Monthly Archives: November 2017

You are browsing the site archives by month.

#RemotePairProgramming Ep 004: Adi & Michel Daviot – Michel as Navigator (part 2)

About

During this episode from the #RemotePairProgramming series we continue the exercise from previous episode. My coding pairing partner this episode is Michel Daviot.

Pairing Techniques

Question (Michel): When would you use this remote pairing techniques and pairing (like Strong Style, Farsight Navigator, etc)?
Answer (Adi): When people are very used to their code, but don’t know how to refactor it, it is very useful to use Strong Style, because the Driver would know how to navigate around the code, but won’t know how to refactor or use a specific legacy code technique. The Driver knows the language, the project and so on, but the Navigator knows the techniques.
With new code Strong Style is very useful when you get stuck. And then the driver took control, pushes the rhythm and the steps to have progress.

Question (Michel): Do you explain to the people you use Strong Style?
Answer (Adi): Not really, because just coming up with theoretical concepts up-front feels weird. I just say “let’s pair and try this”. Maybe at the end of the session I might explain.
The other approach is a game called Farsight Navigator, where the Navigator looks far away for the design, and the Driver takes the small decisions. This technique works quite well, but you need to have very good Navigator skills to know where the design is going. So the role of the Navigator is to know which design options are not good and the solution would get stuck.
With Strong Style the Driver doesn’t need to know anything about the code, design, direction, etc.

Read More →

Talk: Short Guide to your Agile Transformation

Talk: Short Guide to your Agile Transformation

About

This is a talk I delivered in Bucharest for the Agile Software Meetup Group. More and more companies want to transition to agile, because the benefits of faster delivery are essential in today’s software market.

Agile Transformation

Me and Mozaic Works’ approach to transforming an organization to agile has a lot to do with our core beliefs of small steps and fast feedback. For us an agile transformation is a tailored process for each organization, and the context is always essential.

Starting with the WHY is very important. I want to understand the internal values of the company and then decide together with the management, sponsors and the teams why they want to make this transformation. Without having the active involvement in any transformation, the whole process becomes very difficult or even impossible to put in place.

I don’t want to start from “what process to use” (Scrum, Kanban, DSDM, SAfE, etc), but rather discover the process while working with the people from that organization and understanding their needs. Together we create the process by applying things I know work well and by experimenting some things that might or might not work. As with any type of design, I prefer taking decisions as late as possible, because the more I learn the better the decision is.

Don’t commit unless you know why Chris Matts

 

Agile Transformation

Read More →

TDD as if you Meant It: Refactor, but in Small Steps Now (Episode 14)

TDD as if you Meant It: Refactor, but in Small Steps Now (Episode 14)

About

After in the previous episode I took too bigger steps, during this episode I start all over and take smaller steps. The main differences are:

  • I’m not getting that far, but I have a stable point of stop, compared to the last episode when the last point of stop was resetting all the changes.
  • During the process I don’t feel so unclear, the points when I stop because I don’t know what to do are shorter
  • I feel flow, the next steps are obvious
  • While coding I am happier I know where I am going
  • For the next episode I know where I need to continue from.

Read More →

#RemotePairProgramming Ep 003: Strong Style Pairing with Michel Daviot

About

The third episode of this #RemotePairProgramming series is about Strong Style Pairing. My coding pairing partner this episode is Michel Daviot.

Strong Style Pairing

During Episode #002 Llewellyn was the Navigator in a Strong Style Pairing way. This episode I will be doing the same, but with my style. But there is also a challenge, given by my driver: Michel.

The Challenge

I don’t know at all the problem, and I have never heard of it. So I need to be navigating in a Strong Style Pairing without knowing the problem. So my solution is to go in small steps, to minimize the risk.

