Coding Is Like Cooking

I’ve just been appointed to the role of Industry Programme Chair for XP2011, which will be held in Madrid in May. I’ve been to 7 of the previous 11 XP conferences and I am so pleased to be asked to contribute to the success of the conference this year by doing this role.

Rachel Davies is the general chair, and I am really looking forward to working with her and the other organizers. Rachel is one of those people I have met repeatedly at conferences and always has something interesting to contribute. More recently, I read her excellent book on Agile Coaching. I can’t remember exactly when I first met her, but I do remember meeting her former colleagues from Connextra, Tim MacKinnon and Steve Freeman. I can still picture them in the small minibus that picked us up from a tiny Italian airport in 2002. It was a hot summers day, and we were driven at high speed along small Sardinian roads to the lovely hotel Calabona by the sea and the historic walled city of Alghero. I remember being so impressed to meet some people who were actually doing eXtreme Programming for real.

There were so many inspirational people at that conference, it was really a turning point in my career. I just found the old conference programme online here, and it brings back so many memories!

I remember sitting by the pool discussing subjects like how to test drive refactoring with Frank Westphal and Steve Freeman. There was a firey keynote from Ken Schwaber encouraging us to start a revolution in software development world. I remember Joshua Kerievsky asking Jutta Eckstein to explain all about how she was doing XP with a team of over 100 people. Following David Parnas’ keynote about using a formal test specification language to define requirements I remember Martin Fowler opining about its usefulness or lack of it, (do read his blog post about it).

The colourful personality of Scott Ambler demonstrated his ability to break a plank of wood in two with his bare hands, as some kind of lesson to do with dedication and focus. The conference dinner at Poco Loco really was a little crazy, with a bunch of uncoordinated geeks going for it on the dancefloor while the local band played very loudly. The morning after everyone was rather subdued when listening to Enrico Zaninotto reading his keynote in halting English, relating XP to the history of manufacturing and modern lean ideals. Half the audience was having trouble staying awake which in no way reflected the quality of what he was saying. It was truly inspiring, and Mary and Tom Poppendieck in particular were listening in rapt attention.

Michael Feathers wore a T-shirt saying “Save the LSF”, and Geoff and I asked him why he was so interested in platform computing’s Load Sharing Facility. It turned out Alan Francis had recently become unemployed and Mike was helping in the campaign to “Save the Lightly Scottish Fellow”!

Laurent Bossavit was going round trying to attract people to his Birds Of a Feather session on the writings of Gerald Weinberger. Erik Lundh was taking about his team in Sweden who had done a complete XP iteration in 2 days when faced with an unexpected deadline. Steven Fraser seemed to be videoing everything and anything, including someone demonstrating the correct way to twirl Italian Spaghetti on a fork. Mike Hill was (as ever) being loud but friendly. Charlie Poole seemed to be full of insightful analogies and comments. Dave Hussman was really friendly too.

It was just fantastic the way the XP community welcomed us in, and particularly Kent Beck’s attitude was instrumental in that. My husband Geoff and I presented a poster at the conference with title “One suite of automated tests” based mainly on Geoff’s experiences with the tool that was to become TextTest. We turned up on the first day for a workshop about “testing in XP”, and Geoff was immediately controversial by saying that he didn’t do any unit testing, only this weird text-based testing thing using log comparison. He said he found it so successful that he used it instead of both the XP practices of functional and unit testing. I remember several people being quite dismissive of his ideas.

Later in the conference, Kent Beck made a particular effort to talk to us and we took our picture standing by our poster. Apparently he had been asking people to try to be inclusive and friendly to us after the somewhat negative reaction to our ideas. I think he wanted the newly-forming XP community to be welcoming and to embrace diversity of opinion.

So now I should turn this around and look instead to the future. I’d love it if even half the people I’ve mentioned in this post found time in their diaries to come to Madrid in May for XP2011. I wouldn’t want them to come alone though, there are so many fantastic and inspirational people who have joined the ever-expanding agile community since 2002.

