Skip to main content

Mob Programming

I first saw this video of Mob Programming a couple of years back. Mob Programming is pair programming taken one step further, the whole team is based around a single machine. The developers rotate regularly and those who are not driving can add feedback, make suggestions or simply watch and learn. Everyone should be placed on a level playing field. I will admit to being highly sceptical of Mob Programming at first.

I advocate walking skeletons to ensure we are on the "right path" when developing. We wanted to do these as a team, during our planning and tasking phase. I suggested mobbing rather than watching a solo developer on a projector and it turned out to be quite fun. We also learned a few new tricks such as keyboard shortcuts or IDE techniques along the way.

There were a few rough edges, mainly due to the setup used. A laptop around a screen proved difficult and this in turned seemed to put pressure on individuals. In repeat sessions we have used a dedicated space, with a proper machine and large screen or projector. The ten minute rotation is enough to allow focus, while not being too long between switching.

While Mob Programming is a relatively new experience for myself, it is proving quite valuable as technique to help develop a walking skeleton. Currently we have not used Mob Programming for full time development. As it stands, I would find it hard to recommend this for some development tasks. Additionally I can think of developers and managers that would simply resist any suggestion of mob programming. Unfortunately for some teams this may be too much of a hard sell.

The end result of a mobbing session is a task board filled up with minor tasks such as improving test coverage, refactoring, or edge cases. The core functionality is delivered as a team. Combined with the walking skeleton Mob Programming solves some of the key problems that traditional tasking and planning introduces and is well worth an experiment.


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…