So, I'm a firm believer in having automated builds that run nightly (or even more often), especially during the late phases of a project. I was trying to convince a colleague tonight that we need to make some changes to facilitate this, and he challenged the whole premise of having automated builds in the first place. It is late on a Friday night, I've had a long week, I'm tired, and I honestly couldn't come up with a good answer. So, good people of the amazingly awesome Stack Overflow community, I come to you with this simple question:
Why have an automated build (or why not)?
I have a continuous integration server set up in a VM that mimics my production environment; by running automated builds, I know a LOT sooner when I've done something to screw up the code, and can make moves to fix it.
In a project with multiple people, especially larger projects, there are no guarantees that every user is running the tests and doing a full build. The longer you go without a full build, the greater the chances that some bug will sneak its way into the system while each dev is plugging away at his branch. Automated builds negate this issue by making sure the whole team knows, within the day or so, when something went wrong, and who was responsible.
For more backup, especially when tired, you might send over this article from our own Jeff Atwood, or this one from Joel Spolsky. From this last:
Here are some of the many benefits of
daily builds:
When a bug is fixed, testers get the
new version quickly and can retest to
see if the bug was really fixed.
Developers can feel more secure that a
change they made isn't going to break
any of the 1024 versions of the system
that get produced, without actually
having an OS/2 box on their desk to
test on.
Developers who check in their
changes right before the scheduled
daily build know that they aren't
going to hose everybody else by
checking in something which "breaks
the build" -- that is, something that
causes nobody to be able to compile.
This is the equivalent of the Blue
Screen of Death for an entire
programming team, and happens a lot
when a programmer forgets to add a new
file they created to the repository.
The build runs fine on their machines,
but when anyone else checks out, they
get linker errors and are stopped cold
from doing any work.
Outside groups
like marketing, beta customer sites,
and so forth who need to use the
immature product can pick a build that
is known to be fairly stable and keep
using it for a while.
By maintaining
an archive of all daily builds, when
you discover a really strange, new bug
and you have no idea what's causing
it, you can use binary search on the
historical archive to pinpoint when
the bug first appeared in the code.
Combined with good source control, you
can probably track down which check-in
caused the problem.
When a tester
reports a problem that the programmer
thinks is fixed, the tester can say
which build they saw the problem in.
Then the programmer looks at when he
checked in the fix and figure out
whether it's really fixed.
Allow me to begin by blatantly ripping off Wikipedia. Bear in mind, these are the general benefits of continuous integration, of which nightly builds should be considered a partial implementation. Obviously, your system will be more powerful if you couple nightly builds with your bed of automated (unit, functional, etc.) tests.
Advantages:
when unit tests fail or a bug emerges, developers might revert the codebase back to a bug-free state, without wasting time debugging
developers detect and fix integration problems continuously - avoiding last-minute chaos at release dates, (when everyone tries to check in their slightly incompatible versions).
early warning of broken/incompatible code
early warning of conflicting changes
immediate unit testing of all changes
constant availability of a "current" build for testing, demo, or release purposes
immediate feedback to developers on the quality, functionality, or system-wide impact of code they are writing
frequent code check-in pushes developers to create modular, less complex code
metrics generated from automated testing and CI (such as metrics for code coverage, code complexity, and features complete) focus developers on developing functional, quality code, and help develop momentum in a team
If we're just talking about a nightly build strategy in isolation, what you get is a constant sanity check that your codebase compiles on the test platform(s), along with a snapshot in time detailing who to blame. Couple this with automated testing and a sane strategy of continuous integration, and suddenly you have a robust suite that gives you who failed the tests in addition to who broke the build. Good deal, if you ask me.
You can read about the disadvantages in the remainder of the article, but remember, this is Wikipedia we're talking about here.
I think that...
So that you know when you've broken
something as soon as possible and can
fix it while it's still fresh in your
head, rather than weeks later.
is easily my favorite, but here are some other reasons blatantly stolen when I was just searching for reasons why you wouldn't use CI:
Code you cannot deploy is useless code.
