is fixing the bug should know the inter-dependencies between various features.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
We're neck deep in a project right now, schedules are tight (but reasonable). Our general strategy is to get a strong beta done, release it for testing, and get feedback from our testers.
Quite frequently, we're being hit by small things that spiral into long, time-costing discussions. They all boil down to one thing: While we know what features we need, we are having trouble with the little details, things like 'where should this message go' and 'do they need this feedback immediately, or will it break their flow, so we should hold off'?
These are all things that our testers SHOULD catch, but
a) Each 'low priority' bug like this drains time from critical issues
b) We want to have as strong a product as possible
and
c) Even the best testing group will miss things from time to time.
We use our product, and we know how our users use the old version...but we're all at a loss as to how to think like a user when we try to use the new version (which has significant graphical as well as underlying changes).
edit - a bit more background:
We're writing a web app used by a widely-distributed base of users. Our app is a big part of their jobs, but not the biggest (and, of course, we only matter to them when it doesn't work). Getting actual users in to use our product is difficult, as we're geographically distant from the nearest location that serves as an end user (We're in Ohio, and I think the nearest location we serve is 3+ hours away).
The closest we can get is our Customer Service team (who have been a big help, really) but they don't really think like the users either. They also serve as our testers (it really motivates them to find bugs when they know that any they DON'T find may mean a big upswing in number of calls). We've had three (of about 12 total) customer service reps back here most of the week doing some preliminary testing...they've gotten involved in the discussions as well.
Watching someone using the app is a huge benefit to me. Possibly someone who is not entirely familiar with it.
Seeing how they try to navigate, how they try to enter information or size windows. Things we take for granted after creating/running the app hour after hour, day after day.
Users will always try and do things you never expected and watching them in action might bring to light how you can change something that might have seemed minor, but really makes a big impact on them.
Read Don't make me think.
Speaking generally, you can't. There's not any way you can turn off the "programmer" part of your brain and think like a user.
And you're right about (c), testing groups don't necessarily catch all the bugs. But the best thing you can do is get a testing group comprised of real, honest-to-goodness end users, and value their feedback. Draw further conclusions from their general comments.
If you want to know how your users will see your system, the closest you can get is usability testing with real users. Everything else is just heuristics and experience, and is also subject to error. There's no such thing as a bug-free product, but you should be able to get a "strong" product with usability testing.
Buy a cheap, easy to use video camera and record your testers using the app. Even better, get some people unfamiliar with the app. to use it and video them. It's relatively cheap, and you'd be surprised what it will highlight.
I like policy of "eating your own dog food"("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_one's_own_dog_food). It brings you one step closer, because you become a user, although you might think like one.
Try to use your app when you are very hurry (e.g. you have someone who waits for a dinner).
You will see all this little things because you have to wait, you have to go back to the mouse of the keyboard, etc.
And also, make your wife use it. Or your mother.
Another useful test : help someone to use it, by phone. If he can't find the button with your directions, that's probably a bug.
The important thing is to get enough information that you yourself can become a "user". Once you do that you can answer most questions yourself.
The way I always do this is to go talk with them about what they need to do, what they typically do, and how they use their current tools to do it. Then (very important) sit with them while they do it. Make sure you get on with them well enough that you can come back to them with questions about how they handle edge cases you think of later (often the answer will be the appalling "we go around the system manually for that").
I will almost always notice something they are doing that is a royal PITA that they didn't bring up because they are used to having to do that and don't know any better. I will always notice that their %90 typical workflow isn't the easiest workflow the tools provide.
You can't really rely on plain old-fashioned requirements gathering by itself, because that is asking them to think like a developer. They generally don't know what is possible to do with your software, what is easy, and what is hard. Also they typically have no clue on GUI design principles. If you ask them for design input they will just tell you to put any new control on their favorite page, until the thing looks like a 747 control panel.
The problem is often that even the users don't know what they want until they are actually working with the software. Sometimes, a small oversight can be a big usability problem, sometimes a well thought out function that was requested by many users sees only little use.
My suggestions to decrease the risk of not implementing the right usability features:
Take a look at users actually doing their day to day work. Even if they use another software or no software at all. You will be able to determine the artifacts they often need to get their job done. You will see what data they frequently need. Concentrate on the artifacts, data and workflows most used. They should be the most usable. Exotic workflows may be a bit more time consuming for the users than often used workflows.
Use working prototypes of the GUI to let users work through a realistic workflow. Watch them and note what hinders them and what works well. Adjust your prototypes accordingly.
