It seems that every time I get in a conversation with snugug he tells me to avoid leveraging frameworks Now I still stand by my belief that frameworks are inevitable however I thought I would give it a try with a small proof of concept. In fact I would try to use as few libraries as possible and try to  just use vanilla javascript.

Library freedom and curse

Normally I just use whatever libraries for development that the large framework suggest. So I use intern.io for testing Dojo, protractor for testing AngularJs, etc… On one hand this provides a immense amount of freedom and on the other hand adds significant overhead. Selecting a library is like selecting a restaurant for lunch next year from today’s yelp reviews. A thorough evaluation of the library capabilities, it’s community, and expected enhancements needs to be performed and alternatives considered. I can’t tell you how much time I lost comparing mocha to jasmine.

Even if you don’t leverage any libraries in your application and stick to standards you are faced with the very ugly truth. Not every browser implements standards the same way. Making up for this gap requires polyfills which results in the same overhead mentioned for selecting libraries.

Of course you could roll your own but frankly something as simple as XMLHttpRequest can be a nightmare. My favorite was finding out that in IE 9 the console object is undefined unless the developer tools are open. Don’t get me started about the hoops you need to jump though to get the PhantomJS Browser working.

Nothing more than NPM

Builds starts off simple and quickly gets very complicated. Gulp works especially well for complicated builds but it just ends up being more code to manage. The alternative is to just use NPM as a build tool. It works surprisingly well but I’m guessing there is an upper limit to how complicated your build can be since pre and post hooks can only get you so far. That being said I would suggest leveraging just NPM for build management until you actually need those additional capabilities. I should mention that I found it slower and sometimes wished I had used broccoli.

 Conclusion

Many years ago I was brought in to address a project that was drowning in technical debt. It was 60,000 lines of Perl code. The head developer at the time didn’t trust modules or 3rd party libraries. He wrote everything himself so he could optimize it. The result was 6 weeks to resolve a defect and the time to bring on new developers was 4 months.

My first order of business was to draw boxes around code, look for duplication with modules on CPAN, and replace them. The result was a more manageable 5,000 lines of code.  The interesting thing was performance got better. Mainly because even though the libraries were bigger they used new faster features of the language. The lesson I learned from that experience is you need to size your code for the resources maintaining it.

There is cost associated with using a framework, library, or micro-library. However there is also a cost with not using them. Shared code is always bloated but it gets updated more often with defect fixes and possibly faster techniques. I am not saying you should or should not use frameworks like Angular, React, Ember, etc… However you should understand your capabilities as a team and balance that against the end user experience.

This was a great experiment and as result I will only bring in frameworks as needed moving forward.

My personal belief is that coding frameworks are natural and can’t be avoided. Especially as projects mature and grow in size. They start as boilerplate code, best practices, and style guides. Then code is refactored into more manageable components and a framework emerges. That framework is used across many different projects and inherits use-cases that may not be relevant to your project and can be seen as bloat.  Bloat leads to performance implications which then leads to considering a different framework or writing your own.

Migrating to a different framework can be extensive and for front end developers happen more often than the backend. I loathe rewrites and find them to be an anti-pattern. However there are  justified reasons for making them.

There comes a time when technical debt is so great it justifies a major change. For frameworks this means it is easier to migrate to a new framework than address the technical debt you have with the existing framework. In my experience the technical debt that drives this is less performance and more security or maintainability.

Up to this year I would have never thought on-boarding new developers could drive a framework change. I was in the camp a basic Computer Science degree as a solid foundation was enough. However majority of mastering a framework is less learning the terminology/usage and more understanding the community.  Many of the frameworks today you just can’t buy a book. You need to learn by engaging the community.

Whenever you have or build top talent they always have one foot out the door. Finding a new developer takes time and requires resources from the team to vet the right candidate. Then they need to up-skill with assistance from the team. Finding and on-boarding a new developer can have a significant impact on the delivery schedule. Aligning some of the technologies/frameworks with talent in the marketplace reduces this overhead. This is probably the most frustrating driver of change. This should always be done with a cost/benefit analysis and not simply following the framework du jour.

So how do we address framework fatigue. On one hand you could choose a framework that you believe will be victorious and stick with it as long as you can. You could also manage your own framework and be responsible for everything. However I am not a betting man and don’t have the resources to keep up with every security edge-case. I would rather accept embrace change. So I externalize and break down logic as much as possible.  Additional levels of abstraction impact performance so choose wisely. Lastly spend some time between retrospectives and planning sessions to perform gap analysis between what you are doing and where the frameworks are going. If you are using Angular 1.x is the direction Angular 2 aligned with your interest? Is there another framework with an active community better suited for your needs.

Ultimately the story of living with frameworks is about living with change, choice, and constant revalidation of direction and purpose.

It looks like Developerworks (https://www.ibm.com/developerworks) updated their theme and one of my old post is no longer usable. So I thought I would repost it in my new blog.

A while back I came across a Nick Boldt article called ” Git vs. SVN – Basic Commandline Syntax Reference.” I decided to enhance his table to include Syntax for the Rational Team Concert Command-line client.

 

Action	Git Syntax	Subversion Syntax	Rational Team Concert Synta
Initial checkout from existing repo for a given branch	git clone <url> ;cd <module>;git checkout <branch>	SVN checkout <url>/<branch>	lscm load -r <url>
Update locally checked out files from central repo	git pull	svn update	lscm accept -v
List locally changes files/folders	git status	svn stat	lscm status
Diff locally changed file	git diff somefile.txt	svn diff somefile.txt	lscm diff file somefile.txt
Revert locally changed file*	git checkout somefile.txt	svn revert somefile.txt	lscm undo somefile.txt
Revert ALL local changes (except untracked files)*	git reset –hard HEAD	svn revert . -R	lscm load <workspace> -r <url>
Add new file	git add file.txt	svn add file.txt	lscm checkin file.txt
Add new folder recursively	git add folder	svn add folder	lscm checkin folder
Delete file	git rm file.txt	svn rm file.txt	rm file.txtlscm checkin <parent folder>
Delete folder	git rm -r folder (non-recursive by default; use -r to recurse)	svn rm folder (recursive by default; use -N to not recurse)	rm folderlscm checkin <parent folder>
Commit changed file to central repo	git commit -m “<message>” file.txt; git push	svn ci -m “<message>” file.txt	lscm checkin file.txtlscm changeset comment <changeset> <message>

Legend:

•  <URL> – Repository URL
• <branch> – Branch or Stream or workspace
• <module>.- the component of the repository.
• <workspace> – Workspace is the Rational Team Concert equivalent of private Stream.
• <changeset> – Alias or UUID of target change set.
• <message> – Comment Text

Every iteration my team explores ways of reducing time required for QA/Testing. We are a small team and do not have dedicated resources for Quality Assurance. That being said, what we can do is reduce the amount of defects found during that time. The best way to do that is to follow a Test Driven Development (TDD) methodology where you write your test from requirements before writing application code.

Now of course you cannot test everything but you can test close to one hundred percent of requirement and code coverage.  Now Test Driven Development usually is done with Unit Test but it can be done with Functional Verification Test (FVT) and Performance Verification Test (PVT) as well. However FVT and PVT require a level of requirement elaboration/documentation that is not always available.  That being said Automated Unit Test done right will reduce a large amount of possible defects.

How to perform Test Driven Development?

Now I alread described Test Driven Development (TDD) above but I thought I would go a bit deeper first before jumping into implementation across languages.  TDD is more than writing a test before code. Rather it is a repetitive iterative process of adding changes in bite sized pieces.

I recommend the following path:

1. Start by writing a test for the smallest requirement, defect, or change request that has little to no dependencies. The smaller the change the less understanding you will need of the larger picture.
2. Run the test you just wrote. If it succeeds then the existing code supports it and you should move on to the next smallest requirement.
3. Write just enough code to make all of the test pass. If you have a dependency on another component that has yet to be defined or written then create an interface and mock it (I talk more about this later).
4. Refactor your code to make it cleaner and smaller while rerunning all the test to ensure you don’t break any functionality. This also removes any dead code from retired functional requirements.

The basic test

Although different Unit Test frameworks can behave differently the “effective layout of a test case ensures all required actions are completed, improves the readability of the test case, and smooths the flow of execution. Consistent structure helps in building a self-documenting test case. A commonly applied structure for test cases has (1) setup, (2) execution, (3) validation, and (4) cleanup.

• Setup: Put the Unit Under Test (UUT) or the overall test system in the state needed to run the test.
• Execution: Trigger/drive the UUT to perform the target behavior and capture all output, such as return values and output parameters. This step is usually very simple.
• Validation: Ensure the results of the test are correct. These results may include explicit outputs captured during Execution or state changes in the UUT.
• Cleanup: Restore the UUT or the overall test system to the pre-test state. This restoration permits another test to execute immediately after this one.”

 Yes I basically stole from the Wikipedia article but I couldn’t write it any better.

Testing what doesn’t exist

I mentioned before that If you have a dependency on another component that has yet to be defined or written then you should create an interface and mock it. “Mock Objects are simulated objects that mimic the behavior of real objects in controlled ways.” It is important to note that these objects do not perform that functionality of what they are mocking. Rather they simply provide expected output for expected input.

Across three languages

In order to demonstrate how to write unit test and mock objects across three languages I decided to write the same component three times in each language.

Demonstration Projects of TDD in Java, Javascript, and Perl

The component is a simple application to read an email from a string and look up the title in an external directory (i.e. LDAP). Now the external directory doesn’t exist so I use a Mock object to test the components.

Now I am going to talk a bit about performing Unit Test, mocking, reporting coverage in Perl, JavaScript, and Java.

Unit Testing Perl

Unit testing in Perl has been around for a long time. However I often describe Perl code as being pre or post 2008. That is when Adam Kennedy gave a talk about managing a massive amount of perl  code and why testable code is important.

http://blip.tv/oslo-perl-mongers/software-testing-on-a-massive-scale-1897370

My favorite quote from the talk is “Our ability to create software is limited, primarily, by our ability to test software.” I also love the references to the city of London’s 19th century sewers. I recommend every Perl programmer watch this presentation.  You can look at any Perl code and tell if the developer used principals from this talk.

Typically I use the Test Anything Protocol for testing Perl. It has an extension for JUnit reports which allow it to fit nicely into a Rational Team Concert Development suite. I should also reference Test::Mock::Class which I use for mocking objects in Perl.

Now perl is a very dynamic language where you may only be able to identify dead code during runtime. I typically use Devel::Cover to identify dead code.

 Unit Testing in JavaScript

There are numerous testing frameworks in Javascript. Since I mostly develop using the Dojo Toolkit I use DOH.  As for Mock Objects in JavaScript there are several libraries out there. However since Javascript does not support Interfaces or Abstract Classes I have to cheat. I create stub class where each required function throws an error. For instance in one of the examples I create this interface.

/*******************************************************************************
 * Licensed Materials - Property of IBM 
 * 5748-XX8 
 * © Copyright IBM Corp.
 * 1992, 1993 All Rights Reserved US Government Users Restricted Rights - Use,
 * duplication or disclosure restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM Corp.
 *******************************************************************************/
define("example/javascript/LookupInterface", [ "dojo" ], function(dojo) {
	return dojo.declare("example.javascript.LookupInterface", [], {

		/**
		 * Lookup the person's title based on their email.
		 * 
		 * @param email
		 * @return The person's title
		 * @throws AssertionError
		 *             Person could not be found.
		 */
		getTitle:function(email){
			throw new Error("Interface function getTitle(email) has not been implemented.");
		},

		// Constructor function. Called when instance of this class is created
		constructor : function() {}
	});
});

On one hand you get the benefit of an interface but the failure to implement a function is only known during runtime which is bad. As always I am open to suggestions and feedback.

Code coverage also gets a bit complicated with Javascript. I have tried extensions to Firebug and a few other tools. Unfortunately understanding Dojo separate from my code has always proved troublesome. Someone recommended JSCover but I haven’t had a chance to try it yet.

Unit Testing in Java

JUnit is possibly the most popular Unit Testing frameworks. It is also included within Eclipse by default and there are tools provided to make Test Driven Development a first class citizen. There are numerous tutorials available on the topic.

For mock objects in Java I recommend Mockito. If you are using Eclipse for Java development then I also suggest using the EclEmma. It has outstanding integration but it doesn’t report against exceptions very well.

Conclusion and follow-up topics

Test Driven Development is a very powerful tool. Looking at code writen using this method there is an obvious difference.  Code is less buggy and easier to manage. You have confidence your code is sound without having to implement the entire application. I also want to mention Jurgen Appelo excellent article on implementing a requirement across multiple iterations TDD style.

Now I purposely left some topics out for future blog post. For instance as I mentioned earlier it is possible to use Functional Verification Test (FVT), Business Verification Test (BVT). Performance Verification Test (PVT) as part of Test Driven Development. You can do more than simple Unit Test but there are more than a few gotchas.

 

Sandro Mancuso recently published a video on “Testing and Refactoring Legacy Code.” One of the key benefits for writing test for legacy code is it allows you to understand the existing code while reducing risk in changing it.

It is a great video but a bit long so here are some of his suggestions.

• Do not change production code unless it is covered by a test.
• Start testing from shortest to deepest branch. The Shortest branch will require less understanding of the code base.
• Start refactoring from deepest to shortest branch. 
• Do not execute another class from the unit test. The test should only care about the class it is testing. Otherwise you may be testing components (database, external systems, etc…) that you don’t want to test right now. Refactor the Singleton, Static call, or object to a protected method (Seam) and overwrite it.
• Feature envy is when one class/method has functionality that probably belongs in another class.
• Guard clause is a parameter check and should be moved earlier.
• Bring declaration of variables and the code that uses the variable closer together.

 

 

My team is currently in the process of documenting a project we inherited. The project was a skunkworks effort and documentation wasn’t as important as proving that it works. The developer who wrote it is no longer on the project and isn’t the most pleasant person to interact worth so we are on our own. The interesting thing about this exercise is we are realizing how much lack of documentation cost a project.

The number one reason for documentation is so another developer can step in and keep the project running if you are hit by a bus, falling piano, or UFO. The big motivator for us is code refactoring and removing dead code becomes very hard without proper documentation.

I was watching a presentation by Jack Diederich on code reduction and one of the reasons he often hears against removing dead code is “It might be used…somewhere.”

As he points out when using a dynamic language it can be very hard to identify if code is called or not. He recommends adding a comment to indicate where code is called from. Using code coverage tools does help identify dead code but you need to have a full understanding of the use-cases or else you may accidentally remove code that addresses an edge case.

Documenting legacy components can be seen as an expensive part of a project but will ultimately reduce technical debt and save time later on.