Search Results

Search found 1228 results on 50 pages for 'agile plm'.

Page 17/50 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • I've inherited 200K lines of spaghetti code -- what now?

    - by kmote
    I hope this isn't too general of a question; I could really use some seasoned advice. I am newly employed as the sole "SW Engineer" in a fairly small shop of scientists who have spent the last 10-20 years cobbling together a vast code base. (It was written in a virtually obsolete language: G2 -- think Pascal with graphics). The program itself is a physical model of a complex chemical processing plant; the team that wrote it have incredibly deep domain knowledge but little or no formal training in programming fundamentals. They've recently learned some hard lessons about the consequences of non-existant configuration management. Their maintenance efforts are also greatly hampered by the vast accumulation of undocumented "sludge" in the code itself. I will spare you the "politics" of the situation (there's always politics!), but suffice to say, there is not a consensus of opinion about what is needed for the path ahead. They have asked me to begin presenting to the team some of the principles of modern software development. They want me to introduce some of the industry-standard practices and strategies regarding coding conventions, lifecycle management, high-level design patterns, and source control. Frankly, it's a fairly daunting task and I'm not sure where to begin. Initially, I'm inclined to tutor them in some of the central concepts of The Pragmatic Programmer, or Fowler's Refactoring ("Code Smells", etc). I also hope to introduce a number of Agile methodologies. But ultimately, to be effective, I think I'm going to need to hone in on 5-7 core fundamentals; in other words, what are the most important principles or practices that they can realistically start implementing that will give them the most "bang for the buck". So that's my question: What would you include in your list of the most effective strategies to help straighten out the spaghetti (and prevent it in the future)?

    Read the article

  • Should the number of developers be considered when estimating a task?

    - by Ludwig Magnusson
    I am pretty inexperienced with working in agile projects but I have tried it a few times and I always run into this problem when estimating a task. Do we bring into the estimate the number of developers that will work on the task? Let me explain: Task A is estimated to one time unit and developer 1 will work on it. Task B is also estimated to one time unit and developer 2 and 3 will work on it together. I.e. if developer 1 begins to work on task A at the same time developer 2 and 3 begins to work on task B they will all finish at the same time according to the estimate. Should the estimate for task B be twice of that for task A or the same? The problem as I see it is that when a task is received and estimated, it is not always possible to know how many people will work on it. And if you assumed that two developers would work on the task for one time unit but it turns out that only one developer will actually do it, this will not automatically mean that that developer will work on it for two time units. Is there any standard practice for this?

    Read the article

  • Should I listen to my employer and use CASE tools?

    - by omsharp
    My employer (Not a Developer) thinks that CASE tools will help us improve our development process and documentation. I am not sure about that, we are a small team of 5 developers building mobile banking solutions for local clients. I think CASE tools will be a waste of time and money as they need to be purchased and we will need some time before we get used to them and be efficient working with them for modeling and stuff. Code generation is another issue, I really think that the CASE generated code won't be as good as code written by good developers. I think that if we stick with agile princeliness, design patterns, use TDD, and keep our code clean. we should be good. And as far as Analysis and Design, I think simple UML diagrams on whiteboard should do the trick. Documentation is good and important, but should be made as little as possible and we should not focus on Docs and forget the code. This is what i think. Am I correct? or should I listen to my employer and start researching for an appropriate CASE Tool?

    Read the article

  • Is it appropriate to run a complex enterprise-system configuration and migration project in a similar way to a Scrum development project?

    - by AndyM
    I'm just starting out on the implementation of a large enterprise-wide system, which has complex requirements and many stakeholders. The company has been through high-level evaluation and tender process and determined to purchase a highly configurable "off-the-shelf" product rather than building an entirely bespoke system. The system will replace several existing systems and will require a significant amount of data migration. I'm thinking that the implementation of this system (which is expected to take over 2 years) could be run in a similar way to a Scrum software development project. With the first sprints targeted at building the minimal possible functionality needed (across all functional areas), and then iteratively deepening the level of functionality according the stakeholder feedback. I think this will de-risk the project and help ensure a balance of stakeholder needs within the available time. The user stories are still the same, it's just that to implement them we have work within the constraints of the pre-purchased system. When it comes to 'building stuff', instead of writing custom code the team will be configuring the off-the-shelf package, writing data conversion scripts and the like (and it should be a lot quicker!). Does this sound like a sensible approach? Does the Agile approach makes sense here?

    Read the article

  • IEEE SRS documents: lightweight version when working with outside contractors?