Integrating your code changes with the code changes of other people on the team.
I sometimes forget to run ALL the unit tests before I check in. My CI server never forgets.
Centralized status of your code which can help with communication. (If I checked in broken code and someone else has to be a deployment... well this goes back to my favorite reason.)
Because,
Integrity of your Unit Test is automatically tested. So you need not to worry about functionality of your program is not broken because of changes made by others.
Automatically gets the latest Checked-In files and compiles, so any compile error caused by other reported.
Instant e-Mail acknowledgment on failure and successful execution of build. So you get to who failed the build.
Can be integrated with Code Standard Tool like FX cop, Style Cop for .Net. So while build it automatically checks the Coding Standards.
If one doesn't do full builds on a regular basis, one can end up with a situation where some part of a program that should have been recompiled isn't, that the failure to compile that part of the program conceals a breaking change. Partial builds will continue to work fine, but the next full build will cause things to break for no apparent reason. Getting things to work after that can be a nightmare.
One potential social benefit: automated builds could decrease toxicity among team members. If developers are repeatedly carrying out a multi-step process one or more times per day, mistakes are going to creep in. With manual builds, teammates might have the attitude, "My incompetent developers can't remember how to do builds right every day. You'd think they have it down by now." With automated builds, any problems that come up are problems with a program - granted, a program that someone wrote, but still.
Related
I am the QA Test Lead for a large enterprise software company with a team of over 30 developers and a small team of QA Testers. We currently use SVN to do all our code and schema check in which is then built out each night after hours.
My dilemma is this: All of developments code is promoted from their machine to the central repository on a daily basis into a single branch. This branch is our production code for our next software release. Each day when code is checked in, the stable branch is de-stabilized with this new piece of code until QA can get to testing it. It can sometimes take weeks for QA to get to a specific piece of code to test. The worst part of all of this is that we identify months ahead of time of what code is going to go into the standard release and what code will be bumped to the next branch, which has us coding all the way up until almost the actual release date.
I'm really starting to see the effects of this process (put in place by my predecessors) and I'm trying to come up with a way that won't piss off development whereby they can promote code to a QA environment, without holding up another developers piece of code. A lot of our code has shared libraries, and as I mentioned before it can sometimes take QA awhile to get to a piece of code to test. I don't want to hold up development in a certain area while that piece of code is waiting to be tested.
My question now is, what is the best methodology to adopt here? Is there software out there than can help with this? All I really want to do is ensure QA has enough time to test a release without any new code going in until it's tested. I don't want to end up on the street looking for a new job because "QA is doing a crappy job" according to a lot of people in the organization.
Any suggestions are greatly appreciated and will help with our testing and product.
It's a broad question which takes a broad answer, and I'm not sure if I know all it takes (I've been working as dev lead and architect, not as test manager). I see several problems in the process you describe, each require a solution:
Test team working on intermediate versions
This should be handled by working with the dev guys on splitting their work effort into meaningful iterations (called sprints in agile methodology) and delivering a working version every few weeks. Moreover, it should be established that feature are implemented by priority. This has the benefit that it keep the "test gap" fixed: you always test the latest version, which is a few weeks old, and devs understand that any problem you find there is more important than new features for next version.
Test team working on non stable versions
There is absolutely no reason why test team should invest time in version which are "dead on arrival". Continuous Integration is a methodology by which "breaking the code" is found as soon as possible. This require some investment in products like Hudson or home-grown solution to make sure build failure are notices as they occur and some "Smoke Testing" is applied to them.
Your test cycle is long
Invest in automated testing. This is not to say your testers need to learn to program; rather you should invest in recruiting or growing people with their knowledge and passion in writing stable automated tests.
