Posts tagged ‘clean code’

This weekend I was in Stockholm to facilitate a Code Retreat, organized by Peter Lind and sponsored by Valtech. We were about 40 coders gathered in the warm autumn sunshine early on a Saturday morning at Valtech’s offices. (Do take a look at Peter’s blog post about it, he has a photo too).

It’s actually the first time I’ve even attended a code retreat, let alone facilitated, but I think it went pretty well. Corey Haines has written extensively about what should happen, and what the facilitator should do. I think he’s given a great gift to the community, not just by inventing the format, but also by documenting it thorougly.  I’ve previously led various coding dojos and “clean code day” events, but code retreat is somewhat different in format, if not in aim.

The reason for going to a code retreat is to practice your coding skills. By repeating the same exercise over and over, with different pairing partners, you have a chance to work on your coding habits. Do you pay attention to what your tests are telling you about your design? Do you remember to refactor regularly? Can you take really small steps when you need to?

For the day in Stockholm, we followed the tried and tested formula for a code retreat that Corey has laid out. I spent about 20 minutes introducing the day, the aims and the coding problem (Conway’s Game of Life). Then we did 6 coding sessions, each with a short retrospective, and a longer retrospective at the end of the day. Each session comprised 45 minutes coding in pairs, 10 minutes retrospective in groups of 6-8, and 5 minutes to swap partners. I also began each coding session by reminding everyone of what we were supposed to be practicing, and highlighted a different “challenge” to add some variety. The challenges were things like:

– concentrate on writing really beautiful code so the language looks like it was made for the problem. *
– partition code at different levels of abstraction. **
– Think about TDD in terms of states and moves.
– do TDD as if you meant it
– concentrate on refactoring in very small steps

Each pairing session is just 45 minutes, and in that time you don’t actually have time to really solve the whole kata, and that’s actually quite difficult to cope with. Most coders are very motivated by writing code that does something useful, and like to show off their finished designs at the end. To try to prevent that, Corey emphasizes that you should keep in mind the end result isn’t important, and be sure to delete the code at the end of the session. I found that even with that rule, there was quite a lot of discussion of how the designs ended up, and some people even saved their code.

One of the things I encouraged people to try was working in an unfamiliar programming language, and although I specified “for 1 or 2 sessions”, I was surprised to find how popular it was to do this. After the first session when most people used Java, C#, Ruby or Python, there were more and more people coding in Clojure, Javascript, Erlang and even Vim script. I think it got a bit out of hand actually. It’s hard to practice your coding habits and TDD skills when you’re struggling with the language syntax and how to get the tests to run. Next time I facilitate I’ll try to be clearer about using a familiar environment for most of the sessions.

One of the things I offered in the last session was using the cyberdojo, and three pairs agreed to try it. I had them working in Java and Ruby, switching pairs every 5 minutes, coding in a browser window. They complained about the browser experience compared with their IDEs, but they liked the feedback cyberdojo gives you. It shows how long you spend between running the tests, and whether the tests pass, fail or give a compiler error.

I’m not sure if it was a good idea to bring in the cyberdojo at the code retreat. One of the main things we discussed in the retrospective for that session was the resistance they all felt to changing the first test that was written at one of the three pairing stations. This test was too big and focussed on a boring part of the problem. Yet each person who “inherited” the code tried their best to make it pass, no-one started over with a better test. It’s that kind of collaboration problem that the cyberdojo is good at highlighting. It’s not so much a tool for improving your coding skills as improving your collaboration skills. This is good, but not really the purpose of the code retreat.

Thinking back over the day, I’ve also become a little uncertain about the “delete your code” rule. I understand why it’s there, but it didn’t seem to prevent people from trying to solve the whole problem in 45 minutes. By deleting the code, you also lose the opportunity to use analysis tools like those in the cyberdojo to give you some more feedback on how you’re doing.

Outside of this code retreat, I’ve been trying out the codersdojo client quite a bit recently, to see if it gives a useful analysis of a coding session. Unlike cyberdojo, it lets you use your normal coding tools/IDE. So far it’s still in beta testing and seems too buggy for me to recommend, but if you’re lucky enough to successfully upload your coding session, you do get quite a good visualization of some of your coding habits. It will clearly show if you spend a long time between test runs, or if you spend a lot of time with failing tests.

So after my first code retreat, I’m feeling very encouraged that this is a good format for becoming a better coder, and I’d be happy to run one again. I’d like to try using coding visualization tools as part of the retrospective for each session. I’d also like to try setting the challenges before people have chosen a pairing partner, so they can find someone who also wants to work on my challenge rather than just try a new language. Or maybe I just need to emphasize more that trying a new language isn’t the focus of the day.

In any case, I hope this blog post shows that I learnt a lot from facilitating this code retreat, even if I didn’t write a single line of code myself 🙂

* “You can call it beautiful code when the code also makes it look like the language was made for the problem” — Ward Cunningham quoted in “Clean Code” by Bob Martin.
** G6: Code at Wrong Level of Abstraction – advice from “Clean Code” by Bob Martin.