If an issue arises in an often-used part of your software, it is time to discuss it now and in details. If the issue concerns a seldom used part, make it a low priority issue and discuss it if you have the time. If issues or suggestions are low priority, they should stay low priority. If you can't determine if solution A or solution B is the best, don't run in circles with the same arguments over and over. Just implement one of the solutions and see if the beta testers like it. The worst thing you could do is waste time over tiny issues, while big issues need to be fixed.
A software will never be perfect, because the viewpoints of users differ. Some users will think that a minor problem breaks the whole application. Others will live with even severe usability issues. People tend to lend their ear to those who argue the loudest. Get to know your users to separate the "loud" issues from the important ones. It takes experience to do this, and sometimes you will make wrong decisions, but there is no perfect way, only one of steady improvement.
If you can, set aside a certain amount of usability development resources for the rollout phase of your software. Usability issues will arise when people start working with it in a real production environment. Sometimes it is not important to present the perfect software, but to solve issues quickly as they arise.
The flippant (yet somewhat accurate) answer to how to think like a user is put a knitting needle in your ear and push really hard.
The longer response is that we as programmers are not normal and I mean that in a good way. I scratch my head at the number of people who still run executables they receive from strangers in emails and then wonder how their computer got infected.
Any group of people will in time develop their own jargon, conventions, practices and expectations. As a programmer you will expect different things from an operating system than Joe User will. This is natural, to be expected yet hard to work around.
It's also why BAs (business analysts) exist. They typically come from a business or testing background and don't think like programmers. They are your link to the users.
Really though, you should be talking to your users. There's no poitn debating what users do. Just drag a few in and see what they do.
A usability test group will help.. tests not focused on discovering bugs, but on the learning curve of the new design, made by a group of users, not programmers.
I treat all users like malicious idiots.
Malicious because I assume all users are going to try and break my code, do stuff that is not allowed, avoid typing in valid data, and will do anything in their power to make my life hell.
Idiots because again I can't assume they will understand simple stuff like phone formats, will run away screaming if presented to many choices, and will not make any leap of faith on complicated instructions. The goal is to hold their hand the entire way.
At the same time, its important to make sure the user doesn't realize you think they're an idiot.
To think like a user, be one. But are these actually bugs that your testers are reporting? Or are they "enhancement requests"? If the software behaves as designed per requirements and they just don't like the way it operates, that's not a bug. That's a failure of requirements and design. Make it work, make it rock solid, make it easy to change and you'll be able to make it what your users want.
I see some good suggestions here, especially observing people trying to use you app. One thing I would suggest is to look at the order in which things are presented to the user on paper forms (if they use these to do data entry from) and make the final data entry page mimic that order as closely as possible. So many data entry errors (and loss of data entry speed) are from them having to jump around on the page and losing their place. I did some work for a political campaign this year and in every case, entering data was made much more difficult because the computer screen did things in a differnt order than the paper inputs. This is particularly important if the form is one that can't be changed (like a voter registration form, a campaign has to use what the state provides) to match the computer screen. ALso be consistent from screen to screen if possible. If it is first Name last name on one form, making it last name first name on the next will confuse people and guanteee data entry errors.
If you are truly interested in understanding users though I strongly suggest taking a course in Human factors engineering. It is an enlightening experience.
The 'right' way to do this is to prototype (or mock up) your new interface features, and watch your users try to use them. Nothing is as enlightening as seeing a real user try to use a new feature.
Unfortunately, given most projects time and resources, this is not possible. If that is the position you are in I would recommend you discuss in the team who has the best grasp of usability, and then make them responsible for usability decisions - but that person will need to regularly consult real users to make sure his/her ideas are consistent with what the users want.
I'd suggest doing some form of usability testing; I've participated in such in the past, and found them quite useful.
If you were writing a ticketing system, for example, bring up tasks, and ask questions like "how would you update this ticket" or "what do you expect to happen if this button is clicked".
You don't necessarily need a full application, either, in some places screen shots can be used.
You could take the TDD/BDD approach and get the users involved before beta, having them work with you on refining requirements as you write your unit tests. We're beginning to incorporate some of those trends into our current project, and we're seeing fewer bugs in the areas where we have involved the users earlier.
There is no "think like a user" technique, get your hands on someone who knows nothing of the project and throw what you have done at them.
It's the only way to see how the look + feel + functionality present themselves to the end user.
Once you shocked that person who knew nothing of the product, listen to all of their idiotic (or so you think they are) complaints, fix them, arrange every silly cosmetic thing they point out (either by fixing the UI or by improving whichever documentation you had)..
and after you have satisfied the person you chose to look at your app from zero knowledge on the subject first round, pick another ...and another... until they stop being shocked when they see it, and they don't get stuck on.. "ok.. what does this do?" kind of phases.
You (as a member of the project, be it the project manager, developer, etc) will never think like a user is my answer to that question.