You choose "coding all the way up until almost the actual release date"
That's right; it's a choice made by you and your management, favoring more features over stability and quality. It's a fine choice in some companies with a need to get to market ASAP or have a key customer satisfied; but it's a poor long-term investment. Once you convince your management it's a choice, you can stop taking it when it's not really needed.
Again, it's my two cents.
You need a continuous integration server that is able to automate the build and testing and deployment. I would look at a combination of Apache Hudson, JUnit (DBUnit), Selenium and code quality tools like Sonar.
To ensure that the code that the QA is testing is unique and not constantly changing, you should make the use of TAGs. A tag is like a branch except that the contents are immutable. Once a set of files have been checked in / committed you cannot change and then commit on top of those files. This way the QA has a stable version of code they are working with.
Using SVN without branching seems like a wasted resource. They should set up a stable branch and a test branch (ie. the daily build). When code is tested in the daily build it can be then pushed up to the development release branch.
Like Albert mentioned depending on what your code is you might also look into some automated tests for some of the shared libraries (which depending on where you are in development really shouldn't be changing all that much or your Dev team is doing a crappy job of organization imho).
You might also talk with your dev team leaders (or who ever manages them) and discuss where they view QA and what QA can do to help them the best. Ask: Does your dev team have a set cut off time before releases? Do you test every single line of code? Are there places that you might be spending too much detailed time testing? It shouldn't all fall on QA, QA and dev need to work together to get the product out.
I'd like some advice on a deployment strategy. If a development team creates an extensive framework, and many (20-30) applications consume it, and the business would like application updates at least every 30 days, what is the best deployment strategy?
The reason I ask is that there seems to be a lot of waste (and risk) in using an agile approach of deploying changes monthly, if 90% of the applications don't change. What I mean by this is that the framework can change during the month, and so can a few applications. Because the framework changed, all applications should be regression-tested. If, say, 10 of the applications don't change at all during the year, then those 10 applications are regression-tested EVERY MONTH, when they didn't have any feature changes or hot fixes. They had to be tested simply because the business is rolling updates every month.
And the risk that is involved... if a mission-critical application is deployed, that takes a few weeks, and multiple departments, to test, is it realistic to expect to have to constantly regression-test this application?
One option is to make any framework updates backward-compatible. While this would mean that applications don't need to change their code, they would still need to be tested because the underlying framework changed. And the risk involved is great; a constantly changing framework (and deploying this framework) means the mission-critical app can never just enjoy the same code base for a long time.
These applications share the same database, hence the need for the constant testing. I'm aware of TDD and automated tests, but that doesn't exist at the moment.
Any advice?
The idea behind a framework is that it's supposed to be the "slow moving code". You shouldn't be changing the framework as frequently as the applications it supports. Try getting the framework on a slower development cycle: perhaps a release no more often than every three or six months.
My guess is that you're still working out some of the architectural decisions in this framework. If you think the framework changes really need to be that dynamic, find out what parts of the framework are being changed so often, and try to refactor those out to the applications that need them.
Agile doesn't have to mean unlimited changes to everything. Your architect could place boundaries on what constitutes the framework, and keep people from tweaking it so readily for what are likely application shortcuts. It may take a few iterations to get it settled down, but after that it should be more stable.
I wouldn't call it an Agile approach unless you have (unit) test coverage. One of the key tenets of Agile is that you have robust unit tests that provide a safety net for frequent refactoring and new feature development. There is a lot of risk in your scenario. Deploying twenty to thirty applications a month when 1) most of them don't add any new business value to their users; and 2) there are no tests in place would not qualify as a good idea in my book. And I'm a strong believer in Agile. But you can't pick and choose only the parts of it that are convenient.
If the business application has not changed, I wouldn't release it just to compile in a new framework. Imagine every .NET application needing to be re-released every time the framework changed. Reading into your question, I wonder if the common database is driving the need for this. If your framework is isolating the schema and you're finding you need to rebuild apps whenever the schema changes, then you need to tackle that problem first. Check out Refactoring Databases, by Scott Ambler for some tips.