    - by maple_shaft
    Typically we follow an Agile development process that tends not to put an emphasis on writing requirements and technical documents that nobody will read. We tend to focus our limited manpower to development and testing activities with collaborative design and whiteboarding as a key focus. There is a mostly standalone web component that will take quite a few weeks to develop, but this work can be mostly parallel with other project work going on. To try and catch up time I was given a budget for hiring a developer on oDesk to complete this work. While my team isn't accustomed to working off of a firm SRS document, I realize that with outsourced development that it is a good idea to be as firm and specific as possible so I realize that I need to provide a detailed Requirements and Technical Specification document for this work to be done correctly. When I do write a Requirements document I typically utilize the standard IEEE SRS document template but I think this is too verbose and probably overkill for what I need to communicate to a developer. Is there another requirements document that is more lightweight and also accepted by a major standards organization like the IEEE? Further, as what will be developed as a software module that will interact with other software modules, my requirements really need to delve into technical specifications for things to work correctly. In this scenario does it make sense to merge technical and requirements specifications into a single document, and if not, what is a viable alternative?

    Read the article

  • Does Scrum turn active developers into passive developers?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    I'm a web developer working in a team of three developers and one designer. It's now about five months that we've implemented the agile scrum software development methodology. But I have a weird feeling I just wanted to share in this site. One important factor in human life is decision-making process. However, there is a big difference in decisions you make. Some decisions are just the outcome of an internal or external force, while other decisions are completely based on your free will, and some decisions are simply something in between. The more freedom you have in making decisions, the more self-driven your work would become. This seems to be a rule. Because we tend to shape our lives ourselves. There is a big difference between you deciding what to do, or being told what to do. Before scrum, I felt like having more freedom in making the decisions which were related to development, analysis, prioritizing implementation, etc. I had more feeling like I'm deciding what I'm doing. However, due to the scrum methodology, now many decisions simply come from the product owner. He prioritizes PBIs, he analyzes how the software should work, even sometimes how the UI and functionality should be implemented. I know that this is part of the scrum methodology, and I also know that this may result in better sales of product in future. However, I now feel like I'm always getting told to do something, instead of deciding to do something. This syndrome now has made me more passive towards the work. I tend to search less to find a better solution, approach, or technique I don't wake up in the morning expecting to get to an enjoyable work. Rather, I feel like being forced to work in order to live I have more hunger to work on my own hobby projects after work I won't push the team anymore to get to the higher technological levels I spend more time now on dinner, or tea-times and have less enthusiasm to get back to work I'm now willing more for the work to finish sooner, so that I can get home The big problem is, I see and diagnose this behavior in my colleagues too. Is it the outcome of scrum? Does scrum really makes the development team feel like they have no part in forming the overall software, thus making the passive to the project? How can I overcome this feeling?

    Read the article

  • Evaluating Scrum - is it okay to have people with multiple roles in a Scrum team?

    - by Wayne M
    I'm evaluating some Agile-style methodologies for possible introduction to my team. With Scrum, is it allowable to have the same person perform multiple roles? We have a small team of four developers and a web designer; we don't really have a lead (I fulfill this role), QA testers or business analysts, and all of our development tasks come from the CIO. Automated testing is seen as a total waste of time, and everything focuses on speed and not quality. What will happen is the CIO will come up with a development task (whether a feature or a bug) and give it to a developer (not to the whole team, to an individual, often in private or out of the blue) who is then expected to get it completed. The CIO doesn't gather requirements beyond the initial idea (and this has bitten us before as we'll implement something only to find out that none of the end users can use the feature, because they weren't consulted or even informed about it before we developed it, and in a panic we'll be told to revert the change) but requires say in/approval of everything that we do. First things first, is a Scrum style something to consider to introduce some standards and practices? From reading, Scrum seems to rely on a bit more trust and communication and focuses more on project management than on development, which is something we are completely devoid of as we don't have any semblance of project management at present. Second, if it can work is it unreasonable for someone, let's say myself, to act as both ScrumMaster and a developer? Or for a developer to also be the Product Owner (although chances are this will be the CIO, who isn't a developer)? I realize the Scrum Master and the Product Owner should be different people but at the same time I don't think we have anyone who has the qualities of a Product Owner (chances are it would turn into a "I need all these stories, I don't care how but get it done" type of deal and/or any freeze would be unfrozen on a whim). It seems to me that I might need to pick and choose pieces of Scrum/XP/Lean to compensate for how things are done currently, as it's highly unlikely that the mentality can be changed; for instance Pair Programming would never fly (seen as a waste, you get half the tasks done if you need two people for everything), TDD would be a hard sell, but short cycles would be welcomed.

    Read the article

  • Is it okay to have people with multiple roles in a Scrum team?