I’ve been working on a kata called “Tennis”*, which I find interesting, because it is quite quick to code, yet is a big enough problem to be worth doing. It’s also possible to enumerate pretty much all the allowed scores, and get very comprehensive test coverage.

What I’ve found is that when I’m using TDD to solve the Kata, I tend to only enumerate actually a very small number of the test cases. I generally end up with something like:

Advantage Player1
Win for Player1
Advantage Player2

I think that’s enough to test drive a complete implementation, built up in stages. I thought it would be enough tests to also support refactoring the code, but I actually found it wasn’t. After I’d finished my implementation and mercilessly refactored it for total readability, I went back and implemented exhaustive tests. To my horror I found three (of 33) that failed! I’d made a mistake in one of my refactorings, and none of my original tests found it. The bug only showed up with scores like Fifteen-Forty, Love-Thirty and Love-Forty, where my code instead reported a win for Player 2. (I leave it as an exercise for the reader to identify my logic error 🙂

So what’s the point of TDD? Is it to help you make your design good, or to protect you from introducing bugs when refactoring? Of course it should help with both, but I think doing this practice exercise showed me (again!) that it really is worth being disciplined and careful about refactorings. I also think I need to develop a better sense for which refactorings might not be well covered by the tests I have, and when I should add more.

This is something that my friend Andrew Dalke brings up when he criticises TDD. The red-green-refactor iterative, incremental rhythm can lull you into a false sense of security, and means you forget to stop and look at the big picture, and analyze if the tests you have are sufficient. You don’t get reminded to add tests that should pass straight away, but might be needed if you refactor the code.

So in any case, I figured I needed to practice my refactoring skills. I’ve created comprehensive tests and three different “defactored” solutions to this kata, in Java and Python. You can get the starting code here. You can use this to practice refactoring with a full safety net, or if you feeling brave, without. Try commenting out a good percentage of the tests, and do some major refactoring. When you bring all the tests back, will they still all pass?

I’m planning to try this exercise with my local python user group, GothPy, in a few weeks time. I think it’s going to be fun!

* Tennis Kata: write a program that if you tell it how many points each player has won in a single game of tennis, it will tell you the score.

I’ve been working full time in Ruby now for about a month, and I think I’m beginning to get the hang of it. In many ways it’s not so different from Python.

I took some of the code I talked about struggling with in my last post, and set about translating it into Python. I wanted to see if the bugs were more obvious in a language I was more familiar with. Unfortunately before I was finished with the translation, my machine died and refused to restart, complaining about a disk error… so I may well have lost all my work. (ARRRGH!!) Anyway, before that happened, I was getting the feeling that the bugs weren’t very obvious, even in a language I knew better.

What I did find though, was that it was quite hard to make the methods as short in Python as they were in Ruby. I could make them as short, the language has the necessary features to do it, but when I did so, they just stopped looking like good Python to me.

The other thing that I found was that RSpec lets you write really readable and well organized tests. Translating them into unittest made them just a travesty of their former selves.

I’ve just listened to this talk by Gary Bernhardt, who is experienced in both Python and Ruby, and who has clearly thought quite hard about these kinds of issues and knows both languages very well. He has even tried to write a RSpec clone for Python, called Mote. (He says himself that it isn’t as good as RSpec, and that it is because Python lacks blocks, and won’t let him monkeypatch core classes).

Anyway, about half way through the talk, Gary shows this code example, first in Python:

    for obj in (
        for id in ids)
   if obj)

Then the equivalent code in Ruby: do |id|
 repository.retrieve(id) do |obj|

Gary makes the point that the Ruby code is easier to read – you can follow it from top to bottom and see what it does. The thing is, I don’t think many people would write code like that in Python. I might write it more like this:

objs = [repository.retrieve(id) for id in ids]
objs = filter(lambda x: x, objs)
names = [ for obj in objs]

This code is four statements long, rather than one, and has two local variables (“objs” and “names”) which the other two code snippets lack. In real code, you would probably be able to come up with rather more descriptive names, drawn from the problem domain. When I compare this code with the Ruby, I don’t think it is any less readable. The filter(lambda x: x, objs) is not as nice as the Ruby call to “compact”, but on the other hand, I think the two additional local variables make it clearer what is going on.

I’m wondering whether the trouble I was having locating bugs in these small methods was because they were cramming so much into one statement, and almost completely lacking in local variables. That seems to be the Ruby way of doing things – maybe I will just get used to it and learn to read it just as well eventually? I guess I am going to find out!

Anyway, I’m really hoping the friendly support technicians manage to save the contents of my hard disk, I want to use the code in an exercise at the upcoming Gothenburg Python Conference – GothPyCon. I am hoping to run a workshop where half the room gets the buggy code with small methods, and the other half gets the same code refactored into longer methods. You get half an hour to find the bugs, then swap to the other codebase and find them again. Then I was hoping to have a discussion about which codebase was easier to debug, and/or split into pairs and re-implement the code from scratch, and see if we could come up with other designs that solved the problem more elegantly and transparently.

If issues like this interest you – design, refactoring and testing -, I really hope you will come along!