I am every bit as keen now as Kent was then to see that the agile community embraces newcomers, and that the XP conference should provide a space where researchers and practitioners can freely discuss the state of the art. I hope we’ll make new friends and business contacts, learn loads, and have fun. Would you like to join us there?

I recently read this post in Brian Marick’s blog, and it set me thinking. He’s talking about a test whose intention in some way survived three major GUI revisions. The test code had to be rewritten each time, but the essence of it was retained. He says:

I changed the UI of an app and so… I had to rewrite the UI code and the tests/checks of the UI code. It might seem the checks were worthless during the rewrite (and in 1997, I would have thought so). But it turns out that all (or almost all) of those checks contained an idea that needed to be preserved in the new interface. They were reminders of important things to think about, and that (it seemed to me) repaid the cost of rewriting them.

That was a big surprise to me.

I’m not sure why Brian is so surprised about this. If the user intentions and business rules are the same, then some aspects of the tests should also be preserved. A change in UI layout or technology should mean superficial changes only. In fact, one of the main claims for PyUseCase is that by having the tests written in a domain language decoupled from the specifics of the UI, it enables you to write tests that survive major UI changes. In practice this means when you rewrite the UI, you are saved the trouble of also rewriting the tests. So Geoff and I decided to write some code and see if this was true for the example Brian outlines.

In the blog post, there is only one small screenshot and some vague descriptions of the GUIs these tests are for, so we did some interpolation. I hope we have written an application that gets to the gist of the problem, although it is undoubtedly less beautiful and sophisticated than the one Brian was working on. All the code and tests is on launchpad here.

We started by writing an application which I hope is like his current GUI. You select animals in a list, click “book” and they appear in a new list below. You select procedures from another list, and unsuitable animals disappear.

In my app, I had to make up some procedures, in this case “milking”, which is unsuitable for Guicho (no udders on a gelding!), and “abdominocentesis” which is suitable for all animals, (no idea what that is, but it was in Brian’s example :-). Brian describes a test where an animal that is booked should not stay booked if you choose a procedure that is unsuitable for it, then change your mind and instead choose a procedure that it is suitable for.

select animals Guicho
book selected animals
choose procedure milking
choose procedure abdominocentesis
quit

This is a list of the actions the user must take in the GUI. So Guicho should disappear when you select “milking”, and reappear as available, but not as booked, when you select “abdominocentesis”. This information is not in the use case file, since it only documents user actions.

The other part of the test is the UI log, which documents what the application actually does in response to the user actions. This log is auto generated by pyUseCase. For this test, I won’t repeat the whole file, (you can view it here), but I will go through the important parts:

‘select animals’ event created with arguments ‘Guicho’

‘book selected animals’ event created with arguments ”

Updated : booked animals with columns: booked animals ,
-> Guicho | gelding

This part of the log shows that Guido is listed as booked.

‘choose procedure’ event created with arguments ‘milking’

Updated : available animals with columns: available animals , animal type
-> Good Morning Sunshine | mare
-> Goat 3 | goat
-> Goat 4 | goat
-> Misty | mare

Updated : booked animals with columns: booked animals ,

So you see that after we select “milking” the lists of available and booked animals are updated, Guicho disappears, and the “booked animals” section is now blank. The log goes on to show what happens when we select “abdominocentesis”:

‘choose procedure’ event created with arguments ‘abdominocentesis’

Updated : available animals with columns: available animals , animal type
-> Good Morning Sunshine | mare
-> Goat 3 | goat
-> Goat 4 | goat
-> Guicho | gelding
-> Misty | mare

‘quit’ event created with arguments ”

ie the “available animals” list is updated and Guicho reappears, but the booked animals list is not updated. This means we know the application behaves as desired – booked animals that are not suitable for a procedure do not reappear as booked if another procedure is selected.

Ok, so far so good. What happens to the test when we compeletely re-jig the UI and it instead looks like this?

Now there is no book button, and you book animals by ticking a checkbox. Selecting a procedure will remove unsuitable animals from the list in the same way as before. So now if you change your mind about the procedure, animals that reappear on the list should not be marked as booked, even if they were before they disappeared. There is no separate list of booked animals.