    - by Wayne M
    I'm evaluating some Agile-style methodologies for possible introduction to my team. With Scrum, is it allowable to have the same person perform multiple roles? We have a small team of four developers and a web designer; we don't really have a lead (I fulfill this role), QA testers or business analysts, and all of our development tasks come from the CIO. Automated testing is seen as a total waste of time, and everything focuses on speed and not quality. What will happen is the CIO will come up with a development task (whether a feature or a bug) and give it to a developer (not to the whole team, to an individual, often in private or out of the blue) who is then expected to get it completed. The CIO doesn't gather requirements beyond the initial idea (and this has bitten us before as we'll implement something only to find out that none of the end users can use the feature, because they weren't consulted or even informed about it before we developed it, and in a panic we'll be told to revert the change) but requires say in/approval of everything that we do. First things first, is a Scrum style something to consider to introduce some standards and practices? From reading, Scrum seems to rely on a bit more trust and communication and focuses more on project management than on development, which is something we are completely devoid of as we don't have any semblance of project management at present. Second, if it can work is it unreasonable for someone, let's say myself, to act as both ScrumMaster and a developer? Or for a developer to also be the Product Owner (although chances are this will be the CIO, who isn't a developer)? I realize the Scrum Master and the Product Owner should be different people but at the same time I don't think we have anyone who has the qualities of a Product Owner (chances are it would turn into a "I need all these stories, I don't care how but get it done" type of deal and/or any freeze would be unfrozen on a whim). It seems to me that I might need to pick and choose pieces of Scrum/XP/Lean to compensate for how things are done currently, as it's highly unlikely that the mentality can be changed; for instance Pair Programming would never fly (seen as a waste, you get half the tasks done if you need two people for everything), TDD would be a hard sell, but short cycles would be welcomed.

    Read the article

  • How do I know if I am using Scrum methodologies?

    - by Jake
    When I first started at my current job, my purpose was to rewrite a massive excel-VBA workbook-application to C# Winforms because it was thought that the new C# app will fix all existing problems and have all the new features for a perfect world. If it were a direct port, in theory it would be easy as i just need to go through all the formulas, conditional formatting, validations, VBA etc. to understand it. However, that was not the case. Many of the new features are tightly dependant on business logic which I am unfamiliar with. As a solo programmer, the first year was spent solely on deciphering the excel workbook and writing the C# app. In theory, I had the business people to "help" me specify requirements, how GUI looks and work, and testing of the app etc; but in practice it is like a contant tsunami of feature creep. At the beginning of the second year I managed to convince the management that this is not going anywhere. I made them start from scratch with the excel-VBA. I have this "issue log" saved on the network, each time they found something they didn't like about the excel-VBA app, they will write it in there. I check the log daily and consolidate issues (in my mind) mainly into 2 groups: (1) requires massive change. (2) can be fixed in current version. For massive change issues, I make a copy of the latest excel-VBA and give it a new version number, then work on it whenever I can. For current version fixes, I make the changes in a few days to a week, and then immediately release it. I also ensure I update the same change in any in-progress massive change future versions. This has gone on for about 4 months and I feel it works great. I made many releases and solved many real issues, also understood the business logic more and more. However, my boss (non-IT trained) thinks what I am doing are just adhoc changes and that i am not looking at the "bigger picture". I am struggling to convince my boss that this works. So I hope to formalise my approach and maybe borrow a buzzword to confuse him. Incidentally, I read about Agile and SCRUM, about backlog and sprints. But it's all very vague to me still. QUESTION (finally): I want to tell him that this is SCRUM! But I want to hold my breath first and ask whether my current approach is considered SCRUM or SCRUM-like? How can I make it more SCRUM-like? Note that I have only myself, there's no project leader or teams.

    Read the article

  • TechEd Israel 2010 may only accept speakers from sponsors

    - by RoyOsherove
    A month or so ago, Microsoft Israel started sending out emails to its partners and registered event users to “Save the date!” – Micraoft Teched Israel is coming, and it’s going to be this november! “Great news” I thought to myself. I’d been to a couple of the MS teched events, as a speaker and as an attendee, and it was lovely and professionally done. Israel is an amazing place for technology and development and TechEd hosted some big names in the world of MS software. A couple of weeks ago, I was shocked to hear from a couple of people that Microsoft Israel plans to only accept non-MS teched speakers, only from sponsors of the event. That means that according to the amount that you have paid, you get to insert one or more of your own selected speakers as part of teched. I’ve spent the past couple of weeks trying to gather more evidence of this, and have gotten some input from within MS about this information. It looks like that is indeed the case, though no MS rep. was prepared to answer any email I had publicly. If they approach me now I’d be happy to print their response. What does this mean? If this is true, it means that Microsoft Israel is making a grave mistake – They are diluting the quality of the speakers for pure money factors. That means, that as a teched attendee, who paid good money, you might be sitting down to watch nothing more that a bunch of infomercials, or sub-standard speakers – since speakers are no longer selected on quality or interest in their topic. They are turning the conference from a learning event to a commercial driven event They are closing off the stage to the community of speakers who may not be associated with any organization  willing to be a sponsor They are losing speakers (such as myself) who will not want to be part of such an event. (yes – even if my company ends up sponsoring the event, I will not take part in it, Sorry Eli!) They are saying “F&$K you” to the community of MVPs who should be the people to be approached first about technical talks (my guess is many MVPs wouldn’t want to talk at an event driven that way anyway ) I do hope this ends up not being true, but it looks like it is. MS Israel had already done such a thing with the Developer Days event previouly held in Israel – only sponsors were allowed to insert speakers into the event. If this turns out to be true I would urge the MS community in Israel to NOT TAKE PART AT THIS EVENT in any form (attendee, speaker, sponsor or otherwise). by taking part, you will be telling MS Israel it’s OK to piss all over the community that they are quietly suffocating anyway. The MVP case MS Israel has managed to screw the MVP program as well. MS MVPs (I’m one) have had a tough time here in Israel the past couple of years. ever since yosi taguri left the blue badge ranks, there was not real community leader left. Whoever runs things right now has their eyes and minds set elsewhere, with the software MVP community far from mind and heart. No special MVP events (except a couple of small ones this year). No real MVP leadership happens here, with the MVP MEA lead (Ruari) being on a remote line, is not really what’s needed. “MVP? What’s that?” I’m sure many MS Israel employees would say. Exactly my point. Last word I’ve been disappointed by the MS machine for a while now, but their slowness to realize what real community means in the past couple of years really turns me off. Maybe it’s time to move on. Maybe I shouldn’t be chasing people at MS Israel begging for a room to host the Agile Israel user group. Maybe it’s time to say a big bye bye and start looking at a life a bit more disconnected.

