Øredev 2013 – What you probably missed

Øredev 2013 was last week, and it was fantastic!

Sharing knowledge

Øredev is in Malmö, Sweden. It’s very close to Copenhagen, so you can fly to there and then take a 20mn train to arrive in Malmö.

It’s a fantastic conference, totally vendor-neutral (that’s very important). It’s big yet friendly, with a mix of well established topics and more experimental ideas. This year the theme was “The Arts”, and as a result it was deliberately provoking or weird in some aspects, and that is a good thing!

For me the highlights of the conference were the radical ideas brought by two guys with some experience in the business: Woody Zuill and Fred George (I’ll come to it in a minute). I also enjoyed a lot how Jessica Kerr @jessitron manages to make alternative ways of thinking more accessible and attractive for developer using mainstream languages like Java or C#. Unfortunately I missed @Bodil talks because the room was too packed to be even able to open the door…

Before the conference you can attend 1-day trainings, and I decided to attend the Value-Driven Product Developmentcourse by JB Rainsberger @jbrains. It’s a very good course, more advanced and probably not for beginners. I knew a lot about BDD and has attended other courses already, yet I still learnt a lot during this workshop. I missed other talks from JB, but I want to watch the videos since I had very good feedbacks from other attendees.

It was interesting to listen to experience reports (New Frontiers For In-House Legal Practice by Kate Sullivan, Data @ King – How we are able analyze 100M DAU by Mats-Olov Eriksson, Curiosity killed the cat, but what kills curiosity?by Ann-Marie Charrett @charrett, Less is more! – when it comes to art and software, by @JimmyNilsson) with anecdotes and honest accounts of successes, failures and evolutions of mindset.

Radical Ideas

The Øredev program committee likes to take risks and challenge the way we think about software, as demonstrated by Woody and Fred talks, but also through the talk Code as a crime scene by Adam Petersen Tornhill @AdamTornhill?. Adam tries to reuse forensic methods used for crime investigations to help on large legacy code bases. He built the tool CodeMaat to visualize likely aggressions on the code base based on these ideas.

More radically, Woody Zuill @WoodyZuill talked about the Mob Programming approach his team has been practicing for some time now. He does not claim you should do the same, and he explains that this approach is just the result of doing more of the good things as found during retrospectives. His team found that working together on one task at a time on one single machine at a time was good, so they decided to do that all the time. You must watch his talks: Mob Programming, A Whole Team Approach (Roy “Woody” Zuill). It includes a time-lapse video and is very interesting. It also challenges the way we think about work. What if what the actual “work” was actually what’s between what we usually call “work”?

Very radical too, Fred Georges @fgeorge52 talked about his approach of Programmer Anarchy, “because that’s what it is”. He’s now replicated the experiment at two different companies including a rather traditional one (the Daily Mail newspaper), and is starting again in yet another. Again he does not claim you should do the same, just that it works for them. Again using the power of retrospectives, they got rid of every role except just the customer and the programmer roles. They don’t use the usual software craftsmanship practices like testing and refactoring. However they take great care of the business domain, just like a trader and a developer working closely together can end up giving suggestions to each other, in both ways. As Fred says: “Power to the programmer!”.

This approach works thanks to the use of Micro-Services. This style of architecture in itself is also a bit radical, with a “rapid”, an ordered bus of all the events of the whole system, and a lot of very small, cohesive, disposable micro-services that listen and publish to the bus. You can copy-paste a service to create another, you can rewrite a service rather than make changes, you can plug your new service directly into production! It may sound chaotic but in my opinion this style is disciplined indeed.

Woody gave another talk No Estimates: Let’s explore the possibilities (Roy “Woody” Zuill). It’s really a beautiful talk thanks to the beautiful illustrations from his wife Andrea. Woody does a great job at making us question our need for estimates, what it really means and how it can harm. More importantly, he suggests that estimates are an obstacle against delivering something truly wonderful!

I was lucky to spend some time talking with Woody and Fred, and what they do is very exciting. It’s a paradox, but both still really follow agile values, despite taking huge liberties with respect to the usual principles and practices. Both Fred and Woody also know a lot about object oriented principles and made sure their teams was skilled in that too. However in each case the experiments are also biased because of the very presence of outstanding developers like Fred or Woody!

Testing is not just checking

Software development requires a mix of many different skills. Some of the important skills revolve around testing. At Øredev you could listen and talk to some of the most notable representatives of the testing community: Heuristics of Testability (James Bach) @jamesmarcusbach, Regression Obsession (Michael Bolton) @michaelbolton, Balancing ATDD, GUI Automation and Exploratory Testing (Michael Larsen) @mkltesthead?, (Curiosity killed the cat, but what kills curiosity? by Ann-Marie Charrett @charrett). Other talks (The Beauty of Minimizing Effort and Maximizing Creativity While Integrating Performance Throughout the Lifecycle by Scott Barber and The Psychology of Testing, by M isko Hevery) were also about testing.

