Il programma è stato pubblicato (anche se ci saranno piccoli aggiustamenti) e le iscrizioni sono aperte: affrèttati perché sono già spariti quasi 300 dei 400 posti disponibili!!!
I know a developer who says that he enjoys discussion during pair programming. He says that it’s one of the ways to learn and grow on the job.
I disagree. Here’s why. Discussion is waste. In the sense of Lean, discussion is a non-value adding activity. Consider coding and discussing. Do they add value? How do you tell what is waste and what is value-adding, anyway? After all, if you don’t discuss things with the customer and with your collegues, you can’t arrive at a functioning release, right?
David Anderson in his Kanban book explains well, IMHO, how to tell waste from value-adding. Suppose that discussing is value-adding. It that is so, let’s do it to the max! The more, the better. Do the same thought experiment with coding. If coding is value-adding, then let’s do it to the max! Which of the two rings more true?
I have this image in my mind. Consider when you release a feature to the customer. The release is made of lines of code you added, changed or deleted. The value-adding activity was in writing those lines of code. Everything else is waste.
I understand that programming is not typing, and that thinking is the most important activity that happens while we work. Yet, this thinking is waste. Suppose that you can code a feature without much thinking, because (for instance) your team has standard ways of dealing with this sort of features, or you did similar things years ago, and you know how to code a solution. This position is better than the position of someone who does not know how to proceed, and has lots of choices and doubts and has to think.
So if you don’t know how to solve a problem, by all means, think! Step away from the keyboard, consult books, discuss at the whiteboard, ask in forums, look in your codebase to see how this problem was solved before. All these activities are necessary waste. Just don’t charge heads down and try to code yourself out by brute force. That would be probably more wasteful.
You see, not all coding is value adding. Only the coding that produces the lines of codes that will make the release is value adding. Spikes, refactorings, false starts are all (perhaps necessary) waste.
I have not become convinced that iterative development, small steps, refactoring are to be avoided. I’m not advocating doing some big upfront design to make sure we can hit the release code without iterating, without incrementing functionality bit by bit, without refactoring. I still think that iterative and incremental design is the only reliable way to produce good software. But we must remember that refactoring per se is waste. Francesco Cirillo is fond of saying that emergent design is not “doing some messy work now, then I will refactor”. It’s more efficient to write incremental code that can be extended without refactoring; it’s more efficient to exploit the Open-Closed Principle!
Let’s get back to the subject of discussions while coding. My opinion is that programmers either know how to proceed, or they don’t.
The navigator’s job is still to support the driver, not to challenge the driver’s idea. That would take energy away from both. If the navigator thinks that the driver’s idea might work, he or she should support the driver and accept that the thing will be done differently. Now this will help both grow and learn, more than discussing. Just remember to respect the other, and always explain clearly what your idea is.
I’m reading The Toyota Way by Jeffrey K. Liker. It’s changing my mind.
When I started this book, I thought, well, this book is a compilation of interviews and stories, so there is no real meat, it’s not really teaching the methods they are using in Toyota. I thought it was a pretty fluffy book. Was I wrong!
It’s true that the meat of the book are stories that the author experienced himself, or were related to him. It’s not true that there are no practical hints on how to apply Lean Production; there are many examples of how to do that. But that’s not the point. I mean, Toyota makes cars, I make software. The actual practices are meant to solve their particular problem. What this book shows is how getting good at management comes from a shift in the way you think. The wealth of examples in the book pushes the reader to a different way of thinking.
The Toyota Way is also a depressing book. Perhaps half the stories in the book are about how American companies tried to apply The Toyota Way and failed miserably. This speaks about the importance of being serious in what you do. The Toyota people are dead serious. Which is not to say they don’t have fun… If your idea of fun is to stretch your capabilities to the limit, keep learning and getting better.
There is another feeling that comes to me while reading. The Toyota company is what in Italy is called “primo della classe”. This expression means “the boy or girl with the best grades in their class”, and carries a negative connotation. This says a lot about the way people thinks in Italy; the idea that someone can be better than me, or maybe *a lot* better than me is met with hostility. Our thinking is, “they are first because they spend countless hours on the books; if I did that I would get the same grades, but I won’t bother”. Ha! Do I have what it takes to really spend this effort? I probably don’t.