    Read the article

  • Adding custom interfaces to your mock instance.

    - by mehfuzh
    Previously, i made a post  showing how you can leverage the dependent interfaces that is implemented by JustMock during the creation of mock instance. It could be a informative post that let you understand how JustMock behaves internally for class or interfaces implement other interfaces into it. But the question remains, how you can add your own custom interface to your target mock. In this post, i am going to show you just that. Today, i will not start with a dummy class as usual rather i will use two most common interfaces in the .NET framework  and create a mock combining those. Before, i start i would like to point out that in the recent release of JustMock we have extended the Mock.Create<T>(..) with support for additional settings though closure. You can add your own custom interfaces , specify directly the real constructor that should be called or even set the behavior of your target. Doing a fast forward directly to the point,  here goes the test code for create a creating a mock that contains the mix for ICloneable and IDisposable using the above mentioned changeset. var myMock = Mock.Create<IDisposable>(x => x.Implements<ICloneable>()); var myMockAsClonable = myMock as ICloneable; bool isCloned = false;   Mock.Arrange(() => myMockAsClonable.Clone()).DoInstead(() => isCloned = true);   myMockAsClonable.Clone();   Assert.True(isCloned);   Here, we are creating the target mock for IDisposable and also implementing ICloneable. Finally, using the “as” for getting the ICloneable reference accordingly arranging it, acting on it and asserting if the expectation is met properly. This is a very rudimentary example, you can do the same for a given class: var realItem = Mock.Create<RealItem>(x => {     x.Implements<IDisposable>();     x.CallConstructor(() => new RealItem(0)); }); var iDispose = realItem as IDisposable;     iDispose.Dispose(); Here, i am also calling the real constructor for RealItem class.  This is to mention that you can implement custom interfaces only for non-sealed classes or less it will end up with a proper exception. Also, this feature don’t require any profiler, if you are agile or running it inside silverlight runtime feel free to try it turning off the JM add-in :-). TIP :  Ability to  specify real constructor could be a useful productivity boost in cases for code change and you can re-factor the usage just by one click with your favorite re-factor tool.   That’s it for now and hope that helps Enjoy!!

    Read the article

  • Working Solo On Small Projects: Cowboy Coding The Way To Go?

    - by snicker
    I am a big advocate of agile methods when working on teams and/or large projects. However, I find that for smaller projects, when working solo, I usually start the project writing unit tests, documenting extensively, refactoring. As time wears on, I stop because I feel like I'm wasting time. I find that cowboy coding with an agile spin (testing often, writing human readable code) often works extremely well for me on small, solo projects that I don't expect others to have to work with. Do other people share my sentiment? Or do you think that one should never stick to their guns (get it? cowboys)? So the real question: Are there any agile methodologies that are particularly tailored to a solo project? (other than my "agile cowboy" method above)

    Read the article

  • Introduction to Lean Software Development and Kanban Systems – Eliminate Waste

    - by Ben Griswold
    In this post, we’ll continue the Lean Software Development and Kanban Systems series by concentrating on Principle #1: Eliminate Waste.   “Muda” is Waste in Japanese. In the next part of the series, we’ll dive into Principle #2: Create Knowledge / Amplify Learning. And I am going to be a little obnoxious about listing my Lean and Kanban references with every series post.  The references are great and they deserve this sort of attention. 