I realized that testing is much much more than just checking facts. There is a whole universe of testing practices that you are probably not even aware of, and most of this universe cannot and should not be automated.

Software development is a creative job!

As part of the theme “The Arts” some talks were not about software development. I really loved the talk Shakespeare in Dev (Thomas Q Brady) and the opening keynote of the second day “The Creativity (R)Evolution” by Denise Jacobs @DeniseJacobs. Denise managed to trigger the desire to write, talk and share insights from many attendees in the room during her keynote!

My talk

I was excited to talk at Øredev on Friday after lunch: Refactor your specs! (Cyrille Martraire) The room was almost full, which may suggest that the topic is of interest for many. As a speaker I loved the professionalism of the staff doing the video, sound and organization all around so that everything runs smooth for everyone. Thanks a lot to you all! Overall my talk was well received and I had many good questions and very good feedback’s. As I said, this talk is just the beginning of a conversation that will go on, so feel free to contribute.

All the Øredev videos are available on this page: http://oredev.org/2013/videos (still not complete at the time of writing), so have fun and enjoy them all! Also have a look at the #oredev hashtag on Twitter for more quotes, and don’t forget to follow me at @cyriux on Twitter!






Read More

DDD is back in Paris with a brand new Meetup group!

The first DDD Open Forum of the brand new Paris DDD meetup was last night, hosted by Arolla, and it was good to meet again after a long time with twenty-some Paris DDD aficionados!

@tjaskula, the organizer of this new group, opened the evening with a welcome introduction. He also gave many suggestions of areas for discussion and debate.

A quick survey revealed that one third of the participants were new to Domain-Driven Design, while another third was on the other hand rather comfortable with it. This correlated with a rather senior audience, with only one attendee with less than 5 years experience and many 10+ years developers, including 22 years and 30 years experience developers, and still coding! If you work in Paris, I guess you know them already…

It was an open space session, so we first proposed a lot of topics for discussion with post-its on the wall: how to sell or convince about DDD, introduction on concepts, synchronizing between contexts…

We all decided to start with a walk through of the fundamentals of DDD: Bounded Contexts, Ubiquitous Language, Code as Model… It was great to have this two-way knowledge transfer between seniors and juniors, in an interactive fashion and with lot of questions, including some rather challenging and skeptical ones! There was also some UML bashing of course.

We concluded by eating Galettes des Rois, together with cider and beer, and a lot of fun. Thanks everyone for your questions and contributions, and see you soon on next meetup!

The many proposals for discussion

Read More

Collaborative Artifacts as Code

A software development project is a collaborative endeavor. Several team members work together and produce artifacts that evolve continuously over time, a process that Alberto Brandolini (@ziobrando) calls Collaborative Construction. Regularly, these artifacts are taken in their current state and transformed into something that become a release. Typically, source code is compiled and packaged into some executable.

The idea of Collaborative Artifacts as Code is to acknowledge this collaborative construction phase and push it one step further, by promoting as many collaborative artifacts as possible into plain text files stored in the same source control, while everything else is generated, rendered and archived by the software factory.

Collaborative artifacts are the artifacts the team works on and maintains over time thanks to the changes done by several people through a source control management such as SVN, TFS or Git, with all their benefits like branching and versioning.

Keep together what varies together

The usual way of storing documentation is to put MS Office documents into a shared drive somewhere, or to write random stuff in a wiki that is hardly organized.

Either way, this documentation will quickly get out of sync because the code is continuously changing, independently of the documents stored somewhere else, and as you know, “Out of sight, out of mind”.

we now have better alternatives

We now have better alternatives

Over the last few years, there has been changes in software development. Github has popularized the README.md overview file written in Markdown. DevOps brought the principle of Infrastructure as Code. The BDD approach introduced the idea of text scenarios as a living documentation and an alternative for both specifications and acceptance tests. New ways of planning what a piece of software is supposed to be doing have appeared as in Impact Mapping.

All this suggests that we could replace many informal documents by their more structured alternatives, and we could have all these files collocated within the source control together with the source.

In any given branch in the source control we would then have something like this:

  • Source code (C#, Java, VB.Net, VB, C++)
  • Basic documentation through plain README.md and perhaps other .md files wherever useful to give a high-level overview on the code
  • SQL code as source code too, or through Liquibase-style configuration
  • Living Documentation: unit tests and BDD scenarios (SpecFlow/Cucumber/JBehave feature files) as living documentation
  • Impact Maps (and every other mindmaps), may be done as text then rendered via tools like text2mindmap
  • Any other kind of diagrams (UML or general purpose graphs) ideally be defined in plain text format, then rendered through tools (Graphviz, yUml).
  • Dependencies declarations as manifest instead of documentation on how to setup and build manually (Maven, Nuget…)
  • Deployment code as scripts or Puppet manifests for automated deployment instead of documentation on how to deploy manually

Plain Text Obsession is a good thing!