So these Toyota people come across as “primi della classe” because they are really good. And there are companies out there that are way better than the norm, and still are not as good as Toyota; which shows that there is a long path of improvement. This realization can be either exciting or depressing; it’s our choice :-)
As I keep reading the book, it takes me a lot of time as I’m taking notes, and all the while I think how the principles of the Toyota Way would apply in my situation. For instance, the book says that Taiichi Ohno insisted that when you walk to a plant, you should see immediately if everything is OK, or there are problems.
Translate that to software development. How would you do that? Good question! Agile developers do many things to make the development process visible; the cardwall, the burndown chart, the velocity chart are good visual indicators. But can we do better? Translate “plant” to “a workstation with a pair of programmers at work”. Can you see that their work is processing smoothly? One valuable insight is recognizing that the pair might block on a problem, just like an assembly line can jam. How do you see when a pair is blocked? (Hint.) What do you do when a pair is blocked? Do you treat this block as seriously as you would for a defect in the product? Do you try to understand the root cause of the block, so that it doesn’t happen again? Do you measure how many such “incidents” happen in a week? Do you measure how much time is spent working smoothly, and how much time is spent blocked on a problem?
One day I was discussing with Josh (not his real name) a problem we have with the customer. The problem is a very common one: priorities keep changing, every day we receive new “urgent” tasks, we have lots of work-in-progress, and it’s difficult to get the customer to approve or give feedback on what we did.
Josh did not agree with me on the nature of the problem. He said that he respects our customer as Product Owner; he accepts the priorities, and any new task they give us is properly recorded in the backlog. But Josh, I said, I’m afraid that the day-to-day priorities they give us are not what the customer really needs. The boss of the person that gives us priorities may not be happy with the results we are getting. Josh replied, “if what we do is not what their boss wants, then let it be. It will come up at some point.”
What is Josh thinking? It may be that his reasoning is “it’s not the best course of action for us to rock the boat with their boss; your worries might be wrong, perhaps the priorities are right after all. And if you are right and the priorities are wrong, well, the best course of action is to let this problem emerge.” That’s my best interpretation of what Josh thinks.
The other interpretation is that Josh is delegating responsibility to the customer’s product owner. If the PO gets priorities wrong, we’ll fail, but it will not be our fault. It’s another way to say “You just tell me what I have to do and then I do it”. This goes against the principle of taking responsibility for the outcome of a project. The reasoning is that if the project fails, we can show that we did all that was required of us. But being “right” in a failing project is not a great outcome.
What’s my conclusion? I found two interpretations for Josh’s reaction. They are both valuable; I resolved to talk to Josh further, to see if there is anything else behind his words. And I resolved to discuss the issue of priorities with the POs.
Last time at the Milano XP User Group we had our first retrospective. We gathered lots of useful insights. One of the selected actions was “if you propose a Kata, you must publish your solution“.
Guilty as charged: when I proposed Rock-Scissors-Paper for an evening of coding, we got an acute case of analysis-paralysis. It was a humbling evening: we didn’t manage to implement the first requirement, “rock beats scissors.” I provide here my solution. It’s brand new code, written today, so it benefits from the experience.
This is the list of requirements. I didn’t get it right immediately.
Context: we want to implement a gaming engine for the game rock-scissors-paper. We don’t care about players or rounds; we only want to implement the “beats” relation.
- – rock beats scissors
- – scissors does not beat rock
- – rock does not beat rock
- – scissors beats paper
- – paper beats rock
The clarifying statement should kill most of the discussion that we had that evening. We are not interested in modelling players or rounds or winning. Only the “beats” relations.
This kata was meant to be executed with the OCP Dojo rules. I will use Ruby today, because I want to take a break from Java. But the solution will not use any trick that can’t be done in Java. I promise :)
This one is easy. That is, easy if you decide how to implement the “rock” and the “scissors”. I decided for the simplest thing, that is a Ruby “symbol”. In Java I would have used a string.
require "test/unit"
class Rsp
def beats(first, second)
true
end
end
class TestRsp < Test::Unit::TestCase
def setup
@rsp = Rsp.new
end
def test_rock_beats_scissors
assert @rsp.beats(:rock, :scissors)
end
end
Note that I have substituted the “factory” of the OCP rules with a simple setup method. The @-prefixed variable is Ruby’s way to define a member variable.
This one almost escaped me at first. If your requirements only mention “X beats Y”, then return true will always be a valid implementation! Also, note that we don’t need to represent “ties”. Winning or tieing are not part of our requirements; but it should be clear that the “beats” relation can be used to determine victory or tie.