What we did was take a copy of the tests and the code, updated the code, and see what we needed to do to the tests to make them work again. In the end it was reasonably straightforward. We didn’t re-record or rewrite any tests. We just had to modify the use cases to remove the reference to the book button, and save new versions of the UI log to reflect the new UI layout. The use case part of the test looks like this now:

book animal Guicho
choose procedure milking
choose procedure abdominocentesis
quit

which is one line shorter than before, since we no longer have separate user actions for selecting and booking an animal.

So updating the tests to work with the changed UI consisted of:

1. remove reference to “book” button in UI map file, since button no longer exists
2. in use case files for all tests, replace “select animals x, y” with a line for each animal, “book animal x” and “book animal y”.
3. Run the tests. All fail in identical manner. Check the changes in the UI log file using a graphical diff tool, once. (no need to look at every test since they are grouped together as identical by TextTest)
4. Save the updated use cases and UI logs. (the spurious line “book selected animals” is removed from the use case files since the button no longer exists)
5. Run the tests again. All pass.

The new UI log file looks like this:

‘book animal’ event created with arguments ‘Guicho’

Updated : available animals with columns: is booked , available animals , animal type
-> Check box | Good Morning Sunshine | mare
-> Check box | Goat 3 | goat
-> Check box | Goat 4 | goat
-> Check box (checked) | Guicho | gelding
-> Check box | Misty | mare

‘choose procedure’ event created with arguments ‘milking’

Updated : available animals with columns: is booked , available animals , animal type
-> Check box | Good Morning Sunshine | mare
-> Check box | Goat 3 | goat
-> Check box | Goat 4 | goat
-> Check box | Misty | mare

‘choose procedure’ event created with arguments ‘abdominocentesis’

Updated : available animals with columns: is booked , available animals , animal type
-> Check box | Good Morning Sunshine | mare
-> Check box | Goat 3 | goat
-> Check box | Goat 4 | goat
-> Check box | Guicho | gelding
-> Check box | Misty | mare

‘quit’ event created with arguments ”

It is quite explicit that Guicho is marked as booked before he disappears, and not checked when he comes back. Updating the UI map file was very easy – we viewed it in a graphical diff tool, noted the new column for the checkbox and the lack of the list of booked animals were as expected, and clicked “save” in TextTest.

I only actually had like 5 tests, but updating them to cope with the changed UI was relatively straightforward, and would still have been straightforward even if I had had 600 of them.

I’m quite pleased the way PyUseCase coped in this case. I really believe that with this tool you will be able to write your tests once, and they will be able to survive many generations of your UI. I think this toy example goes some way to showing how.

Today I listened to a presentation about “Scrum for Managers” from Jens Östergaard. He’s a big, friendly Dane who grew up in Sweden, and now lives in the UK. I first met Jens at XP2003 in Genoa, when he had just run his first successful Scrum project. These days he spends his time flying around the world, teaching Scrum courses and coaching Scrum Masters. (He’ll be doing 2 more CSM courses in Göteborg in the next 6 months, and speaking at Scandinavian Developer Conference).

One thing I noticed about his talk was that most things about Scrum hardly seem to have changed at all. Jens was largely using the same language and examples that are in the original books. The other thing that struck me was that Jens said nothing about the technical practices that are needed to make agile development work. In my world, you can’t possibly hope to reliably deliver working software every sprint/iteration if you havn’t got basic practices like continuous integration and automated testing in place. I asked Jens about this afterwards, and he said it was deliberate. Scrum is a project management framework that can be applied to virtually any field, not just software development. Therefore he didn’t want to talk about software specific practices.

When I first heard Ken Schwaber talk about Scrum (keynote at XP2002) I’m farily sure he included the XP developer practices. I can’t find my notes from that speech, but I remember him being very firey and enthusiastic and encouraging us to go out and convert the world to Scrum and XP (the word agile wasn’t invented then).

Scrum has been hugely successful since then. Today we had a room full of project managers and line managers who all knew something about Scrum, many of whom are using it daily in their organizations. Scrum is relatively easy to understand and get going with at the project level, and has this CSM training course that thousands of people have been on. These are not bad things.

