Skip to main content

We Actually Did Need It



You Ain't Gonna Need It, YAGNI. A helpful tool to remind us to carefully consider building no more than we need to solve the problem in front of us. I see it mostly applied to software development questions but the same tension between investment cost, flexibility, and eventual value applies elsewhere and it's on my mind because I am thinking about two very different experiences with internal process.

Without going into too much depth, there was an ancient process that my team ran infrequently and which had been slated for removal for a long time. At one point it had probably been a sleek and streamlined racing yacht but, by the time I encountered it, it handled like a barnacle-covered leaky skip. 

Big changes, however, were always postponed in favour of more pressing concerns and, when I last worked my way through it, I found that a whole new outrigger had been bolted onto the side to support another process.

It can be tempting to think of this crustiness as YAGNI at a kind of macro level: the process is not worth investing in, given what we know. We ain't gonna need to defoul this boat because we can live with the frustration and messiness at the level it currently exists for the length of time we expect it to be needed. 

Martin Fowler notes that this is a common confusion:

Yagni only applies to capabilities built into the software to support a presumptive feature, it does not apply to effort to make the software easier to modify. Yagni is only a viable strategy if the code is easy to change, so expending effort on refactoring isn't a violation of yagni because refactoring makes the code more malleable.

Generalising, I read this as: YAGNI does not simply mean adding debt. Of course, our process was not easy to change or extend, and it's clear today that it would have been much better to improve it earlier.

I said I was thinking about two very different processes. The second was so deeply buried that I didn't even know it existed and that we were responsible for it.

When it came to light, all that we had were the artefacts from the previous time it had been run. Actually, that makes it sound better than it was: we had some source files and some output artefacts and the two did not match, and the route from the former to the latter was not clear. Oh yes, and there was content that had to be consistent between output artefects that required editing in multiple source artefacts.

I helped to do an emergency round of editing and assumption-making to produce an acceptable update and then we stepped back. Much like the first process, this was something that we thought would only need to be run occasionally, so how much should we invest in it?

We looked for existing tooling that would help but didn't find anything. On the back of that research, though, I thought that I could build something that would take a single source input and generate all of the required outputs. 

So I prototyped it, evaluated it, and then built the smallest program that I could to reproduce what we'd made by hand. This included resisting requests to generalise the nascent tool for others to potentially use later.

When the next request came in to make a slight variant, and some different output formats, those changes were simple to add. And when the next set of content changes was requested, that was an edit of the single source file and regeneration of the output took mere seconds. In the event, many more changes were requested and turned around much faster than they would have been if we didn't have the tool.

I think I applied YAGNI at the code level here, and to very good advantage. I delivered the thing we needed today today and I was able to make the changes that tomorrow requested tomorrow. I even refactored once I'd made changes.

But notice that we made a significantly different choice at the process level. Why didn't we simply write a process doc and live with the hand-editing, making another clunky-but-occasional procedure?

And that's where I came in. I was reflecting on that choice. I think there were some key differences between the two processes. For the second:

  • there was no legacy process, so we had to do something
  • it would be very easy to do the wrong thing by hand, so automation could add a lot of value
  • there were no external dependencies to consider
  • an audit trail looked important and was missing; code version control gave that for free
  • I didn't believe that there would be few changes in future
  • I had a gut instinct that it was "worth it"

At the code level, Martin Fowler notes that YAGNI is not always the right play either:

Having said all this, there are times when applying yagni does cause a problem, and you are faced with an expensive change when an earlier change would have been much cheaper. The tricky thing here is that these cases are hard to spot in advance, and much easier to remember than the cases where yagni saved effort. My sense is that yagni-failures are relatively rare and their costs are easily outweighed by when yagni succeeds.

At this point I feel like we made the right choice in building a tool for the second process and I think, as objectively as I can, that I made the tool well. By working through this blog post, I also feel like I would be more cautious about accepting YAGNI for process in future because, in my experience, we tend to be less aggressive about refactoring processes and so "YAGNI" there is more like "yes, lets add some debt."

I'm now interested in another question though: what are reasonable heuristics for YAGNI to avoid finding ourselves crying We Actually Did Need It?
Image:https://flic.kr/p/eziRa

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

The Best Programmer Dan Knows

  I was pairing with my friend Vernon at work last week, on a tool I've been developing. He was smiling broadly as I talked him through what I'd done because we've been here before. The tool facilitates a task that's time-consuming, inefficient, error-prone, tiresome, and important to get right. Vern knows that those kinds of factors trigger me to change or build something, and that's why he was struggling not to laugh out loud. He held himself together and asked a bunch of sensible questions about the need, the desired outcome, and the approach I'd taken. Then he mentioned a talk by Daniel Terhorst-North, called The Best Programmer I Know, and said that much of it paralleled what he sees me doing. It was my turn to laugh then, because I am not a good programmer, and I thought he knew that already. What I do accept, though, is that I am focussed on the value that programs can give, and getting some of that value as early as possible. He sent me a link to the ta

Beginning Sketchnoting

In September 2017 I attended  Ian Johnson 's visual note-taking workshop at  DDD East Anglia . For the rest of the day I made sketchnotes, including during Karo Stoltzenburg 's talk on exploratory testing for developers  (sketch below), and since then I've been doing it on a regular basis. Karo recently asked whether I'd do a Team Eating (the Linguamatics brown bag lunch thing) on sketchnoting. I did, and this post captures some of what I said. Beginning sketchnoting, then. There's two sides to that: I still regard myself as a beginner at it, and today I'll give you some encouragement and some tips based on my experience, to begin sketchnoting for yourselves. I spend an enormous amount of time in situations where I find it helpful to take notes: testing, talking to colleagues about a problem, reading, 1-1 meetings, project meetings, workshops, conferences, and, and, and, and I could go on. I've long been interested in the approaches I've evol

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

ChatGPTesters

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--  "Why don’t we replace the testers with AI?" We have a good relationship so I feel safe telling you that my instinctive reaction, as a member of the Tester's Union, is to ask why we don&

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

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

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

Express, Listen, and Field

Last weekend I participated in the LLandegfan Exploratory Workshop on Testing (LLEWT) 2024, a peer conference in a small parish hall on Anglesey, north Wales. The topic was communication and I shared my sketchnotes and a mind map from the day a few days ago. This post summarises my experience report.  Express, Listen, and Field Just about the most hands-on, practical, and valuable training I have ever done was on assertiveness with a local Cambridge coach, Laura Dain . In it she introduced Express, Listen, and Field (ELF), distilled from her experience across many years in the women’s movement, business, and academia.  ELF: say your key message clearly and calmly, actively listen to the response, and then focus only on what is relevant to your needs. I blogged a little about it back in 2017 and I've been using it ever since. Assertiveness In a previous role, I was the manager of a test team and organised training for the whole team