This week I have decided to change things up a bit. Seeing as we are now past the halfway point in the semester, I decided to start exploring some blogs other than the group I normally browse, just to try and find a different voice, a different point of view. I am happy to report I have succeeded in this mission, and have found a blog post by Michael Stahl on stickyminds.com that clicked with me.

One of the recurring problems we face as testers is making sure that we have covered everything that could possible happen in a piece of software, good or bad. Stahl suggests using bug taxonomy as a way to think of new ideas on what needs to be covered. This type of taxonomy is not trying to compare types of testing with type of bugs, but trying to put software bugs into categories. If you have a list of categories you can go to each time you run through the testing gauntlet, it may allow you to think of new tests that need to be written for your product. A few bug items under the category of performance he suggests are from Testing Computer Software, by Cem Kaner, Hung Q. Nguyen, and Jack Falk: slow program, poor, responsiveness, and no progress reports. His list goes on, but you get the point.

Once I saw this list of categories, this strategy totally made sense to me. Basically, have a list that is entitled “Have I covered:” or something to that extent. Running through the list forces you to think of scenarios you may not have covered, but should be covered. And since the list is categorized (i.e. performance, user experience, etc.) it allows you to focus on one testing area at a time. I can tell you that after reading this post I made a list of things I need to go back and check on for something I am working on at work. So, this strategy has already paid dividends for me.

Although other testers list can be useful and is a good way to share ideas, Stahl strongly suggests making your own list to reference again and again. This is because you may not agree with how another person’s list is laid out. For example, in the list from Testing Computer Software, Stahl mention how under the performance category is “no progress reports”. He feels it should be under a user experience category. I agree that is should be under user experience, but these lists are all up to the testers opinion, so it is not wrong that the book has it in a different spot. This can be avoided by making your list.  

I really enjoyed this blog because making a bug taxonomy list seems like a relatively simple way of trying to find new tests. It practical, and be applied in everyday use without a big hit on time. We always talk about how important time is with testing, so if there is a quick and efficient way that is going to help make my tests better, I am in.

Link:

https://www.stickyminds.com/article/using-bug-taxonomy-design-better-software-tests

Link to picture: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/710avuIF12L._SY550_.jpg

From the blog CS@Worcester – README by Matthew Foley and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

So, we meet again with what makes code stink. As I mentioned in my blog last week, this is a continuation from the same post that I covered last week, as there were simply too many points I wanted to hit upon to fit in one post. For those who missed last week’s post or can’t remember, smelly code is basically trends in code that commonly known to cause problems. The goal is to make sure you code doesn’t stink when you are done with it, or you’ll regret it later down the line.

The next item on the list are comments. Comments can be great. They provide insight into how the developer was thinking, why they designed it the way they did, what is going on in that quadruple nested for-loop below the comment, etc. The thing is, if you are really a good developer, an argument can be made that the code can speak/explain itself. Personally, I’ve always found comments useful and insightful, but the point here is that your code should not be so ambiguous or so complicated that you need an entire paragraph just to explain what is going on. While I don’t necessary agree that there should be no comments at all, I do agree that comments should be kept to a minimum, and if you can’t, something is wrong with your code.

Pressing further down Jeff Atwood’s list of smelly code we run into the category of duplicate code. Please don’t duplicate your code. The reasons are self-explanatory, but I will reiterate: it is bad, wasteful, and inefficient. If you need to perform a task more than once, put it in a function, simple as that. You’ll save everyone a few headaches. Similarly, he mentions dead code. That is code that is sitting in there, wasting its life away as a comment or performing some task is never used, wasting resources. There should never be a need to leave unused code. The wonderful invention of version eliminated the need to leave old code sitting in a program.

The last item on his list that I want to touch upon is the bad habit of making items public when shouldn’t be, or as he calls it, indecent exposure. There should be a strong effort to make everything is as private as possible, and there should be a damn good reason if it not private. Exposing the internals of a class is dangerous and unwarranted. Unless something absolutely has to be public, it should stay private.

There were items on Atwood’s list that I felt were unnecessary or didn’t completely agree with, but overall, I found his list of code warning signs useful and brought up many valid points. As developers we want our code to be clean, efficient, and easy to read. I feel that going through this list would certainly help anyone reach that goal. A lot of the items on the list are thing experienced developers should know better than to try anyhow, but it can’t hurt double check when you are done. I know I certainly will try to run through his list in the future.

Link:

https://blog.codinghorror.com/code-smells/

From the blog CS@Worcester – README by Matthew Foley and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.