Continuous Confidence in Software Development

Ok. We all have the same dilemma when we test. We all ask the same questions: what should we test?  If you want the greatest confidence in your code, test your changes. When we make changes to legacy code, test those changes. When we make new code, test those changes. The Status Quo When we have a legacy system, we have a hard time figuring out how to change it without breaking. We are not real confident in how our code will effect the system as a whole. So we move on and hand it off to QA saying "test it all!"  How To Kill Productivity If we want to kill our productivity in three small, short words, then by all means we should say to QA  "test it all". See when QA hears that, they will test it all. They will test things we never touched. They will test it in ways we never thought possible. They will take forever to do it. So there has to be a better way. There is: test the changes. What Do We Mean, Test the Changes When we test the changes, we assume the...

When we write code and we deliver software to people, there will always be mistakes made. It's OK. If we feel the pressures of delivery and performance to our customers, then we need to do something different. Slow Down When "fires" erupt in our daily software life, making a giant enormous deal out of it, is actually the opposite thing we should do. Be grateful for the moment to learn. Thank those who have brought it to our attention. Allow the fire to be dealt with in a methodical and smooth approach. Smooth is fast. Also, smooth is confidence. Identify The Source When we try to identify the source of the fire, we should not name the developer as the source. We name the real source: the code, or the process that had a problem. See, when we finally understand where the issue is, we can finally make the needed change, however, together with that, we can also inform the customer what the issue is and how we plan to fix it going forward. If we don't do hat, then ...

when we write software, often we talk about the customer. We talk about their interactions with our software. We talk heir behavior and we ultimately decide what is going to be best for the customer. So in all of that talking, however, do we ever talk about what will make he customer trust us the most? Trust: The Measuring Stick When we start talking about a new feature and he performance of the application, we start geeking out! We  are developers, it's what we live for. Never, in the history of the world have we ever seen so many people gathered around a small little box talking in a foreign language and having such a great time. This is coding! This is awesome! Yet, at the other end of the spectrum, at the end of he development process, the customer is waiting. They await he next code release, and if we have not done our jobs right, they dread the next release. See, if we were all about the feature, or the performance, and didn't bother to release seamlessly, the cus...

When we look at what we are selling and what we do as a company, have we ever noticed that customers just are not as loyal as they used to be? Have we ever seen people leave when our site gets unstable? Why is that? Confidence The answer is quite simple: they don't have a lot of confidence in us. When someone gets angry and sees that there are some problems that just went out, people start to lose confidence in our product. It's not that we did anything bad or vindictive, but it is the natural cause and effect. So as we continue to release code, sometimes, to gain trust back, a moratorium is a good thing. Stop. Let the customer breathe. Allow people to see and trust you once again. Work with them to help gain that trust once more. It's All About Relationships When we start servicing a customer, we are starting a relationship with them. When we don't care for anything but their money, we make sure that there is very little if any trust there. Once things get toug...

At the very heart of Continuous Integration and Continuous Confidence, is the automated test. Why do we write a test? If for whatever reason we write a test just to pass, then we are doing it wrong. Let's explore that for a moment. Superfluous Testing When we write a test, do we test a getter and a setter? If we answer yes to this question, then let's ask: why, followed by do we have to? Now, these questions need to be answered by each organization, as each requirement is different, but we want to look at something different. We want confidence in our code, and in our release. If we were to draw a line from left to right and say on the left is 0 confidence and on the right is 100% confidence, how much confidence do you gain by testing that a better or a setter worked? Put another way, would we ever write a test that simply returned true? Now, there are some getters or setters that have logic in them, points where decisions are made and a code bran is taken. That's o...

Quality Assurance has always been a conundrum since the day the first QA engineer came into existence.  We can imagine how they came to be. In The Beginning A bunch of developers were writing code. They all realized hat they needed to have some tests written and so they elected a specific developer to just write tests on their code so the others could keep going. Over time that poor developer lost their perspective and their knowledge of the code base. Once an engineer finished their work, they would pitch it over the wall and expect a report back by the end of the day, even if the end of the day was in 15 minutes. So over time, QA became viewed as a substandard position, a dead end for a career. Recently, that has started to change. Misunderstandings We want to focus for a moment on what QA is really doing, and perhaps we can find a better definition and role. Remember, in Continuous Confidence, we want to use people to their full potential and thus we will redefine what pe...

The Developer's role within Continuous Confidence, is a little bit different. The traditional look on what a software engineer does, brings us back to writing code and then having others verify it works. This traditional view is flawed and actually produces weakened confidence over time. Let's explore why. One Time Evaluation Over the last decade or so, new methodologies have taken form. Test Driven Development (TDD). Code coverage. Behavior Driven Development (BDD). These forms have been around for a while, but only in the last 10 years have they really started to gain traction. When the traditional model focusses on someone other than the developer verifying the build, it is verified in a single instance of time. That single instance will never be repeated, and so, naturally, bugs will come. Using the afore mentioned methodologies, we start to place the responsibility of testing on the shoulders of the developers. Abbreviated Timeline We have made a serious mistake. T...