    Read the article

  • Emperors don’t come cheap

    - by RoyOsherove
    “Sorry” I replied in a polite email. “Maybe next year, when budgets allow for this”. It was addressed to the organizer of TechEd US, which was to be in New Orleans this year. Man, I would have loved to be in new Orleans this year, but, I guess these guys only understand one language – and I won’t be their puppy any more. You see, they wouldn’t pay for my business class flight to TechEd from Israel. Me– the great emperor of unit testing?! travelling coach for 12 hours? No thanks. I have better things to do! And this is after last year, they only invited me to have one talk throughout the conference. one talk. After the year before I was on the top ten speakers list of that conference?! No sir! They did give it a good try, though. They said they can pay up to 4,000$ per flight cost for me, and that they only found a flight at about 5460$. “Unacceptable” I told them when they asked if I would pay the difference. And that was that. Goodbye teched. As I closed up gmail, wondering if I should have told them that I found a similar flight at 4,300$, and came back to the living room, I told my wife, all full of myself “I just canceled teched”. “Oh good” she said. Not even looking at me as she tried to feed our one year old. “did you tell them you need to cancel because you already have another flight that month and your wife won’t let you travel more than once a month anymore?” “Yeah right” I said. Just what I need – for people to realize I’m totally whipped. I still need an ounce of dignity. “I told those bastards that if they want me they have to make an effort. People like me don’t come cheap, you know?” “You’re an idiot for not telling them the real reason.” She handed me the baby.  “What if they found a flight that matches their budget? How would you have gotten away from that engagement?” . She put on “Lost” on the media center and sat next to me. I did not reply.

    Read the article

  • Introduction to Lean Software Development and Kanban Systems – Create Knowledge and Amplify Learning

    - by Ben Griswold
    In this post, we’ll continue the series by concentrating on Principle #2: Create Knowledge and Amplify Learning In the next part of the series, we’ll dive into Principle #3: Build Integrity and Quality In. And I am going to be a little obnoxious about listing my Lean and Kanban references with every series post.  The references are great and they deserve this sort of attention.  

    Read the article

  • User Story or User Stories for this specific requirement

    - by Maximus
    I have to write a user story for a requirement that involves passing search filters to the same URI and retrieving corresponding results. I have 5 filters. I plan to write 5 different stories of type: As a URI user I can search by #filter1 so that I can retrieve results based on #filter1. And then a 6th story that involves searching one or more or all six filters in conjunction. Is this is a sensible route to take?

    Read the article

  • JustMock and Moles – A short overview for TDD alpha geeks

    - by RoyOsherove
    People have been lurking near my house, asking me to write something about Moles and JustMock, so I’ll try to be as objective as possible, taking in the fact that I work at Typemock. If I were NOT working at Typemock I’d write: JustMock JustMock tries to be Typemock at so many levels it’s not even funny. Technically they work the same and the API almost looks like it’s a search and replace work based on the Isolator API (awesome compliment!), but JustMock still has too many growing pains and bugs to be usable. Also, JustMock is missing alot of the legacy abilities such as Non public faking, faking all types and various other things that are really needed in real legacy code. Biggest thing (in terms of isolation integration) is that it does not integrate with other profilers such as coverage, NCover etc.) When JustMock comes out of beta, I feel that it should cost about half as Isolator costs, as it currently provides about half the abilities. Moles Moles is an addon of Pex and was originally only intended to work within the Pex environment. It started as a research project and now it’s a power-tool for VS (so it’s a separate install) Now it’s it’s own little stubbing framework. It’s not really an Isolation framework in the classic sense, because it does not provide any kind of API built in to verify object interactions. You have to use manual flags all on your own to do that. It generates two types of classes per assembly: Manual Stubs(just like you’d hand code them) and Mole classes. Each Mole class is a special API to change and break the behavior that the corresponding type. so MDateTime is how you change behavior for DateTime. In that sense the API is al over the place, and it can become highly unreadable and unmentionable over time in your test. Also, the Moles API isn’t really designed to deal with real Legacy code. It only deals with public types and methods. anything internal or private is ignored and you can’t change its behavior. You also can’t control static constructors. That takes about 95% of legacy scenarios out of the picture if that’s what you’re trying to use it for. Personally, I found it hard to get used to the idea of two parallel APIs for different abilities, and when to choose which. and I know this stuff. I would expect more usability from the API to make it more widely used. I don’t think that Moles in planning to go that route. Publishing it as an Isolation framework is really an afterthought of a tool that was design with a specific task in mind, and generic Isolation isn’t it. it’s only hope is DEQ – a simple code example that shows a simple Isolation API built on the Moles generic engine. Moles can and should be used for very simple cases of detouring functionality such a simple static methods or interfaces and virtual functions (like rhinomock and MOQ do).   Oh, Wait. Ah, good thing I work at Typemock. I won’t write all that. I’ll just write: JustMock and Moles are great tools that enlarge the market space for isolation related technologies, and they prove that the idea of productivity and unit testing can go hand in hand and get people hooked. I look forward to compete with them at this growing market.

