Skip to main content

The Oh in Coding

The Dev Manager lent me the book he's been reading recently, Michael C Feathers' Working Effectively with Legacy Code. The detail is mostly too fine for my coding knowledge and needs but I had a few ideas reinforced and new ones to take away:
  • For Feathers, legacy code is any code without (unit) tests. That's right: code written today can be legacy code.
  • Most software changes seek to hold some or all existing functionality constant and having (good, unit) tests can give a developer reassurance they have achieved that.
  • When code has no tests, or has tests which have dependencies, the degree of reassurance drops and it's natural for a developer to want to avoid touching existing code so as to mitigate the risk of breaking something. This can lead to worse code.
  • Making code testable involves breaking dependencies so that small atomic elements of the logic and structure are can be addressed individually. Feathers doesn't deny the utility of testing at a larger scale, but strongly promotes the necessity of testing at the micro scale.
  • The book has a nice line in terminology: Edit and Pray vs Cover and Modify as the two basic methods of changing code made me chuckle. The notion of a seam is interesting too. It's a way that the behaviour of a piece of code can be changed without changing the code itself, for example by overriding a method on a class.

    In Feather's description it's a way to circumvent an unwanted dependency at test time, but for me it provokes thoughts of the unintended consequences that come from a change in one part of the codebase: A seam as a map of the areas in the codebase in which any element has an effect, like a seam of coal spreading underground.
It's the first of these gave me that Oh! moment. The definition of legacy he prefers is extremely strict but Feathers makes a good case for it. If I accept it, then all of my test team's codebase is legacy code.

I don't know whether I do accept it - the existence of unit tests is not the same as the existence of useful unit tests or sufficient unit tests to make edits as safe as Feathers is trying to - but the insight it gives is interesting. In the world AFK we should be asking ourselves who tests the testers? In parallel, in the codebase, we should be asking who tests the test code? This is not only a problem for testers; Dev need to think about what kinds of coding policies and so on they need for their own tests.

The view I've taken to date is that for our test code we'll trade off the expense and effort of wrapping it in unit test against the benefits that we can accrue by doing something else - such as investigating the application under test - instead.

That's not to say we don't care about the code. We do and, although we're by no means software engineers, we try to do a decent job: all our code is under version control; we write our own library code to share across suites; we regularly rewrite or even replace components; we report bugs in our test code in the same bug tracking system as our product, and we verify our fixes, and so on.

Testing the test code is important and one of my earliest posts was on that topic. On occasion I've also talked about using (and used) regression test suite output as a kind of harness for the test code itself. Imagine that you have a test suite that you want to refactor. You run it and all of the tests (or checks) pass. Now, hold the product executables constant and change the test code. If, after your changes, the tests still pass you've got confidence that your changes are good. The suite is a self-testing magical gem and you are a coding colossus!

Kind of. What you've actually got is some evidence that you probably haven't ballsed things up totally. Imagine that your edit simply changed every test call of the kind

  $actual=create_X(a,b,c);
 assert($expected, $actual, "value of X is as expected")

to

  $actual=create_X(a,b,c);
 assert("pass", "value of X is as expected")

Now your test suite still passes, but performs no tests. Sure but that's unrealistic and you'd never do that kind of thing, would you? No, of course not. But might you occasionally replace a genuine check with a dummy one while debugging? Could you accidentally check that in? Hmm.

There are subtler ways to get to that position too. I came across test code this week that looked like it had lost some functionality in refactoring. This meant that a handful of checks were not being performed. The code looked like this:

 if (X & Y) {
    if (Z) {
      do_one_thing()
    }
    else {
      do_another()
    }
 }
 
The key problem here was that if X and Y were not true there was no else clause in which some appropriate action could be carried out. Consider that there was an earlier edit which removed a final

 else {
   do_another()
 }

and altered the logic in the nested conditional with the intention that the single call to do_another()would deal with all relevant cases. Despite the error in the logic, running the suite either side of the edit would show no change to the test suite's pass/fail status but some tests would not have been run any longer.

So will I be mandating unit test coverage of all test code? Not at this stage. I think we have decent enough practices on a small enough test codebase that changes core logic sufficiently infrequently that we can continue as we are for now. Will I continue to think carefully about the potential legacy of that decision. Oh yes.
Image: http://flic.kr/p/5kREwF

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Can Code, Can't Code, Is Useful

The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book,  Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide  responses to common questions and statements about testing from a  context-driven perspective . It's being edited by  Lee Hawkins  who is  posing questions on  Twitter ,   LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST  mailing list  and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to  contribute  by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "If testers can’t code, they’re of no use to us" My first reaction is to wonder what you expect from your testers. I am immediately interested in your working context and the way

Meet Me Halfway?