So this is the famous “second test” that in most OCP Dojos forces the creation of design. If it were not for the rules, I’d be tempted to write something as boring as
return true if first.equals(:scissors) and second.equals(:rock)
inside the Rsp#beats method. Instead I decide I want to solve the problem with a rule-based style. Let’s delegate the decision of “beating” to a rule.
class Rule
def initialize first, second
@first, @second = first, second
end
def beats(first, second)
@first == first and @second == second
end
end
class Rsp
def initialize(rule)
@rule = rule
end
def beats(first, second)
return true if @rule.beats(first, second)
false
end
end
class TestRsp < Test::Unit::TestCase
def setup
@rsp = Rsp.new Rule.new(:rock, :scissors)
end
def test_rock_beats_scissors
assert @rsp.beats(:rock, :scissors)
end
def test_scissors_does_not_beat_rock
assert_false @rsp.beats(:scissors, :rock)
end
end
Now if we wanted to be strict I’d have to show that I can make the first test pass and the second test fail by simply passing in a different Rule. I could do that by defining
class AlwaysTrueRule def beats(a, b); return true; end end
This way if I pass an instance of AlwaysTrueRule, it will make the first test pass and the second fail. If I pass in the correct rule, both tests will pass.
Now this works with no modification needed to the code. From this point on, it will be clear that we don’t need to test all cases where “beats” does not hold. The implementation makes it obvious that only the cases that are explicitly covered by the rules pass.
This forced me to change the single rule to a list of rules.
class Rsp
def initialize(rules)
@rules = rules
end
def beats(first, second)
for rule in @rules
return true if rule.beats(first, second)
end
false
end
end
class TestRsp < Test::Unit::TestCase
def setup
@rsp = Rsp.new [
Rule.new(:rock, :scissors),
Rule.new(:scissors, :paper),
]
end
# ...
def test_scissors_beats_paper
assert @rsp.beats(:scissors, :paper)
end
end
At this point the design is more or less complete. The remaining test, “paper beats rock” only needs to add a new Rule to the list. No “coding” needed, only configuration of existing objects.
The test of a design is how well it resists to changes. I would say that at this point, implementing Rock-scissors-paper-spock-lizard or even RSP-15 would be trivial.
I can imagine even wierder variations, for instance:
and I think that by writing a custom Rule, these could also be easily done. Therefore I think that the design so far is a success. The amazing thing is that I did all the coding in 1 pomodoro (25 minutes)! That includes taking notes and saving intermediate versions, for blogging about later.
Why did we take so long when we tried this at the coding dojo? I think that the trick is in defining the scope more precisely:
We don’t care about players or rounds; we only want to implement the “beats” relation.
By thinking of “beats” as a mathematical relation, that is, a subset of Stuff × Stuff for you mathematically inclined, we simplify our job. Also, giving up on the idea of defining a Rock class helps.
A while ago we had a fun evening at the Milano XPUG writing a Sudoku solver. I blogged about my solution. I’m not particularly proud of it, in retrospect. The code and the tests are not obvious. I can’t read any of it and be certain that it works. It does not speak.
It is true that solving puzzles like Sudoku is quite different from what application programmers do everyday at work. Why is it that? The problems that we solve in business applications do not have that mathematical crispness that puzzles have. Perhaps it’s because we’re not good enough at analyzing them and expressing them abstractly. That would explain why business code is so long, convoluted and expensive.
Anyway, the point I want to make is that it is not satisfying to use the tests in TDD as a crutch for constructing hapazard code that, with a kick here and a few hammer blows there seem to work. The point of TDD is to *design* code; and a good design shows how and why a solution works.
I often see people doing katas that involve problems with well-known solutions. We usually disregard, forget, or ignore the well-known solution! And we keep writing tests and production code until we rig together something that passes the tests. It’s painful. I know. I too did some of that.
TDD does not work well when we don’t know what we’re doing. Some high-profile XPers failed to ship when TDDing their way with unfamiliar APIs or disregarding known solutions. TDD is no substitute for analyzing a problem, and finding abstractions that make it easy to solve. TDD without thinking and analyzing and abstracting is not fun!.
It’s for this reason that there is the XP practice of “spiking solutions”, that is, take time to learn how to do something, make experiments, then apply what you learned. If you know how to do things, you will not spend hours discussing with your pair; you and your pair will grab the keyboard from each other, as Francesco Cirillo often says.