    Read the article

  • Project Dashboards

    - by EightyEight
    I'm attempting to create a dashboard so that people not intimately involved with the project can get an indication of project's health. I'm struggling with determining what to put on said dashboard. I think it needs to be brief to be useful, yet complete. The project I'm working on depends on both 3rd party contractors, external hardware and of course my team's effort. Are there any suggestions or guidelines on how to encapsulate it all in a relatively easy manner? Mods, I believe this question falls squarely between development methodologies and business concerns as outlined in the faq. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Scrum for a single programmer?

    - by Rob Perkins
    I'm billed as the "Windows Expert" in my very small company, which consists of myself, a mechanical engineer working in a sales and training role, and the company's president, working in a design, development, and support role. My role is equally as general, but primarily I design and implement whatever programming on our product needs to get done in order for our stuff to run on whichever versions of Windows are current. I just finished watching a high-level overview of the Scrum paradigm, given in a webcast. My question is: Is it worth my time to learn more about this approach to product development, given that my development work items are usually given at a very high level, such as "internationalize and localize the product". If it is, how would you suggest adapting Scrum for the use of just one programmer? What tools, cloud-based or otherwise, would be useful to that end? If it is not, what approach would you suggest for a single programmer to organize his efforts from day to day? (Perhaps the question reduces to that simple question.)

    Read the article

  • The importance of Unit Testing in BI

    - by Davide Mauri
    One of the main steps in the process we internally use to develop a BI solution is the implementation of Unit Test of you BI Data. As you may already know, I’ve create a simple (for now) tool that leverages NUnit to allow us to quickly create Unit Testing without having to resort to use Visual Studio Database Professional: http://queryunit.codeplex.com/ Once you have a tool like this one, you can start also to make sure that your BI solution (DWH and CUBE) is not only structurally sound (I mean, the cube or the report gets processed correctly), but you can also check that the logical integrity of your business rules is enforced. For example let’s say that the customer tell you that they will never create an invoice for a specific product-line in 2010 since that product-line is dismissed and will never be sold again. Ok we know that this in theory is true, but a lot of this business rule effectiveness depends on the fact the people does not do a mistake while inserting new orders/invoices and the ERP used implements a check for this business logic. Unfortunately these last two hypotesis are not always true, so you may find yourself really having some invoices for a product line that doesn’t exists anymore. Maybe this kind of situation in future will be solved using Master Data Management but, meanwhile, how you can give and idea of the data quality to your customers? How can you check that logical integrity of the analytical data you produce is exactly what you expect? Well, Unit Testing of a DWH or a CUBE can be a solution. Once you have defined your test suite, by writing SQL and MDX queries that checks that your data is what you expect to be, if you use NUnit (and QueryUnit does), you can then use a tool like NUnit2Report to create a nice HTML report that can be shipped via email to give information of data quality: In addition to that, since NUnit produces an XML file as a result, you can also import it into a SQL Server Database and then monitor the quality of data over time. I’ll be speaking about this approach (and more in general about how to “engineer” a BI solution) at the next European SQL PASS Adaptive BI Best Practices http://www.sqlpass.org/summit/eu2010/Agenda/ProgramSessions/AdaptiveBIBestPratices.aspx I’ll enjoy discussing with you all about this, so see you there! And remember: “if ain't tested it's broken!” (Sorry I don’t remember how said that in first place :-)) Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • Code excavations, wishful invocations, perimeters and domain specific unit test frameworks