Old saying: You can make something "fool proof" but you can't make it "Damn-fool proof".
Additionally: When you make something "idiot proof" the world invents a better idiot.
Other than that, I agree with what everyone else said.
Ask someone with absolutely no knowledge, insight or programming experience to use the program and try to figure out every function of the program.
People who would NEVER use such a program are most likely to find bugs.
See it as a new Safari user (or FF) who tries to put the URL inside the search field...
As a programmer you guess no-one would be that stupid (or, well.. unknowing), but people actually sometimes find themselves in these situations. As a programmer, we miss these things.
Everyone I work with is obsessed with the data-centric approach to enterprise development and hates the idea of using custom collections/objects. What is the best way to convince them otherwise?
Do it by example and tread lightly. Anything stronger will just alienate you from the rest of the team.
Remember to consider the possibility that they're onto something you've missed. Being part of a team means taking turns learning & teaching.
No single person has all the answers.
If you are working on legacy code (e.g., apps ported from .NET 1.x to 2.0 or 3.5) then it would be a bad idea to depart from datasets. Why change something that already works?
If you are, however, creating a new apps, there a few things that you can cite:
Appeal to experiencing pain in maintaining apps that stick with DataSets
Cite performance benefits for your new approach
Bait them with a good middle-ground. Move to .NET 3.5, and promote LINQ to SQL, for instance: while still sticking to data-driven architecture, is a huge, huge departure to string-indexed data sets, and enforces... voila! Custom collections -- in a manner that is hidden from them.
What is important is that whatever approach you use you remain consistent, and you are completely honest with the pros and cons of your approaches.
If all else fails (e.g., you have a development team that utterly refuses to budge from old practices and is skeptical of learning new things), this is a very, very clear sign that you've outgrown your team it's time to leave your company!
Remember to consider the possibility that they're onto something you've missed. Being part of a team means taking turns learning & teaching.
Seconded. The whole idea that "enterprise development" is somehow distinct from (and usually the implication is 'more important than') normal development really irks me.
If there really is a benefit for using some technology, then you'll need to come up with a considered list of all the pros and cons that would occur if you switched.
Present this list to your co workers along with explanations and examples for each one.
You have to be realistic when creating this list. You can't just say "Saves us lots of time!!! WIN!!" without addressing the fact that sometimes it is going to take MORE time, will require X months to come up to speed on the new tech, etc. You have to show concrete examples where it will save time, and exactly how.
Likewise you can't just skirt over the cons as if they don't matter, your co-workers will call you on it.
If you don't do these things, or come across as just pushing what you personally like, nobody is going to take you seriously, and you'll just get a reputation for being the guy who's full of enthusiasm and energy but has no idea about anything.
BTW. Look out for this particular con. It will trump everything, unless you have a lot of strong cases for all your other stuff:
Requires 12+ months work porting our existing code. You lose.
Of course, "it depends" on the situation. Sometimes DataSets or DataTables are more suited, like if it really is pretty light business logic, flat hierarchy of entities/records, or featuring some versioning capabilities.
Custom object collections shine when you want to implement a deep hierarchy/graph of objects that cannot be efficiently represented in flat 2D tables. What you can demonstrate is a large graph of objects and getting certain events to propagate down the correct branches without invoking inappropriate objects in other branches. That way it is not necessary to loop or Select through each and every DataTable just to get the child records.
For example, in a project I got involved in two and half years ago, there was a UI module that is supposed to display questions and answer controls in a single WinForms DataGrid (to be more specific, it was Infragistics' UltraGrid). Some more tricky requirements
The answer control for a question can be anything - text box, check box options, radio button options, drop-down lists, or even to pop up a custom dialog box that may pull more data from a web service.
Depending on what the user answered, it can trigger more sub-questions to appear directly under the parent question. If a different answer is given later, it should expose another set of sub-questions (if any) related to that answer.
The original implementation was written entirely in DataSets, DataTables, and arrays. The amount of looping through the hundreds of rows for multiple tables was purely mind-bending. It did not help the programmer came from a C++ background attempting to ref everything (hello, objects living in the heap use reference variables, like pointers!). Nobody, not even the originally programmer, could explain why the code is doing what it does. I came into the scene more than six months after this, and it was stil flooded with bugs. No wonder the 2nd-generation developer I took over from decided to quit.
Two months of tying to fix the chaotic mess, I took it upon myself to redesign the entire module into an object-oriented graph to solve this problem. yeap, complete with abstract classes (to render different answer control on a grid cell depending on question type), delegates and eventing. The end result was a 2D dataGrid binded to a deep hierarchy of questions, naturally sorted according to the parent-child arrangement. When a parent question's answer changed, it would raise an event to the children questions and they would automatically show/hide their rows in the grid according to the parent's answer. Only question objects down that path were affected. The UI responsiveness of this solution compared to the old method was by orders of magnitude.