When we first started down the Automated Build and Testing scene, we became very addicted to that wonderful thing: the green build. We installed tools like Jenkins or later GoCD or even rolled our own, but we loved the power of that green build. We said: ship it! Let's get that code out in the wild! Look it passed all the tests! Why Mythical? So we shipped that code and something broke. People in our company didn't like us too much. Whether it was customer service or whether it was sales for us breaking stuff in the middle of their demo. But all we could say was: it was green! So, evidently, when you have 100 tests on a 200,000 line code base, there just isn't a lot of confidence that something isn't going to break. So what does a green build really mean? That is why it is mythical. We have no real "green build" if the tests are not effective and have the "area coverage".  When we write tests, we need to cover areas of the code, not code cover...

When we look at the Continuous Integration model and the reason it has been so successful, one might think it is because we release more often and our commits are small. One might also think, the boredom of constant releasing is powerful as well. As we examine further, as well, there are times when in reality, even when practicing Continuous Integration, we are asked to stop releasing so often.  We have moments when the rest of the company or when the customer asks for us to not release as often. Why is that? Confidence. Trust. Let's be honest, we break stuff...often. It happens. It's ok. But when we lost trust, we need to gain it back. Determine The Cause The first step to Continuous Confidence is the council. Pull in people from every group and department of the company. Don't pull in managers. We can invite them, but we need people who are in the trenches and who know where the pain is. Be productive. Keep the council moving, but council  about why people don't w...

Have we ever asked ourselves "Why are we doing continuous integration/delivery?" A weird question right? It Makes Sense Almost every shop we know of says we need to go faster and deliver more content at higher quality. We grind and toil to make that happen. We learn that we can automatically build and test code. Tests pass and we are good! We are happy. We pass the hard work over to QA and expect them to give our code the final blessing. Sometimes, let's be honest MOST of the time, it comes back and we have to work on something to fix it. The final OK is given and we send it to DevOps/IT and it is released to the wild. We are proud. We got it out. And yet, there is sometimes a sense of impending doom. A little voice in the back of our heads saying: just wait. Or saying "What did we miss?" If It Makes Sense, Why The Doubt? So if all the effort to do continuous integration is worth it then why do we have doubts? Why do we find doubts in other parts ...

Over the next little bit, we are going to delve into how Continuous Confidence changes our perspectives and rolls as we seek for further confidence in our code release. I want each of us to think back on when we were first introduced to Continuous Integration. Maybe this is the first time for some of us, so let me recap. Introduction To Continuous Integration Thoughtworks introduced a new way of developing code. They said, always integrate your code as quickly as you can. His allows for fast feedback. So their guideline is shortlived branching, maybe a day at longest. Keep everything on master, and keep it releasable. Now I remember when I was first introduced to Continuous Integration. We made an automated build  and test system. We were loving it. We said, "Ok, everyone develop solely on master." And we were off. So there we started and we did what "everyone else" did I tell he world: we called it continuous integration. And yet, as we went further and fur...

Continuous Confidence is not a new idea. Over the years, I have spent many hours thinking about, and witnessing multiple development shops implement their own understanding of Continuous Integration. Time and time again they fail to completely succeed. There are moments when there is fresh air and people are happy, but then something comes along to spoil that zen moment. After looking at what was happening, I came to realize that there is much more to continuous integration than what is really out there. People are funny creatures. When we have a problem, we try to find a solution. We will try anything and everything we can, that makes sense to us. If we don't understand it, then we shy away from it. If we are developers, we tend to judge the worthiness of a statement, and then if found lacking, we ridicule and mock it for not making sense. (Overstating the obvious for dramatic effect.) Here in is the key to understanding failure to implement Continuous Integration or Continuous ...

Welcome to the world. We all make mistakes. We all do and have done things that we wish we could take back. There is absolutely nothing different in business...except maybe when things get a little hot in the seat, we feel we need to let someone go. In recent news, you see someone making a mistake, and foregoing malicious intent by said person, we see them get cut from their employment. Why do we do this?  When dealing with Continuous Confidence, we need to look at the facts of how firing doesn't increase, but instead weakens, confidence in the business as a whole. Now. Don't get me wrong. There are times when firing makes the most sense, but that comes down, in my book, to the intent of the behavior of the one who is at fault. They were trying to hide something or do malicious things, then that is prime example when firing might be warranted. But we are not talking about that example. Let me further explain.   The Case Study  A highly successful SaaS company is ver...