As another aside, there's a big difference between integration test and unit tests. Your regression tests are integration tests. It's very difficult to automate at that level. I think the breakthroughs that are happening in testing are all about writing highly testable code that makes unit testing more and more of the code base possible.
Here are some tips I can think of:
1. break the framework into independent parts, so that changing one part requires only running a small portion of test cases.
2. Employ a test case prioritizaion technique. That is, you only rerun a small portion of the test pools of the applications selected by some strategy. Additional branch and ART have better performance than others usually. They require to know the branch coverage information of each test case.
3. Update the framework less frequently. If an application doesn't need change, it means its ok not to change it. So I guess its ok for these applications to use the old version of the framework. You can update the framework for these applications say every 3 months.
Regression testing is a way of life. You will need to regression test every application before it is released. However, since time and money are not usually infinite, you should focus your testing on the areas with the most changes. A quick and dirty way to identify these areas is to count the lines of code changed in a given business area; say "accounting" or "user management". Those should get the most testing first along with any areas that you have identified as “mission critical”.
Now I know that lines of code changed is not necessarily the best way to measure change. If you have well defined change requests, it is actually better to evaluate these hot spots by looking at the number and complexity of the change requests. But not everyone has that luxury.
When you are talking about making a change to the framework, you probably don't need to test all the code that uses it. If you're talking about a change to something like the DAL, that would basically amount to everything anyway. You just need to test a large enough sample of the code to be reasonably comfortable that the change is solid. Again, start with the "mission critical" areas and the area most heavily affected.
I find it helpful to divide the project into 3 distinct code streams; Development, QA, and Production. Development is open to all changes, QA is feature locked, and Production is code locked (well, as locked as it gets anyway). If you are releasing to production on a monthly cycle, you probably want to branch a QA build from the Development code at least 1 month before the release. Then you spend that month acceptance testing the new changes and regression testing everything else that you can. You'll probably have to complete testing the changes about a week before the release so that the app can be staged and you can dry run the installation a few times. You won't get to regression test everything, so have a strategy ready for releasing patches to Production. Don't forget to merge those patches back into the QA and Development code streams too.
Automating the regression tests would be a really great thing; theoretically. In practice, you end-up spending more time updating the testing code then you would spend running the test scripts manually. Besides, you can hire two or three testing monkeys for the price of one really good test script developer. Sad but true.
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 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm just curious if the community considers it acceptable to use the term "Code Freeze" for situations where we stop development except for testing and fixing bugs.
Development Situation
We're just finishing up our third and final sprint, which will be followed by a "Code freeze" and 2 weeks of Q/A testing. It is a big release and some components development have transcended all 3 sprints. Historically even though we call it a "Code Freeze" we still commit code to fix bugs.
Problem
Every release I try and correct my manager and co-workers that we should be calling it a "Feature Freeze", because it's pretty obvious that we're going to find bugs and commit code to fix them as soon as we start heavy testing. But they still persist in calling it a "Code Freeze". Sometimes we still have known bugs and declare a "Code Freeze".
The Wikipedia definition seems to agree with me here
Analysis
I suspect that calling these situations a "Code Freeze" is some sort of willful Double Think to provide false confidence to stake holders. Or we are pretending to be in a "Code Freeze" situation because according to Scrum after every sprint we should have a shippable piece of software and it is the expectation we are following Scrum. So we must call it what Scrum expects instead of what it really is.
Conclusion
Am I over analyzing this? I just find it to be unhealthy to ignoring realities of situations and should either give it up calling it something it's not or fix the root problem. Has anybody else had similar experiences with Code Freezes?
Am I over analyzing this?
Yes.
Well, probably. Realistically, you should be thinking twice before making any code changes after the freeze. Bugs should have to pass some severity test, more so if the fix requires potentially-dangerous changes to the codebase or invalidates the testing that's been done. If you're not doing that, then yeah, you're just deluding yourselves.