Consider Sudoku again. Peter Norvig solves it in two different ways by using known techniques. The first solution is depth-first search, which is gueranteed to terminate as the graph of Sudoku states is acyclic. The other is by constraint propagation. If I were to do the exercise again, I would try to make the analysis apparent from the code.
Say we want to solve it by depth-first search. That entails two sub-problems:
I would start by testing the depth-first search algorithm. I would drive it with an abstract “tree” implementation. This means I could concentrate on the search algorithm without being distracted by the complex details of the Sudoku rules.
Then I would test-drive the generation of next-moves from a Sudoku position. That could also be done incrementally. Can we imagine a simplified Sudoku board? The full Sudoku is too complex for the first test! A year ago I would have started by defining a 9 by 9 array of numbers, but now the sheer boredom of defining it would stop me. Is there a better way?
Relax. Think. Dream.
Think about the game terminology. As Norvig says, the game is about units (either a row, a column or a box). A unit with no empty spaces has no descendant moves. A unit where a number is missing has the full unit as a descendant move. A unit where two numbers are missing… You get the point.
Then work out how to combine descendant moves of two units that share a square. Think a row and a column. If the common square is empty, than valid solutions for that square must be valid for both units…
The point is to work the problem incrementally. Try smaller scales first. Try 2×2 boards. Make the size of units and the board parametric. Add the constraint rules one by one, so that you can test them separately.
One important principle to apply is “separation of concerns”. Enumerating moves is a problem, and search strategy is another. By solving them separately, our tests become more clear and to the point. We gain confidence that we know how and why our code works.
Another way to see this is to decompose a problem in smaller problems; prove with tests that you can solve the subproblems, then prove with tests that you can solve the composition of the subproblems.
When you have a problem that is of fixed size 42, turn that constant into a parameter and solve the problem for N=1, N=2, … Imagine if the Sudoku board was 100×100 instead of 9×9; would you define a 100×100 matrix in your tests? Turning these constants into parameters make your code more general, your tests more clear, while making the problem *easier* to solve!
To summarize, what I think is important is
Charlie Poole recently posted this on the TDD mailing list (Emphasis is mine):
I’ve written elsewhere that I believe attempting to get TDD to “drive” the invention of a new algorithm reflects an incorrect understanding of what TDD is for.
TDD allows us to express intent (i.e. design) in a testable manner and to move from intention to implementation very smoothly – I know of no better way.
OTOH, you have to start out with an intent. In this context, I think that means you need to have some idea of the algorithm you want to implement. TDD will help you implement it and even refine the details of the idea. Writing tests may also inspire you to have further ideas, to deepen the ones you started with or to abandon ideas that are not working out.
Vlad Levin blogs thoughtfully:
one of the first rules I teach my students when I am doing a TDD workshop or teaching a course is precisely that TDD is not an algorithm generator! Solving sudoku is just the kind of problem you want to find an algorithm for first, then implement that algorithm
[…]
So what is the purpose of TDD then? One goal of TDD is to reduce the need to determine ahead of time which classes and methods you’re going to implement for an entire story. There’s a large body of shared experience in the developer community that trying to anticipate such things tends to lead to paralysis where nothing useful gets done and/or produces bloated, over-designed code. Instead, you can develop one aspect of the story at a time, using each test to keep yourself moving forward and refactoring the design as you go along
In a comment to my post about testing data serialization, Jacopo says:
well, if you’re lucky enough, both client and webservice will be under your control, so yes: focus on data (structure) sent/received, to be sure they’re as expected.
but is far more common a scenario where webservice aren’t under your control, they represent and integration point with external systems: that is, XML document syntax _is_ what you’re trying to test. for example, (I can think of at least 2 cases that happened to me in the last 6 months) switching from one parsing library to another or simply testing interoperabily (such as Java/.NET).
of course, not as much domain logic there ;) but still, webservices aren’t supposed to encapsulate domain knowledge, so focusing on syntax would be good enough.
Hi Jacopo,
Even in your case, the users of your service will be interested in doing something with your data, not in its syntax.
Consider this modified test: there’s an error in it, but it’s not easy to see.
@Test public static void serializesToCorrectXml() {
DataStructure structure = new ....;
XmlSerializer s = new XmlSerializer();
String xml = s.serialize(structure);
assertEquals("<?xml version=\"1.0\"><foo><bar>zot</bar></foo>",
xml);
}
Can you see it? The xml prolog is broken. Now if your code passes this test, it will break in production with your paying customers.