    - by RoyOsherove
    One of the talks I did at QCON London was about a subject that I’ve come across fairly recently , when I was building SilverUnit – a “pure” unit test framework for silverlight objects that depend on the silverlight runtime to run. It is the concept of “cogs in the machine” – when your piece of code needs to run inside a host framework or runtime that you have little or no control over for testability related matters. Examples of such cogs and machines can be: your custom control running inside silverlight runtime in the browser your plug-in running inside an IDE your activity running inside a windows workflow your code running inside a java EE bean your code inheriting from a COM+ (enterprise services) component etc.. Not all of these are necessarily testability problems. The main testability problem usually comes when your code actually inherits form something inside the system. For example. one of the biggest problems with testing objects like silverlight controls is the way they depend on the silverlight runtime – they don’t implement some silverlight interface, they don’t just call external static methods against the framework runtime that surrounds them – they actually inherit parts of the framework: they all inherit (in this case) from the silverlight DependencyObject Wrapping it up? An inheritance dependency is uniquely challenging to bring under test, because “classic” methods such as wrapping the object under test with a framework wrapper will not work, and the only way to do manually is to create parallel testable objects that get delegated with all the possible actions from the dependencies.    In silverlight’s case, that would mean creating your own custom logic class that would be called directly from controls that inherit from silverlight, and would be tested independently of these controls. The pro side is that you get the benefit of understanding the “contract” and the “roles” your system plays against your logic, but unfortunately, more often than not, it can be very tedious to create, and may sometimes feel unnecessary or like code duplication. About perimeters A perimeter is that invisible line that your draw around your pieces of logic during a test, that separate the code under test from any dependencies that it uses. Most of the time, a test perimeter around an object will be the list of seams (dependencies that can be replaced such as interfaces, virtual methods etc.) that are actually replaced for that test or for all the tests. Role based perimeters In the case of creating a wrapper around an object – one really creates a “role based” perimeter around the logic that is being tested – that wrapper takes on roles that are required by the code under test, and also communicates with the host system to implement those roles and provide any inputs to the logic under test. in the image below – we have the code we want to test represented as a star. No perimeter is drawn yet (we haven’t wrapped it up in anything yet). in the image below is what happens when you wrap your logic with a role based wrapper – you get a role based perimeter anywhere your code interacts with the system: There’s another way to bring that code under test – using isolation frameworks like typemock, rhino mocks and MOQ (but if your code inherits from the system, Typemock might be the only way to isolate the code from the system interaction.   Ad-Hoc Isolation perimeters the image below shows what I call ad-hoc perimeter that might be vastly different between different tests: This perimeter’s surface is much smaller, because for that specific test, that is all the “change” that is required to the host system behavior.   The third way of isolating the code from the host system is the main “meat” of this post: Subterranean perimeters Subterranean perimeters are Deep rooted perimeters  - “always on” seams that that can lie very deep in the heart of the host system where they are fully invisible even to the test itself, not just to the code under test. Because they lie deep inside a system you can’t control, the only way I’ve found to control them is with runtime (not compile time) interception of method calls on the system. One way to get such abilities is by using Aspect oriented frameworks – for example, in SilverUnit, I’ve used the CThru AOP framework based on Typemock hooks and CLR profilers to intercept such system level method calls and effectively turn them into seams that lie deep down at the heart of the silverlight runtime. the image below depicts an example of what such a perimeter could look like: As you can see, the actual seams can be very far away form the actual code under test, and as you’ll discover, that’s actually a very good thing. Here is only a partial list of examples of such deep rooted seams : disabling the constructor of a base class five levels below the code under test (this.base.base.base.base) faking static methods of a type that’s being called several levels down the stack: method x() calls y() calls z() calls SomeType.StaticMethod()  Replacing an async mechanism with a synchronous one (replacing all timers with your own timer behavior that always Ticks immediately upon calls to “start()” on the same caller thread for example) Replacing event mechanisms with your own event mechanism (to allow “firing” system events) Changing the way the system saves information with your own saving behavior (in silverunit, I replaced all Dependency Property set and get with calls to an in memory value store instead of using the one built into silverlight which threw exceptions without a browser) several questions could jump in: How do you know what to fake? (how do you discover the perimeter?) How do you fake it? Wouldn’t this be problematic  - to fake something you don’t own? it might change in the future How do you discover the perimeter to fake? To discover a perimeter all you have to do is start with a wishful invocation. a wishful invocation is the act of trying to invoke a method (or even just create an instance ) of an object using “regular” test code. You invoke the thing that you’d like to do in a real unit test, to see what happens: Can I even create an instance of this object without getting an exception? Can I invoke this method on that instance without getting an exception? Can I verify that some call into the system happened? You make the invocation, get an exception (because there is a dependency) and look at the stack trace. choose a location in the stack trace and disable it. Then try the invocation again. if you don’t get an exception the perimeter is good for that invocation, so you can move to trying out other methods on that object. in a future post I will show the process using CThru, and how you end up with something close to a domain specific test framework after you’re done creating the perimeter you need.