But if you're not gonna fix any bugs, then freezing the code is kinda pointless: just build and ship it.
Ultimately, what matters is that you all understand what's meant by the label, not the label itself. One big happy Humpty-Dumpty...
We use the term "Feature Complete". All the features are coded and functional, but we're heading into a test pass to confirm that there are no bugs. If there are bugs, we will find them, fix them, and retest. After we're satisfied with the result, we're "Code Complete".
I think, actually, that they are more correct in their interpretation. A feature freeze, to me, would be a halt to introducing new features, but features currently under development could continue to completion or you could schedule some refactoring work to remove technical debt without generating new features. A code freeze brings a halt to all new development, including refactoring -- the only new code allowed is that to fix bugs found during QA. The latter seems to be what your team is doing.
Some people who get into adaptive and agile engineering methodologies like scrum may not realise what you have gotten yourselves into.
The reason for being agile engineering is releasing to your customers whatever that is usable now and gradually build up its usability and features.
If your project is projected to complete in 18 months but if you could have increasingly something usable every 2 months - why not release features every two months rather than wait till the grand holy day 18 months away since either way the project would still last 18 months.
Your customers' requirement might change so giving your customers opportunity to change their mind frequently, before it's too late, results in exhilarated customers.
Someone might release open source module of one of your modules 10 months from now and then you don't have to do much else but integrate that module.
Therefore, scrummers, or at least scrum masters and/or project managers/architects are required by the dynamics of scrum to modularise ... modularise is not good enough; but granularise the project.
You have to granularise your modules to the right size and provide a contract-interface specification for each so that changes within a module is managed within a module. If your module by itself or due to dependence of other modules is unable to satisfy a contract-interface, you have to code-freeze to enable you to broadcast a contract-interface version 1 so that other teams could continue albeit with less than expected features in the next general product release.
A code freeze is a code freeze.
If your code freezes are experiencing frequent thawing delays, your scrum master and product architect are not communicating or not doing their jobs properly. Perhaps, there's no point in trying to impress or acquiesce to your management that they are using some industry fad called agile programming. Or management needs to hire architect and scrum master who are able to design and granularise the project within the skills of the team as well as the expectations of the customers and the technological constraints of the project.
I think there are management elements and their scrum master who do not realise how crucial a good architect is even for a scrum environment and refuse to hire one. A good architect who is able to listen and work with the team is invaluable to the scrumming process because he/she has to constantly adapt the architecture to changing granularities and expectation.
I also think there are management elements and their scrum master who belongs to the other spectrum of the programming universe due to bad experiences with longer development cycles like waterfall, who therefore think that scrum is meant to produce a product within a month and therefore meticulous investigation into cross-modules effects is not really necessary. They sit down, wet their fingers in the air and come up with a great sprint.
If your team is experiencing frequent thawing of code freezes, you guys might need to code-freeze your whole project and rethink your strategy and see that the cause is due to your refusal to define module contracts that fit the granularity of modules. Or are you guys defining module contracts at all to so that features of a stuck module could be currently rarefied to enable other teams or modules to continue.
Do you guys have a UML strategy that aids in discovering the projected features of a project release and allows you to see the effects of a stranded module and then see which module needs focus to reach a desired product release level? Are you attending scrums and sprints and you have no picture of an UML to show how advanced or delayed you are so that you are just bumping yourselves along happily or otherwise blindly? Or does your scrum master would say to room of yeas or nays, hmm ... that module seems important - without actually having a clear picture of which are the most strandable modules in relation to a product release.
A product release code-freeze is achieved by progressive freezing of modules. As soon as a module is completed, a product test is done to ensure that the module satisfies its contract and that module is code-frozen to say version 2.1. Even though work progresses on that module for 2.2, the project on the whole should not depend on 2.2 but on 2.1. The strategy is to minimise the number of modules whose contracts needs to thawed when a product release is tested and if the product release should scale down its features. If progressive modular freezing does not help your development team ... either the product is so complex and your management is under-expecting the number of iterations to achieve a proper release or the modular architecture and strategy needs serious rethinking.