I do think that dropping the XP development practices entirely from the description of Scrum is unhelpful. I chatted with several people who are having difficulty getting Scrum to work in their organizations, and I think lack of developer practices, particularly automated testing, is compounding their problems. I think a talk given to software managers needs to say something about how developers might need coaching and training in new practices if they are going to succeed with Scrum.

It’s Java Forum next week, here in Göteborg. I’m giving a short talk about TestNG, a tool I’ve been using lately.

My basic conclusion is that TestNG is a very easy step from JUnit, and one you don’t need to take if all your tests are true unit tests (ie fast and independant). TestNG has some nice features which help when your tests are slow and/or have external dependencies, especially if they are mixed together in the same test classes as true unit tests. I think it’s pretty useful for unit and integration tests. (aka quadrant 1, technology facing).

Having said that, what bothers me about TestNG is that it means your test code is written in Java. For me, that makes it unsuitable for for system tests, (aka quadrant 2, business facing). If you have anything resembling an involved customer, you’re going to at least want to encourage them to read the system tests to verify they are correct, and to gain confidence that the system is working. Truly agile teams have these people helping write tests. Many customer types won’t be happy working with Java. You might be able to get by, though, if you have descriptive test names, good javadoc, and test data in separate files that they can read.

Rather than spending time learning TestNG, I think you may get more payback from tools such as Fitnesse, Robot or TextTest, which all allow you to get customers involved in reading and even writing tests. I think it could be a perfectly sensible choice to stick with JUnit for unit tests, and use one of these tools for both integration and system tests. What you choose will of course depends on the situation, for example the size of the system, the nature of the test data, and how many tools your team is willing to learn.

Recently I’ve had the priviledge of working with a team of developers where I sit in the same room as half of them, and the other half are in China. My role is to help them to develop a suite of automated system tests alongside the production code. After a few month’s work, we now have quite a substantial product, with quite a substantial test suite.

When we started, very few of the developers had written much in the way of system tests, and even fewer knew how to write good, maintainable ones. Over the weeks, I have been promoting practices to enhance test readability, reviewing test code, and pointing out areas that need better coverage.

I’ve noticed that with the local developers, reviews and feedback are usually conducted face to face, informally, whereas with the offshore developers, it all goes via email, with a substantial time delay. This has meant that the Swedish developers have learnt faster, since they benefit from shorter feedback cycles, and a richer form of communication. Having said that, the Chinese developers are doing nearly as well. They seem really motivated to deliver what I ask for, and keep requesting and responding to feedback until they have written what I consider to be some pretty good tests.

It’s not all sweetness and light, however. As much as learning the technical skills of writing tests, the team needs to learn the culture of maintaining them. The CI server complains the build is broken far too often, and it is because the developers generally are not running the tests before they check in. My perception is that the offshore developers are worse at this, and my interpretation is not that they are somehow less good developers, far from it. I think that they just don’t have the same management support to spend time on maintaining the tests as the onshore ones.

Management in Sweden has really bought into the idea that investing in automated tests pays off over the long term, and vigorously support me in discussions with recalcitrant developers. Management in China has not. My impression is that they see only the costs associated with writing, running and maintaining automated tests, and would rather hire some (ridiculously cheap) Chinese students to run manual tests instead.

I would like to believe that this automated test suite is a really good investment for the future of this product. My experience tells me it should enable regression bugs to be found very soon after insertion, and enable much more frequent product releases. (You don’t have to wait for a 6 week manual test cycle before each release). Over the many year lifetime of the product, this should significantly outweigh the initial investment we have made creating it, and the ongoing costs of keeping it running.

The reality may be quite different. Future versions of the product will likely be developed entirely in China, and I suspect that without their Swedish colleagues’ enthusiasm, the Chinese management might decide the test suite should be quietly dismantled and left to rot. That may be the right economic decision, although it makes me weep to think of it. All I can do is console myself with the thought that at least the tests are so readable they will be easy to convert into manual test cases detailed enough for dirt cheap unskilled Chinese students to perform.