Skip to main content

Debugging? Write more tests!

I see a lot of people on the internet talking about writing unit tests.  While they can provide tons of advice on when you need unit tests, I don't see a lot of people talking about how to start.  I mean, you're not suddenly unit testing on a brand new project.  You're going to likely start with a few thousand lines of spaghetti code.

So where do you start with that?  How do you test the untestable, extremely tightly coupled code that throws errors on every page?  Do you even bother?  Shouldn't you fix it, refactor it, then test it? ABSOLUTELY NOT!*

Unit Test First!
I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to test the code before you change it.  How are you supposed to ensure that existing functionality is kept if you don't find out what the existing functionality is?  Sure, it threw a bug on every page, but they were expected bugs.  They might be accounted for elsewhere in the code, and your change could break everything.

OK, that's out of the way.  You can read lots of websites that try to define what a good unit test is.  The truth though, is that if you're not writing a test in the first place, you're problem isn't defining a good test.  When I get a user story, my first task is to write a test that would verify the functionality expected in the story.  Usually, this test ends up being an integration test, though it's technically called an acceptance test, but it also helps me to define the parameters of my unit tests.

So if you decide to heed my advice, to Unit Test before you refactor, and you start with a massive pile of spaghetti code, the only place you really can start is with some integration tests.  Then you find the units you can test, then you slowly start to decouple, making sure all the tests pass as you do.  This is how you start testing code.

As a wrap up, let's give a realistic coding example.  This is our mess of code in a very generic high-level diagram.
You have an ugly database, with an ugly data access layer, all intermingled with ugly code.  Your code probably has lines in it like this:

var sql = "SELECT * FROM codeRepo INTO #tempCode WHERE codeName = '" + fixName + "'";

And half of the company's software passes over that line of code at some point.  This code is not only not unit testable, it's dangerous to test because of the nasty side-effects it could have.  So hop on over to Dev, and build some integration tests.  You'll start with some standard use cases like: CanSaveFiles() or CanBookClients() and this may take a while (a long while).  But eventually, you'll get to the point where you can create a test called ClientCodeRepoFixTest() and you might not even know what the outcome is going to be.  That's OK!  That's what a trusty debugger is for!.  You will just have to figure out what this ugly bit of undocumented code does.  Not only will your job security go up enormously after you do, but you'll be able to make the code work, decouple it, refactor it, and make the whole company make more money.  Then you have a reason to go talk to your boss about that bonus he forgot to give you.

*This is just my opinion, please disregard it if you're a troll


Popular posts from this blog

Teams and Complexity

Let's pretend you're a car mechanic (I don't know, maybe you are).  But you don't work at some shop in town, you work at a bigtime auto-maker onsite at the factory.  You help build cars from scratch.  You work with a lot of other car mechanics, and various engineers of different levels.  If we were looking at the 1910s, you might be working for Henry Ford on one of the first ever assembly lines.  Either way, you have a specific part of the car you're responsible for.  Your skills probably extend beyond that, and you might work on a different part of the car each day as your manager moves you around to keep the factory efficient.

One of your coworkers, Bob, is a superb engineer.  He is very good at building cars, far better than you, and he does it faster than everyone else.  Your boss really likes him.  You often get stuck after him in the assembly line, so you know exactly what sorts of things he does.  He's not sloppy, but he likes to do things his way.  He w…

Managing Programmers

Working with other programmers is tricky.  That said, it's nothing compared to the job of managing programmers.  One of my favorite quotes about Perl is that (paraphrased) "a Perl developer is like a rockstar.  Now imaging having a bunch of rockstars in one room together and you will understand why you don't want an entire team of Perl developers."  It's not about Perl here though. What's important to understand is that any developer worth his salt is going to be like a rockstar.  And yes, there are a lot of professional developers out there who aren't worth their salt, but that's for another post another day.  Rockstar may not be the right term here, but think of it this way.  These guys are smart.  They may not be geniuses, but there's going to be things that they know that you don't and probably never will.

I've seen it more than once and it's not going to make some Product Managers happy, but I'm going to state a fact, an eleph…

Managing Developers is HARD

I've been a software dev for a long time.  I've also been running my own software company for a few years now.  This is important information because of why I do these things.  I am a sofware developer because I love learning.  I slack off when doing a job that bores me, and software development always has something new to experience which keeps me excited and interested.  Why start a software company then?  That puts me in the role of manager rather than developer.  The truth is simple.  I've worked for a lot of companies, and I don't see any of them doing a great job of managing their software development.  That's not to say none of them have done a good job, but no one out there seems to be doing a great job.

How are they different?
A lot of companies get this part right.  Software developers are different from other employees.  The distinction is important in the same way it's important to acknowledge that an insurance agent is different from a construction…