I have worked on a project (waterfall) in which we had feature freeze AND code freeze.
Feature freeze means the beginning of a bugfix period. Also new branch was created for the new version so that we could implement features, i.e. this is the point when the company starts to work on the new version. No new features are implemented, only bugs are fixed.
Code freeze comes when QA thinks the product is in releasable condition (i.e. they do not know of any severe bugs). Before a final test cycle a code freeze is announced (remember a test cycle might take a week). If the test succeeds this becomes the released product. If it fails then the new bugs are fixed. These checkins are supervised by architects and managers and the risk of every line is practically documented. Then the testcycle is started again.
Summary: After feature freeze you can only check in bugfixes. After code freeze you can only check in in exceptional cases.
Yeah, it's overthought.
Yeah, it's a misnomer.
If the code isn't broken/messy you wouldn't touch it, and if it is then you will fix it. That's exactly the same situation as if you were not in code freeze. Yes, it's "requirement freeze" or "integration break" which are anti-patterns. It is a point at which to stop including new features in the next release, which is valuable in the sales/marketing/customersupport side of things. But they should probably call it "prerelease".
What ought to happen is that there are always a few releasable versions of the system in version control, and the company picks one to ship.
the Lean name for "code freeze" is "waste."
In your comment, you mentioned the word 'sprint'. That tells me you may be using Scrum(or any other Agile) methodology. In Scrum you hardly 'freeze' anything :) Flexibility, risk identification and mitigation, and above all, in terms of engineering, continuous integration matter a lot in Scrum.
Given this, the team should be cross-functional and the code will be continuously integrated. As a result, you may not have things like 'code freeze'. You just have a releasable product at the end of the sprint. It should have been tested continuously and you should have already got the bug reports which you should have fixed already.
Well, this is theory. However, good scrum teams aren't too far from theory, as scrum is mainly about principles. There aren't too many rules.
I personally won't split too many hairs on the terminology, but the intention behind the term. Most certainly, the term is used to identify a stage in the SDLC, in your organization. Speaking strictly as per Scrum, it doesn't have a bug fix phase. In case you're dedicating one or more sprints to fix bugs, then this term can mean, "no feature backlogs will be included in the sprint, but only bug fixes". This can be easily handled at the sprint planning (and pre-planning) meeting(s) and the team doesn't even have to worry about the terminology. Even better, this terminology/intention doesn't even have to go beyond the Product Owner.
While "Code Freeze" may have a clouded meaning and is, as has been mentioned, more aptly a "Feature Freeze" when considering individual projects/releases it DOES have a place in a larger, integrated deployment where another entity is responsible for packaging and/or deploying multiple software releases from various teams. "Code Freeze" gives them time to make sure the environments are lined up and all packages accounted for. "Code Freeze" also means that nothing but "show stopping" changes are getting in. Everything else would be handled in the next maintenance release.
In a perfect world, scripted testing would have completed before this point and there would have been time allowed for deployment of any last fixes and retest. I have yet to see this happen at any "globo-corp". The (business) testers test up until and even after deployment and the "Code Freeze" becomes a signal to them to step up their efforts and log everything that they've been sitting on. In some cases, it's a signal for them to START testing.
Really, "Code Freeze" is just business speak for "Here there be Tygers". ;-)
when we code freeze, the repo is locked, hopefully all the bugs are fixed that you intended to be fixed, and you the testers to a whole nother round of testing before branching and building to production. if there's any outstanding bugs scheduled for this iteration the leads will be breathing down your neck until it is closed out, or deemed noncritical and pushed back an iteration. so, yes, its really frozen.