Consider this other test:
@Test public static void serializesArray() {
XmlSerializer s = new XmlSerializer();
String xml = s.serialize(new String[] {"A", "B"});
assertEquals("<list><el>A</el><el>A</el></list>", xml);
}
this one is also wrong, for a different reason. It’s syntactically valid, but does not contain the right information.
Even when I am not writing the client side, I would still write a client for my tests. The client should do something with my data that is similar to what a typical real client would do. At the very least, it should parse the XML to make sure it’s valid! That would take care of the first broken test. Then I would make the client extract the information from the serialized form, and make sure it contains the same information.
@Test public static void serializesArray() {
String [] anArray = { "A", "B" };
XmlSerializer s = new XmlSerializer();
XmlClient c = new XmlClient();
String xml = s.serialize(anArray);
assertArrayEquals(anArray, c.parse(xml).toStringArray());
}
Another thing that happened when I was last coaching a team on XP techniques. We were working on a real application, and one thing that we had to do was to serialize a data structure to XML for publishing on a web service. There are a ton of different ways to do that, but whatever you do, don’t write tests like this:
@test public static void serializesToCorrectXml() {
DataStructure structure = new ....;
XmlSerializer s = new XmlSerializer();
String xml = s.serialize(structure);
assertEquals("<?xml version=\"1.0\"?><foo><bar>zot</bar></foo>",
xml);
}
Can you see what’s bad with this code?
I can name a few things:
The crux of the matter is that we don’t care at all what the xml string is. What really matters is what we do with it, and in this case what we do is build the XML in one process, and reconstruct an equivalent data structure in another process. We should test that the behaviour works, not the details of an intermediate structure.
@test public static void serializesAndRebuildsFoobars() {
DataStructure structure = new DataStructure("foo", "bar");
XmlSerializer s = new XmlSerializer();
XmlParser p = new XmlParser();
assertEquals(structure, p.parse(s.serialize(structure)));
}
Now this tests the behaviour we’re interested in. Note that this test is robust, as changes of the intermediate representation will not break it. We don’t really even care what the serialized data type is: we could change it to byte array, or anything else, with no need to change this test.
This sort of tests supports incremental development. If my data structure was, for instance, a list, I could write a nice sequence of tests:
One final note: let the pair who writes the serializer also write the parser. This will save a lot of arguments :-) Vertical slices of functionality always work best.
Last week I was traning a team on XP techniques. We tried the following exercise:
I want you people to build me a Swing application that computes the area of a square with a given side length.
I asked for an estimate. The devs were nervous, someone said “impossible!” :-) someone said 5 hours. I played the part of the project-manager-who-was-once-a-developer and said “come on, five hours?? I could do that in 10 minutes in my sleep. What’s so difficult about it”? Then I reasoned with them that if we keep our estimates too comfortable, our business opportunities may fly out of the window. They agreed on a 2 hours estimate.
They proceeded to implement the feature. The three devs rotated every 7 minutes. This was a good slot size; everyone was involved, even the junior one who is rarely given the keyboard. The feature was done in one and a half hour. Then I said
Cool. Now we need to compute the area of a triangle of a given base and height. How much time for this?
The devs estimated 1.5 hours. It was delivered on time. Now the fun part started. The team wrote the application in the “usual” way, by writing new code for the new window. No effort was spent, at this time, to reduce duplication. I pointed out that
We’re going to need to implement many more of these geometry formulae. Make it so that it is trivial to add others.
The team came up with a design where the Swing window object is generic and can be customized to support the input for any formula that requires a variable number of inputs with different names. They thought they could do it in 2 hours. It took 4. At some point we wasted a lot of time on Swing layouts, trying to fathom the mysteries of GroupLayout. I gave some help here. Then we were done! Stepping again in my role of customer I said
Very well. The next feature we need is to compute the area of a circle from the radius.
It was done in 10 minutes. The customer was very satisfied, and so were the devs.
What have we learned?
Copying-and-pasting is a dead end; there is a limit at how skilled you can become at it, and there is certainly a big problem in the quality of the code you deliver. Learning to do good, clean, flexible code never ends. It’s a path where you can get to write better and better code. Which path would you rather be on?
Very cool, guys. This geometry app rocks!!