Remote Pairing Michel

Read More →

TDD as if you Meant It: Clean-up before next Triangulation (Episode 13)

TDD as if you Meant It: Clean-up before next Triangulation (Episode 13)

About

This episode is about failure to refactor because of trying to rush to the next step of Triangulation and taking too bigger steps. I sometimes use bigger steps, but I don’t feel comfortable because it can happen that I get stuck and then I revert. In this way I lose a lot of time. I usually prefer to go slower but make sure I have progress.

Consider this episode an example of how NOT to refactor.

Refactoring Rush vs Refactoring flow

Rushing to refactor can lead to a good result, but most often it leads to a situation where tests fail and we don’t know why. Most often the programmers I work with are rushing to refactor and don’t even observe the side-effects they introduce when they change the code. So they are not refactoring, but instead they are introducing defects because of taking too bigger steps. The most important aspect in this situation is that when I run the tests during the refactoring rush they are most often red. After being on red for 20-30 minutes I feel more and more pressure and I need to take a break. I don’t know what to do next, I feel stuck.

The most common reason of getting stuck or having red tests after finishing a refactoring is not using preparatory refactoring.

Refactoring flow means I always see a few next steps ahead. Also the most important aspect is that after each small change I run the tests and the tests are always green. Being in a flow feels good, and I often even forget what the time is.

Failure

So this episode, coincidentally or not it has the number 13, shows refactoring failure because of rushing and not preparing the refactoring. Please watch it and make sure you don’t do the same at home. Next episode will show you a better way to work, in contrast with this one.

Video

Check the video below with the codecast:

What’s Next?

Check the next episode on TDD as if you Meant it here: http://blog.adrianbolboaca.ro/evolutionary-design

On the same page you can find more ideas on Evolutionary Design.

Credits

Many thanks to Keith Braithwaite for creating the concept of TDD as if you Meant It

Teddy bear thanks to Erik Talboom for all the pairing, discussions that lead to so many twists we discovered together with TDD as if you Meant It.

Special regards to JB Rainsberger for the fun pairing we did using TDD as if you Meant It

 

TDD as if you Meant It: Separate Production from Test Code (Episode 12)

TDD as if you Meant It: Separate Production from Test Code (Episode 12)

About

When using TDD as if you Meant It we need to have a clear distinction between the test code, and the production code written in the test methods and classes. The more we dissociate the two, the clearer both production code and test code look. During this episode I made the final steps to separate production from test code. This is a final step of the triangulation of a specific concept.

Triangulation

When I started triangulating on the concept of Game, I made an analysis on inputs and outputs (called Behavior Slicing and explained in Episode 1), that lead me to write enough tests to be able to understand it. By triangulation in this case I mean adding enough tests to understand the links between the design entities. In some cases I need more tests, in others just a few. And of course the number of needed tests depends also on the experience of the coder.

Separation

When separating the two, we need to make sure everything is clear from any point of view: class names, package names, code structure in the IDE, etc. The code at the end of the separation needs to look as if we wrote it in a separate way all along. Whether we apply traditional TDD (where we write the test code in a separate file from the production code from the beginning), or we apply TDD as if you Meant It, the code structure needs to look the same. Of course, the design will be very different in many occasions because with TDD as if you Meant It we can zoom more on the simplest design possible.

Next step?

After this whole process of Behavior slicing to refactoring (Episode 3, Episode 4, Episode 5), to clean-up and to extracting production code I need to identify the next design concept to triangulate to. So stay tuned to see the whole TDD as if you Meant It process all over again, but with another concept related to the Game.

Video

Check the video below with the codecast:

What’s Next?

Check the next episode on TDD as if you Meant it here: http://blog.adrianbolboaca.ro/evolutionary-design

On the same page you can find more ideas on Evolutionary Design.

Credits

Many thanks to Keith Braithwaite for creating the concept of TDD as if you Meant It

Teddy bear thanks to Erik Talboom for all the pairing, discussions that lead to so many twists we discovered together with TDD as if you Meant It.

Special regards to JB Rainsberger for the fun pairing we did using TDD as if you Meant It