Each release it seems that our customers find a few old issues with our software. It makes it look like every release has multiple bugs, when in reality our new code is generally solid.
We have tried to implement some additional testing where we have testers do several hours of monthly regression testing on a single app each month in an effort to stay ahead of small issues. We refer to this process as our Software Hardening process, but it does not seem like we are catching enough of the bugs and it feels like a very backburner process since there is always new code to write.
Is there a trick to this kind of testing? Do I need to target one specific feature at a time?
When you develop your testing procedures, you may want to implement these kind of tests:
unit testing (testing invididual components of your project to test their functionality), these tests are important because they allow you to pinpoint where in the software the error may come from. Basically in these tests you will test a single functionality and use mock objects to simulate the behavior, return value of other objects/entities.
regression testing, which you mentioned
characterization testing, one example could be running automatically the program on automatically generated input (simulating the user input), storing the results and compare the results of every version against these results.
At the beginning this will be very heavy to put in place, but with more releases and more bugs fixes being added to the automated non-regression tests, you should be starting to save time.
It is very important that you do not fall in the trap of designing huge numbers of dumb tests. Testing should make your life easier, if you spend too much time understanding where the tests have broken you should redesign the tests such as they give you better messages/understanding of the problem so you can locate the issue quickly.
Depending of your environment, these tests can be linked to the development process.
In my environment, we use SVN for versioning, a bot runs the tests against every revision and returns the failing tests and messages with the name of the revision which broke it and the contributor (his login).
EDIT:
In my environment, we use a combination of C++ and C# to deliver analytics used in Finance, the code was C++ and is quite old while we are trying to migrate the interfaces toward C# and keep the core of the analytics in C++ (mainly because of speed requirements)
Most of the C++ tests are hand-written unit tests and regression tests.
On the C# side we are using NUnit for unit testing. We have a couple of general tests.
We have a 0 warnings policy, we explicitely forbid people to commit code which is generating warnings unless they can justify why it is useful to bypass the warning for this part of the code. We have as well conventions about exception safety, the use of design patterns and many other aspects.
Setting explicitely conventions and best practices is another way to improve the quality of your code.
Is there a trick to this kind of testing?
You said, "we have testers do several hours of monthly regression testing on a single app each month in an effort to stay ahead of small issues."
I guess that by "regression testing" you mean "manually exercising old features".
You ought to decide whether you're looking for old bugs which have never been found before (which means, running tests which you've never run before); or, whether you're repeating previously-run tests to verify that previously-tested functionality is unchanged. These are two opposite things.
"Regression testing" implies to me that you're doing the latter.
If the problem is that "customers find a few old issues with our software" then either your customers are running tests which you've never run before (in which case, to find these problems you need to run new tests of old software), or they're finding bugs which you have previous tested and found, but which you apparently never fixed after you found them.
Do I need to target one specific feature at a time?
What are you trying to do, exactly:
Find bugs before customers find them?
Convince customers that there's little wrong with the new development?
Spend as little time as possible on testing?
Very general advice is that bugs live in families: so when you find a bug, look for its parents and siblings and cousins, for example:
You might have this exact same bug in other modules
This module might be buggier than other modules (written by somone on an off day, perhaps), so look for every other kind of bug in this module
Perhaps this is one of a class of problems (performance problems, or low-memory problems) which suggests a whole area (or whole type of requirement) which needs better test coverage
Other advice is that it's to do with managing customer expectations: you said, "It makes it look like every release has multiple bugs, when in reality our new code is generally solid" as if the real problem is the mistaken perception that the bug is newly-written.
it feels like a very backburner process since there is always new code to write
Software develoment doesn't happen in the background, on a burner: either someone is working on it, or they're not. Management must to decide whether to assign anyone to this task (i.e. look for existing previously-unfound bugs, or fix-previously-found-but-not-yet-reported bugs), or whether they prefer to concentrate on new development and let the customers do the bug-detecting.