Ironically, I wanted to post a question that was the exact opposite of this. Most of the programmers I've worked with have gone with the custom data objects/collections approach. It breaks my heart to watch someone with their SQL Server table definition open on one monitor, slowly typing up a matching row-wrapper class in Visual Studio in another monitor (complete with private properties and getters-setters for each column). It's especially painful if they're also prone to creating 60-column tables. I know there are ORM systems that can build these classes automagically, but I've seen the manual approach used much more frequently.
Engineering choices always involve trade-offs between the pros and cons of the available options. The DataSet-centric approach has its advantages (db-table-like in-memory representation of actual db data, classes written by people who know what they're doing, familiar to large pool of developers etc.), as do custom data objects (compile-type checking, users don't need to learn SQL etc.). If everyone else at your company is going the DataSet route, it's at least technically possible that DataSets are the best choice for what they're doing.
Datasets/tables aren't so bad are they?
Best advise I can give is to use it as much as you can in your own code, and hopefully through peer reviews and bugfixes, the other developers will see how code becomes more readable. (make sure to push the point when these occurrences happen).
Ultimately if the code works, then the rest is semantics is my view.
I guess you can trying selling the idea of O/R mapping and mapper tools. The benefit of treating rows as objects is pretty powerful.
I think you should focus on the performance. If you can create an application that shows the performance difference when using DataSets vs Custom Entities. Also, try to show them Domain Driven Design principles and how it fits with entity frameworks.
Don't make it a religion or faith discussion. Those are hard to win (and is not what you want anyway)
Don't frame it the way you just did in your question. The issue is not getting anyone to agree that this way or that way is the general way they should work. You should talk about how each one needs to think in order to make the right choice at any given time. give an example for when to use dataSet, and when not to.
I had developers using dataTables to store data they fetched from the database and then have business logic code using that dataTable... And I showed them how I reduced the time to load a page from taking 7 seconds of 100% CPU (on the web server) to not being able to see the CPU line move at all.. by changing the memory object from dataTable to Hash table.
So take an example or case that you thing is better implemented differently, and win that battle. Don't fight the a high level war...
If Interoperability is/will be a concern down the line, DataSet is definitely not the right direction to go in. You CAN expose DataSets/DataTables over a service but whether you SHOULD or is debatable. If you are talking .NET->.NET you're probably Ok, otherwise you are going to have a very unhappy client developer from the other side of the fence consuming your service
You can't convince them otherwise. Pick a smaller challenge or move to a different organization. If your manager respects you see if you can do a project in the domain-driven style as a sort of technology trial.
If you can profile, just Do it and profile. Datasets are heavier then a simple Collection<T>
DataReaders are faster then using Adapters...
Changing behavior in an objects is much easier than massaging a dataset
Anyway: Just Do It, ask for forgiveness not permission.
Most programmers don't like to stray out of their comfort zones (note that the intersection of the 'most programmers' set and the 'Stack Overflow' set is the probably the empty set). "If it worked before (or even just worked) then keep on doing it". The project I'm currently on required a lot of argument to get the older programmers to use XML/schemas/data sets instead of just CSV files (the previous version of the software used CSV's). It's not perfect, the schemas aren't robust enough at validating the data. But it's a step in the right direction. The code I develop uses OO abstractions on the data sets rather than passing data set objects around. Generally, it's best to teach by example, one small step at a time.
There is already some very good advice here but you'll still have a job to convince your colleagues if all you have to back you up is a few supportive comments on stackoverflow.
And, if they are as sceptical as they sound, you are going to need more ammo.
First, get a copy of Martin Fowler's "Patterns of Enterprise Architecture" which contains a detailed analysis of a variety of data access techniques.
Read it.
Then force them all to read it.
Job done.
data-centric means less code-complexity.
custom objects means potentially hundreds of additional objects to organize, maintain, and generally live with. It's also going to be a bit faster.
I think it's really a code-complexity vs performance question, which can be answered by the needs of your app.
Start small. Is there a utility app you can use to illustrate your point?
For instance, at a place where I worked, the main application had a complicated build process, involving changing config files, installing a service, etc.
So I wrote an app to automate the build process. It had a rudimentary WinForms UI. But since we were moving towards WPF, I changed it to a WPF UI, while keeping the WinForms UI as well, thanks to Model-View-Presenter. For those who weren't familiar with Model-View-Presenter, it was an easily-comprehensible example they could refer to.
Similarly, find something small where you can show them what a non-DataSet app would look like without having to make a major development investment.