Skip to main content

Walking Skeleton

A Walking Skeleton is the thinnest possible slice of new functionality that can be delivered end to end. The term "walking" refers to the ability for the feature to "stand on its own". You should be able to deploy a Walking Skeleton and demonstrate it. Just like a human skeleton is an incomplete body, a Walking Skeleton is an incomplete piece of software with many internals stubbed, not implemented or consisting of basic functionality.

While the software won't do much it provides rapid feedback. It allows your build and deploy pipeline to be set up if not already in place. More importantly it gives developers a framework or scaffold to work with.

Production of a Walking Skeleton should be fast. Components such as which objects to introduce should ideally be developed top down, however the actual direction each solution takes will vary. Some design will still be required, but the choice of patterns or implementation details should be deferred where possible. Core interfaces such as application services, domain models and data access will naturally fall out of this process.

Tasking

Each new story or feature should be implemented as a Walking Skeleton whenever possible. The first task a team should implement should be to create the skeleton itself. An optional step during implementation is to wrap the functionality in a acceptance test. Once the skeleton is complete, a task per object can be created with clear inputs, outputs and responsibilities.

Benefits

  • Highlights problems that tasking often misses.
  • Tasks can be implemented in parallel once a framework is in place.
  • Implementing or replacing stubbed code is easy given a stable API.
  • Provides working software very quickly and cheaply, which is great for feedback or exploration.
  • Puts the whole team on the same page.
  • Code trumps documentation.
  • Leads to a more stable API.
  • TDD is a natural fit once the skeleton is complete.

Producing a Walking Skeleton is not perfect, problems still crop up, but they can be handled in a more controlled manner. Most issues relate to implementation details at lower levels, rather than integration or functional failures which are often symptoms of tasking before writing any code.

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…