Edit: It's worth mentioning that testing isn't the only way to find bugs. There's also:
Informal design reviews (35%)
Formal design inspections (55%)
Informal code reviews (25%)
Formal code inspections (60%)
Personal desk checking of code (40%)
Unit test (30%)
Component test (30%)
Integration test (35%)
Regression test (25%)
System test (40%)
Low volume beta test (<10 sites) (35%)
High-volume beta test (>1000 sites) (70%)
The percentage which I put next to each is a measure of the defect-removal rate for each technique (taken from page 243 of McConnel's Software Estimation book). The two most effective techniques seem to be formal code inspection, and high-volume beta tests.
So it might be a good idea to introduce formal code reviews: that might be better at detecting defects than black-box testing is.
As soon as your coding ends, first you should go for the unit testing. THere you will get some bugs which should be fixed and you should perform another round of unit testing to find if new bugs came or not. After you finish Unit testing you should go for functional testing.
YOu mentioned here that your tester are performing regression testing on a monthly basis and still there are old bugs coming out. So it is better to sit with the tester and review the test cases as i feel that they need to be updated regularly. Also during review put stress on which module or functionality the bugs are coming. Stress on those areas and add more test cases in those areas and add those in your rgression test cases so that once new build comes those test cases should be run.
YOu can try one more thing if your project is a long term one then you should talk with the tester to automate the regression test cases. It will help you to run the test cases at off time like night and in the next day you will get the results. Also the regression test cases should be updated as the major problem comes when regression test cases are not updated regularly and by running old regression test cases and new progression test cases you are missing few modules that are not tested.
There is a lot of talk here about unit testing and I couldn't agree more. I hope that Josh understands that unit testing is a mechanized process. I disagree with PJ in that unit tests should be written before coding the app and not after. This is called TDD or Test Driven Development.
Some people write unit tests that exercise the middle tier code but neglect testing the GUI code. That is imprudent. You should write unit tests for all tiers in your application.
Since unit tests are also code, there is the question of QA for your test suite. Is the code coverage good? Are there false positives/negatives errors in the unit tests? Are you testing for the right things? How do you assure the quality of your quality assurance process? Basically, the answer to that comes down to peer review and cultural values. Everyone on the team has to be committed to good testing hygiene.
The earlier a bug is introduced into your system, the longer it stays in the system, the harder and more costly it is to remove it. That is why you should look into what is known as continuous integration. When set up correctly, continuous integration means that the project gets compiled and run with the full suite of unit tests shortly after you check in your changes for the day.
If the build or unit tests fail, then the offending coder and the build master gets a notification. They work with the team lead to determine what the most appropriate course correction should be. Sometimes it is just as simple as fix the problem and check the fix in. A build master and team lead needs to get involved to identify any overarching patterns that require additional intervention. For example, a family crisis can cause a developer's coding quality to bottom out. Without CI and some managerial oversight, it might take six months of bugs before you realize what is going on and take corrective action.
You didn't mention what your development environment is. If yours were a J2EE shop, then I would suggest that you look into the following.
CruiseControl for continuous integration
Subversion for the source code versioning control because it integrates well with CruiseControl
Spring because DI makes it easier to mechanize the unit testing for continuous integration purposes
JUnit for unit testing the middle tier
HttpUnit for unit testing the GUI
Apache JMeter for stress testing
Going back and implementing a testing strategy for (all) existing stuff is a pain. It's long, it's difficult, and no one will want to do it. However, I strongly recommend that as a new bug comes in, a test be developed around that bug. If you don't get a bug report on it, then either is (a) works or (b) the user doesn't care that it doesn't work. Either way, a test is a waste of your time.
As soon as its identified, write a test that goes red. Right now. Then fix the bug. Confirm that it is fixed. Confirm that the test is now green. Repeat as new bugs come in.
Sorry to say that but maybe you're just not testing enough, or too late, or both.
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.