  The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book,  Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide  responses to common questions and statements about testing from a  context-driven perspective . It's being edited by  Lee Hawkins  who is  posing questions on  Twitter ,   LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST  mailing list  and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to  contribute  by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "Stop answering my questions with questions." Sure, I can do that. In return, please stop asking me questions so open to interpretation that any answer would be almost meaningless and certa

Not Strictly for the Birds

  One of my chores takes me outside early in the morning and, if I time it right, I get to hear a charming chorus of birdsong from the trees in the gardens down our road, a relaxing layered soundscape of tuneful calls, chatter, and chirrupping. Interestingly, although I can tell from the number and variety of trills that there must be a large number of birds around, they are tricky to spot. I have found that by staring loosely at something, such as the silhouette of a tree's crown against the slowly brightening sky, I see more birds out of the corner of my eye than if I scan to look for them. The reason seems to be that my peripheral vision picks up movement against the wider background that direct inspection can miss. An optometrist I am not, but I do find myself staring at data a great deal, seeking relationships, patterns, or gaps. I idly wondered whether, if I filled my visual field with data, I might be able to exploit my peripheral vision in that quest. I have a wide monito

Testing (AI) is Testing

Last November I gave a talk, Random Exploration of a Chatbot API , at the BCS Testing, Diversity, AI Conference .  It was a nice surprise afterwards to be offered a book from their catalogue and I chose Artificial Intelligence and Software Testing by Rex Black, James Davenport, Joanna Olszewska, Jeremias Rößler, Adam Leon Smith, and Jonathon Wright.  This week, on a couple of train journeys around East Anglia, I read it and made sketchnotes. As someone not deeply into this field, but who has been experimenting with AI as a testing tool at work, I found the landscape view provided by the book interesting, particularly the lists: of challenges in testing AI, of approaches to testing AI, and of quality aspects to consider when evaluating AI.  Despite the hype around the area right now there's much that any competent tester will be familiar with, and skills that translate directly. Where there's likely to be novelty is in the technology, and the technical domain, and the effect of

Postman Curlections

My team has been building a new service over the last few months. Until recently all the data it needs has been ingested at startup and our focus has been on the logic that processes the data, architecture, and infrastructure. This week we introduced a couple of new endpoints that enable the creation (through an HTTP POST) and update (PUT) of the fundamental data type (we call it a definition ) that the service operates on. I picked up the task of smoke testing the first implementations. I started out by asking the system under test to show me what it can do by using Postman to submit requests and inspecting the results. It was the kinds of things you'd imagine, including: submit some definitions (of various structure, size, intent, name, identifiers, etc) resubmit the same definitions (identical, sharing keys, with variations, etc) retrieve the submitted definitions (using whatever endpoints exist to show some view of them) compare definitions I submitted fro

Testers are Gate-Crashers

  The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book,  Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide  responses to common questions and statements about testing from a  context-driven perspective . It's being edited by  Lee Hawkins  who is  posing questions on  Twitter ,   LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST  mailing list  and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to  contribute  by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "Testers are the gatekeepers of quality" Instinctively I don't like the sound of that, but I wonder what you mean by it. Perhaps one or more of these? Testers set the quality sta

Vanilla Flavour Testing

I have been pairing with a new developer colleague recently. In our last session he asked me "is this normal testing?" saying that he'd never seen anything like it anywhere else that he'd worked. We finished the task we were on and then chatted about his question for a few minutes. This is a short summary of what I said. I would describe myself as context-driven . I don't take the same approach to testing every time, except in a meta way. I try to understand the important questions, who they are important to, and what the constraints on the work are. With that knowledge I look for productive, pragmatic, ways to explore whatever we're looking at to uncover valuable information or find a way to move on. I write test notes as I work in a format that I have found to be useful to me, colleagues, and stakeholders. For me, the notes should clearly state the mission and give a tl;dr summary of the findings and I like them to be public while I'm working not just w

Build Quality

  The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book,  Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide  responses to common questions and statements about testing from a  context-driven perspective . It's being edited by  Lee Hawkins  who is  posing questions on  Twitter ,   LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST  mailing list  and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to  contribute  by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "When the build is green, the product is of sufficient quality to release" An interesting take, and one I wouldn't agree with in general. That surprises you? Well, ho

Make, Fix, and Test

A few weeks ago, in A Good Tester is All Over the Place , Joep Schuurkes described a model of testing work based on three axes: do testing yourself or support testing by others be embedded in a team or be part of a separate team do your job or improve the system It resonated with me and the other testers I shared it with at work, and it resurfaced in my mind while I was reflecting on some of the tasks I've picked up recently and what they have involved, at least in the way I've chosen to address them. Here's three examples: Documentation Generation We have an internal tool that generates documentation in Confluence by extracting and combining images and text from a handful of sources. Although useful, it ran very slowly or not at all so one of the developers performed major surgery on it. Up to that point, I had never taken much interest in the tool and I could have safely ignored this piece of work too because it would have been tested by

The Best Laid Test Plans

The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book,  Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide  responses to common questions and statements about testing from a  context-driven perspective . It's being edited by  Lee Hawkins  who is  posing questions on  Twitter ,   LinkedIn , Mastodon , Slack , and the AST  mailing list  and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to  contribute  by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "What's the best format for a test plan?" I'll side-step the conversation about what a test plan is and just say that the format you should use is one that works for you, your coll