Skip to main content

Ratcheting

Some tasks in software development are mundane such as formatting and code conventions. Where possible tooling should take away some of this pain, however sometimes you need a developer to take on a task that requires a great deal of time and/or effort to complete. Tooling will only get you so far.

An example of this would be declaring that all projects build and compile with zero warnings. I've tried this in the past after a team retrospective. We had hundreds of errors per project, covering about fifteen projects at the time. Spending several weeks of development time resolving these would not have be fun nor financially viable. However we really wanted to implement this change

Solution

  • I wrote a single test which would execute as part of the build process that asserted the count of the errors per project.
  • Every now and then whenever I had some slack time (10 mins before a meeting, 30 mins at the end of the day etc...) I would open up a project and fix some errors. Then run the test and try and lower the number of errors it was asserting against until I hit the lower limit.
  • Rinse repeat this process and after a while a project would assert that there are no errors.
  • From here on it was impossible for a developer to commit in a change that would raise a warning.
  • The limit would ensure that during this period no new errors were added, increasing the work load.

After a month or so all the projects reported zero warnings. Going forward the test was modified so that new projects added to source control would be checked and have the same tests run against them, meaning no new projects can have a warning count greater than zero.

It turns out this has been documented before - its called Ratcheting. While I didn't know it at the time its nice to have a name to use when describing this technique.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…