    Read the article

  • Asserting with JustMock

    - by mehfuzh
    In this post, i will be digging in a bit deep on Mock.Assert. This is the continuation from previous post and covers up the ways you can use assert for your mock expectations. I have used another traditional sample of Talisker that has a warehouse [Collaborator] and an order class [SUT] that will call upon the warehouse to see the stock and fill it up with items. Our sample, interface of warehouse and order looks similar to : public interface IWarehouse {     bool HasInventory(string productName, int quantity);     void Remove(string productName, int quantity); }   public class Order {     public string ProductName { get; private set; }     public int Quantity { get; private set; }     public bool IsFilled { get; private set; }       public Order(string productName, int quantity)     {         this.ProductName = productName;         this.Quantity = quantity;     }       public void Fill(IWarehouse warehouse)     {         if (warehouse.HasInventory(ProductName, Quantity))         {             warehouse.Remove(ProductName, Quantity);             IsFilled = true;         }     }   }   Our first example deals with mock object assertion [my take] / assert all scenario. This will only act on the setups that has this “MustBeCalled” flag associated. To be more specific , let first consider the following test code:    var order = new Order(TALISKER, 0);    var wareHouse = Mock.Create<IWarehouse>();      Mock.Arrange(() => wareHouse.HasInventory(Arg.Any<string>(), 0)).Returns(true).MustBeCalled();    Mock.Arrange(() => wareHouse.Remove(Arg.Any<string>(), 0)).Throws(new InvalidOperationException()).MustBeCalled();    Mock.Arrange(() => wareHouse.Remove(Arg.Any<string>(), 100)).Throws(new InvalidOperationException());      //exercise    Assert.Throws<InvalidOperationException>(() => order.Fill(wareHouse));    // it will assert first and second setup.    Mock.Assert(wareHouse); Here, we have created the order object, created the mock of IWarehouse , then I setup our HasInventory and Remove calls of IWarehouse with my expected, which is called by the order.Fill internally. Now both of these setups are marked as “MustBeCalled”. There is one additional IWarehouse.Remove that is invalid and is not marked.   On line 9 ,  as we do order.Fill , the first and second setups will be invoked internally where the third one is left  un-invoked. Here, Mock.Assert will pass successfully as  both of the required ones are called as expected. But, if we marked the third one as must then it would fail with an  proper exception. Here, we can also see that I have used the same call for two different setups, this feature is called sequential mocking and will be covered later on. Moving forward, let’s say, we don’t want this must call, when we want to do it specifically with lamda. For that let’s consider the following code: //setup - data var order = new Order(TALISKER, 50); var wareHouse = Mock.Create<IWarehouse>();   Mock.Arrange(() => wareHouse.HasInventory(TALISKER, 50)).Returns(true);   //exercise order.Fill(wareHouse);   //verify state Assert.True(order.IsFilled); //verify interaction Mock.Assert(()=> wareHouse.HasInventory(TALISKER, 50));   Here, the snippet shows a case for successful order, i haven’t used “MustBeCalled” rather i used lamda specifically to assert the call that I have made, which is more justified for the cases where we exactly know the user code will behave. But, here goes a question that how we are going assert a mock call if we don’t know what item a user code may request for. In that case, we can combine the matchers with our assert calls like we do it for arrange: //setup - data  var order = new Order(TALISKER, 50);  var wareHouse = Mock.Create<IWarehouse>();    Mock.Arrange(() => wareHouse.HasInventory(TALISKER, Arg.Matches<int>( x => x <= 50))).Returns(true);    //exercise  order.Fill(wareHouse);    //verify state  Assert.True(order.IsFilled);    //verify interaction  Mock.Assert(() => wareHouse.HasInventory(Arg.Any<string>(), Arg.Matches<int>(x => x <= 50)));   Here, i have asserted a mock call for which i don’t know the item name,  but i know that number of items that user will request is less than 50.  This kind of expression based assertion is now possible with JustMock. We can extent this sample for properties as well, which will be covered shortly [in other posts]. In addition to just simple assertion, we can also use filters to limit to times a call has occurred or if ever occurred. Like for the first test code, we have one setup that is never invoked. For such, it is always valid to use the following assert call: Mock.Assert(() => wareHouse.Remove(Arg.Any<string>(), 100), Occurs.Never()); Or ,for warehouse.HasInventory we can do the following: Mock.Assert(() => wareHouse.HasInventory(Arg.Any<string>(), 0), Occurs.Once()); Or,  to be more specific, it’s even better with: Mock.Assert(() => wareHouse.HasInventory(Arg.Any<string>(), 0), Occurs.Exactly(1));   There are other filters  that you can apply here using AtMost, AtLeast and AtLeastOnce but I left those to the readers. You can try the above sample that is provided in the examples shipped with JustMock.Please, do check it out and feel free to ping me for any issues.   Enjoy!!

    Read the article

  • Introduction to Lean Software Development and Kanban Systems – Defer Commitment and Decide As Late A

    - by Ben Griswold
    In this post, we’ll continue the series by concentrating on Principle #4: Defer Commitment and Decide As Late As Possible.   In the next part of the series, we’ll dive into Principle #5: Deliver As Fast As Possible. And I am going to be a little obnoxious about listing my Lean and Kanban references with every series post.  The references are great and they deserve this sort of attention.  

    Read the article

  • Code Review tools - to use or not?

    - by liortal
    On my dev team, we're doing code reviews, however not in a proper way i believe. The issues our process suffers from: Not enough time is allocated for proper code review. Doing reviews is not mandatory - many times it is simply not done. Devs sit together for reviews, due to lack of another easy mechanism for doing it "offline" without spending both developers' time. My question is: can integration of a tool for code reviews improve the points mentioned above? Is it not needed? I would love to hear from positive/negative experiences.

    Read the article

  • Movie Database in 2 Minutes with Running Objects

    - by edurdias
    Demonstrating how to use Running Objects, we have published a tutorial in how to create a Movie Database, like the one from Stephen Walther, in just 2 minutes. The tutorial demonstrate how to create the application end-to-end. You can access the tutorial in the following URL: http://runningobjects.azurewebsites.net/p/movie-database-in-2-minutes I hope you enjoy it!   Regards, Eduardo...(read more)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >