← Back to team overview

elementary-dev-community team mailing list archive

Re: Congratulations Luna developers!



On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:27 AM, David Gomes <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> So say this code for example:
> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~elementary-apps/pantheon-terminal/trunk/view/head:/src/TerminalWidget.vala#L37
> Sometimes we have some issues with ReGex (see
> https://code.launchpad.net/~voldyman/pantheon-terminal/colon-fixed/+merge/180735
> ).
> Is that the kind of thing we can use TDD for? Like have a bunch of URLs
> and see if Terminal detects them or not without any GUI, just terminal
> Found/Not Found messages?
> ~David "Munchor" Gomes
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Craig <weberc2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> David,
>> I understand and appreciate the difficulty; however, I've had exactly
>> zero questions about TDD. Like I said in the original post, I'm happy to
>> answer any questions you may have.
>> Please take me up on that offer any time.
>> Thanks,
>> Craig
>> On Aug 18, 2013 6:57 PM, "David Gomes" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> This, this and this.
>>> And also many of the developers like me aren't really experienced with
>>> TDD and will have to take some time to study, learn and adapt to it. You
>>> can't just come here and tell developers, many of whom inexperienced young
>>> amateur programmers, to start using TDDs. Take me, for example, I never had
>>> proper programming education, I'm 17 years old. I know what TDD is but I've
>>> never used it before. You have to understand TDD is something very
>>> enterprise-ish and "professional" that "big serious" companies do.
>>> Look, I'm not saying we can't do it or we shouldn't do it or we won't do
>>> it - I'm just saying you need a better approach to what you're doing. I
>>> realize how useful and important TDD can be, but many of us might just be
>>> too busy having fun.
>>> Regards,
>>> David
>>> PS. I really hope I wasn't rude, I mean all I said in the nicest of ways.
>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Daniel Foré <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>> This all sounds great and I think everybody is pro-testing, however
>>>> I've yet to see a reproduce-able example or a guide regarding any kind of
>>>> tests being implemented (especially by those extremely vocal about their
>>>> importance). Not books or articles about why testing is good, but something
>>>> that actually shows a person how to write tests for their apps.
>>>> So, as Linus would say, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."
>>>> —
>>>> Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox> for iPhone
>>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Craig <weberc2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>> tl;dr: Unit tests are pretty much necessary to have an architecture on
>>>>> which you can run automatic system-level tests, and if you aren't
>>>>> automating then testing becomes too impractical.
>>>>> When you describe "system tests" you are actually describing what are
>>>>> called "acceptance tests" or "behavioral" tests (
>>>>> http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/functionaltests.html). Unit
>>>>> tests test small units of code such as classes or functions. Traditional
>>>>> TDD relies primarily upon unit tests, and those are primarily what I'm
>>>>> referring to.
>>>>> One of the primary purposes of unit testing is to ensure good code
>>>>> architecture. If you don't unit test, you probably won't have good access
>>>>> points for your acceptance tests (how do you verify that that Gtk.Label has
>>>>> the correct text when you can only access the top level window?), so
>>>>> automation will be out of the question. And if you aren't automating then
>>>>> you can't continuously integrate (running all tests every time a change is
>>>>> made to the repository in order to find bugs as soon as they are made).
>>>>> Honestly, if you aren't automating then testing becomes too impractical.
>>>>> On Aug 18, 2013 5:10 PM, "Alex Lourie" <djay.il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Craig
>>>>>> For the clarification purposes, I'd like to separate 'automatic tests
>>>>>> (system testst)' and 'unittests'. I consider them different things.
>>>>>> Unittests are pieces of code that test some other pieces of the code.
>>>>>> System tests are scripts/code/steps that test that your program (or part of
>>>>>> it) works. Unittests are usually run automatically (by, say, unittesting
>>>>>> framework). System tests could be run automatically or manually. There are,
>>>>>> sometimes, frameworks for that, but in most cases it's either manual or
>>>>>> custom developed.
>>>>>> Unittests are (usually) developed by the same developer who developed
>>>>>> the original code, just as in your TDD example. System tests are best
>>>>>> developed by external party (such as users).
>>>>>> From here on, I can agree with you on point 1, and the naming.
>>>>>> Basically, we all agree that having *testing *is a good practice and
>>>>>> a feasible way to manage the complexity of software. But unittesting cannot
>>>>>> test the logical connections between the blocks of code in the program.
>>>>>> That's the job for system testing.
>>>>>> I don't care how we call it. The more *systematic *testing we do for
>>>>>> Elementary the better it's going to be, and the more chances we have to
>>>>>> sustain growth.
>>>>>> So I would just like to see testing implemented. Any kind of it.
>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Craig <weberc2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>> To correct you on a couple of things:
>>>>>>> 1. TDD **does not** require you to have all or even several of the
>>>>>>> tests written before hand. It simply requires you to have the test written
>>>>>>> for the next change you are about to make. The idea is to write a test, run
>>>>>>> the test to watch it fail (this helps verify you wrote your test
>>>>>>> correctly), add the simplest code to make the test pass, run the test to
>>>>>>> watch it pass (and verify your code additions worked). Then you rinse and
>>>>>>> repeat.
>>>>>>> 2. TDD is actually a simplified form of what developers do already.
>>>>>>> That is, you usually write some code, run your code, then visually verify
>>>>>>> that it worked. TDD just crystalizes this process in code which can be
>>>>>>> executed later. TDD isn't hard, so it's well within the capacity of all of
>>>>>>> our devs; however, it does taking some getting used to. TDD is the best and
>>>>>>> fastest way to develop quality code and it's the ONLY practical way to
>>>>>>> raise the ceiling on the amount of code complexity a team of a given size
>>>>>>> can handle (there is a lot of research and professional heuristics about
>>>>>>> this). If a developer doesn't have the will to do this, they aren't taking
>>>>>>> their discipline seriously and, frankly, are a danger to any project that
>>>>>>> values quality. Besides, I've never met a developer who has hit the
>>>>>>> complexity ceiling *and* who has practiced TDD who doesn't advocate this
>>>>>>> kind of testing.
>>>>>>> With those corrections in mind, I can't see any difference between
>>>>>>> your first point and "real TDD". I agree that your 2nd point is a good
>>>>>>> idea. Automated testing can't capture everything, and it's definitely
>>>>>>> important to have some hands-on testing that we could run through a few
>>>>>>> times every release. But we should always be working toward automated
>>>>>>> testing so developers can, you know, develop.
>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Alex Lourie <djay.il@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ok, I have not added a single line of code to elementary yet, and
>>>>>>>> gave some decent amount of headache to real devs around here. I have though
>>>>>>>> participated in development of many products, small and large, and so here
>>>>>>>> it goes.
>>>>>>>> TDD in its pure form requires having tests written and ready before
>>>>>>>> the code is written. Then failing tests are being implemented one by one,
>>>>>>>> having the code both tested and working in the end of this process. I
>>>>>>>> highly doubt that any of Elementary devs have the capacity or the will to
>>>>>>>> follow this. Especially, when many of our projects are built using 'try and
>>>>>>>> error' methodology, that is they follow the 'Hey! Let's try this!' rule.
>>>>>>>> Which is awesome, as it allows fast development and really quick release
>>>>>>>> cycles.
>>>>>>>> Now, what I think would fit Elementary much better is simply
>>>>>>>> testing (yes, that QA thing everyone loves and adores) - the T from TDD,
>>>>>>>> which is the most important part. The best way to do that is, of course, to
>>>>>>>> create a bunch of automatic tests, but that's not really feasible either.
>>>>>>>> So as I see it, we can do 2 things:
>>>>>>>> 1. Start looking into unittesting as much and as early as possible,
>>>>>>>> and have devs starting to create tests. This has the benefit of devs
>>>>>>>> learning to create unittests and having some of the code tested, and also,
>>>>>>>> potentially, at some point, it could help moving to real TDD.
>>>>>>>> 2. Start creating manual test procedures for basic staff. Yes, it
>>>>>>>> requires a lot of human power and time, but also do translations. This is
>>>>>>>> the most boring part of software engineering, but it is the one that can
>>>>>>>> bring balance to the force. Also, some of these can sometimes be automated
>>>>>>>> too, so it's not all that aweful.
>>>>>>>> I personally think we need both 1 and 2. I am a strong believer in
>>>>>>>> testing as means to improve the product. But TDD is probably an overshoot
>>>>>>>> in our case. We need to start with *something*, and right now we don't
>>>>>>>> really have it.
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Craig <weberc2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>> I posted the following message on Google Plus yesterday, but it
>>>>>>>>> occurred to me that the weekend may not be prime time for checking that
>>>>>>>>> social network. I think this message is pretty important, so I want to post
>>>>>>>>> it again here: (I apologize in advance for its length)
>>>>>>>>> Congratulations to all the developers who made Luna such a
>>>>>>>>>> success!  You've done a great job and delivered an incredible Linux
>>>>>>>>>> experience!
>>>>>>>>>> I know I bring this up periodically, but I'm concerned that Luna
>>>>>>>>>> + 1 and future releases will take more and more time to release, and/or
>>>>>>>>>> that you will quickly reach a ceiling with respect to the amount of code
>>>>>>>>>> we'll be able to maintain before quality degrades.
>>>>>>>>>> The cause for my concern is the nature of complexity: as software
>>>>>>>>>> grows (that is, as code is added), bugs grow exponentially (complexity
>>>>>>>>>> increases exponentially with logic, and bugs grow linearly with
>>>>>>>>>> complexity). If we don't start working toward solutions that will scale
>>>>>>>>>> with this problem, we **will** hit a ceiling with respect to the amount of
>>>>>>>>>> complexity we will be able to support (this means fewer features or
>>>>>>>>>> less-powerful features). I promise.
>>>>>>>>>> I know some in the community are working toward this goal, but I
>>>>>>>>>> think it's going to take a concerted effort on the part of the developers
>>>>>>>>>> to take this problem seriously. I urge you all to take this problem as
>>>>>>>>>> seriously as you take the rest of the user experience (because bugs are, at
>>>>>>>>>> the end of the day, a sharp degradation of the user experience).
>>>>>>>>>> In my experience, the silver bullet for combating this problem is
>>>>>>>>>> test driven development. If you look around the software development
>>>>>>>>>> industry, code is improving, and it's largely because TDD is catching on.
>>>>>>>>>> And Google is a good role model in this regard (not just for us, but for
>>>>>>>>>> everyone--they are pioneers of code quality). If you're a developer and
>>>>>>>>>> you're unfamiliar with TDD, take some time and research it. It will pay
>>>>>>>>>> dividends immediately. If you have any questions about development, I'm
>>>>>>>>>> happy to provide my advice as a professional developer. Also, read up on
>>>>>>>>>> Google's testing strategies (I recommend
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Google-Tests-Software-James-Whittaker/dp/0321803027_How Google Tests Software_).
>>>>>>>>>> You guys are a _great_ UX shop, now let's become a great code
>>>>>>>>>> shop. I hope this analogy doesn't offend anyone who is passionate about
>>>>>>>>>> their tech brands, but my advice is this:
>>>>>>>>>> Design like Apple, develop like Google.
>>>>>>>>>> I really push you developers to continue to strive to hone your
>>>>>>>>>> craft the way Daniel and Cassidy (and any other UX designers) are learning
>>>>>>>>>> to hone theirs.
>>>>>>>>>> P.S., Sorry for the book, and I hope you all take this as
>>>>>>>>>> respectful, constructive criticism. _Please_ ask me anything about
>>>>>>>>>> development, especially with respect to how we can keep quality high using
>>>>>>>>>> processes rather than sheer developer effort (so as to free you developers
>>>>>>>>>> to work on interesting problems rather than bug hunting).
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for reading,
>>>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
>>>>>>>>> Post to     : elementary-dev-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
>>>>>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Alex Lourie
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alex Lourie
>>>> --
>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
>>>> Post to     : elementary-dev-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
> Post to     : elementary-dev-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Alex Lourie

Follow ups