Nobody creates software by editing directly the executable binary that the users actually run at the end, yet it is common to directly edit the MS Word document that will be shipped in a release.

Collaborative Artifacts as Code suggests that every collaborative artifact should be text-based to work nicely with source control, and to be easy to compare and merge between versions.

Text-based formats shall be preferred whenever possible, e.g. .csv over xls, rtf or .html over .doc, otherwise the usual big PPT files must go to another dedicated wiki where they can be safely forgotten and become instantly deprecated…

Like a wiki, but generated and read-only

My colleague Thomas Pierrain summed up the benefits of this approach, for a documentation:

  • always be up-to-date and versioned
  • easily diff-able (text filesn e.g. with Markdown format)
  • respect the DRY principle (with the SCM as its golden source)
  • easily browsable by everyone (DEV, QA, BA, Support teams…) in the readonly and readable wiki-like web site
  • easily modifiable by team members in a well know and official location (as easy as creating or modifying a text file in a SCM)

What’s next?

This approach is nothing really new (think about LateX…), and many of the tools we need for it already exist (Markdown renderers, web site to organize and display Gherkin scenarios…). However I have never seen this approach fully done in an actual project. Maybe your project is already doing that? please share your feedback!

UPDATE: My colleague Thomas Pierrain wrote a post on this idea:  http://tpierrain.blogspot.fr/2012/11/its-really-time-for-us-to-dry-our-apps.html

Read More

Visualizing Quality – keynote by Gojko Adzic at BDD Exchange 2011

How do you measure quality?  Number of defects? Customer happiness? Money earned? Developer smiles? That’s the question raised by @gojkoadzic in his keynote at the recent BDD and Agile Testing Exchange in London, to make us think and propose some elements of response.

We tend to ignore information

We are used to ignore automatic alarms, even fire alarms:  we just don’t care, but we care when a person tells us about an issue or is shouting “fire in the building!”.

Security Poster in a mine

As in the story of the Gloves on the Boardroom Table,  making the problem tangible and visible help trigger reactions. The book Switch gives examples of such surprising techniques. Sharing information is not enough, a company is like an elephant, you don’t really drive it, you motivate it to go where you’d like to go. So visualization can help there.

Best practices change over time, as the techniques in athleticism replace each other. For example at one company they disable most of their functional tests after a feature is developed, because they impede the frequency of their release cycle; on the other hand, they closely monitor the conversion rate of the website, which is for them the best metrics since it encompasses both the technical bugs and the business bugs.

This does not mean you should disable your functional tests, but it illustrate that what may seem nonsense today may be the next best practice tomorrow.

Absence of bugs ? Presence of quality

The absence of bugs is completely different than the presence of quality. Twitter has lots of bugs but most people are happy with it so it has quality; on the other hand, Nokia phones have no bug, yet if nobody likes them they have no quality either.

Onboard screens in a plane all showing a computer crash
Do we have quality here?

So how to measure quality? If you put 20 people in a room with 3 post-it’s each and ask them to write what attributes of the product they think are the most important, and if you get a small enough group of common answers then they are candidates of things you need to measure.

Usually quality c an be measured at 3 levels (the 3 P’s):
  1. Process effectiveness
  2. Product status
  3. Production performance

Here I have the feeling that each of the first two is just a proxy for the next, and only the last is the real one, though I’m not sure.

Test coverage is crap

Taking an example of a UI, a window with 5 buttons on it it will likely requires 5 time more testing than one with only one button, even if the later brings a lot more value, which suggests that test coverage is crap.

If test coverage itself is crap, you may however monitor your risk coverage, that is the amount of testing compared to the associated risk. This metrics helps identify where you need to test more.

Visualize to make information actionable

Once you know what to measure, you want to visualize it. James Bach proposes his technique of low-tech testing dashboard. You divide your system into high-level subsystems, and for each you monitor the “progress of testing”: not yet started, half done or done, and the “level of confidence so far” with 3 smileys from happy to anxious. That’s better than a bug-tracking tool with 500 tickets mixed altogether.

Another visualization mode is the use of effects maps, or ACC matrix. You may also monitor in realtime the feed of sentiment of every Twitter message about your company or product as they do at FINN Technology in Oslo.

As a conclusion, Gojko introduces the brand new visualisingquality.org website where you can find many ways to visualize your measures of quality and where you can contribute additional ones. Since making things visible is so essential for action, let’s try ideas and share them through this website!


The podcast of the full talk is available here: http://skillsmatter.com/event/agile-testing/agile-testing-bdd-exchange-2011/js-2990

Read More