See original post at https://muhammadkhojaye.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-to-run-amazon-elastic-mapreduce-job.html Introduction Amazon EMR is a web service which can be used to easily and efficiently process enormous amounts of data. It uses a hosted Hadoop framework running on the web-scale infrastructure of Amazon EC2 and Amazon S3. Amazon EMR removes most of the cumbersome details of Hadoop while taking care of provisioning of Hadoop, running the job flow, terminating the job flow, moving the data between Amazon EC2 and Amazon S3, and optimizing Hadoop. In this tutorial, we will use a developed WordCount Java example using Hadoop and thereafter, we execute our program on Amazon Elastic MapReduce. Prerequisites You must have valid AWS account credentials. You should also have a general familiarity with using the Eclipse IDE before you begin. The reader can also use any other IDE of their choice. Step 1 – Develop MapReduce WordCount Java Program In this section, we are first going to develop a WordCount application. A WordCount program will determine how many times different words appear in a set of files. In Eclipse (or whatever the IDE you are using), Create simple Java Project with the name "WordCount". Create a java class name Map and override the map method as follow, public class Map extends Mapper { private final static IntWritable one = new IntWritable(1); private Text word = new Text(); @Override public void map(LongWritable key, Text value, Context context) throws IOException, InterruptedException { String line = value.toString(); StringTokenizer tokenizer = new StringTokenizer(line); while (tokenizer.hasMoreTokens()) { word.set(tokenizer.nextToken()); context.write(word, one); } } } Create a java class named Reduce and override the reduce method as shown below, public class Reduce extends Reducer { @Override protected void reduce(Text key, java.lang.Iterable values, org.apache.hadoop.mapreduce.Reducer.Context context) throws IOException, InterruptedException { int sum = 0; for (IntWritable value : values) { sum += value.get(); } context.write(key, new IntWritable(sum)); } } Create a java class named WordCount and defined the main method as below, public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { Configuration conf = new Configuration(); Job job = new Job(conf, "wordcount"); job.setJarByClass(WordCount.class); job.setOutputKeyClass(Text.class); job.setOutputValueClass(IntWritable.class); job.setMapperClass(Map.class); job.setReducerClass(Reduce.class); job.setInputFormatClass(TextInputFormat.class); job.setOutputFormatClass(TextOutputFormat.class); FileInputFormat.addInputPath(job, new Path(args[0])); FileOutputFormat.setOutputPath(job, new Path(args[1])); job.waitForCompletion(true); } Export the WordCount program in a jar using eclipse and save it to some location on disk. Make sure that you have provided the Main Class (WordCount.jar) during extraction ofu8u the jar file as shown below. Our jar is ready!!! Step 2 – Upload the WordCount JAR and Input Files to Amazon S3 Now we are going to upload the WordCount jar to Amazon S3. First, go to the following URL: https://console.aws.amazon.com/s3/home Next, click “Create Bucket”, give your bucket a name, and click the “Create” button. Select your new S3 bucket in the left-hand pane. Upload the WordCount JAR and sample input file for counting the words. Step 3 – Running an Elastic MapReduce job Now that the JAR is uploaded into S3, all we need to do is to create a new Job flow. let's execute the steps below. (I encourage readers to check out the following link for details regarding each step, How to Create a Job Flow Using a Custom JAR ) Sign in to the AWS Management Console and open the Amazon Elastic MapReduce console at https://console.aws.amazon.com/elasticmapreduce/ Click Create New Job Flow. In the DEFINE JOB FLOW page, enter the following details, a) Job Flow Name = WordCountJob b) Select Run your own applications) Select Custom JAR in the drop-down list) Click Continue In the SPECIFY PARAMETERS page, enter values in the boxes using the following table as a guide, and then click Continue.JAR Location = bucketName/jarFileLocationJAR Arguments =s3n://bucketName/inputFileLocations3n://bucketName/outputpath Please note that the output path must be unique each time we execute the job. The Hadoop always create a folder with the same name specified here. After executing the job, just wait and monitor your job that runs through the Hadoop flow. You can also look for errors by using the Debug button. The job should be complete within 10 to 15 minutes (can also depend on the size of the input). After completing the job, You can view results in the S3 Browser panel. You can also download the files from S3 and can analyze the outcome of the job. Amazon Elastic MapReduce Resources Amazon Elastic MapReduce Documentation,http://aws.amazon.com/documentation/elasticmapreduce/ Amazon Elastic MapReduce Getting Started Guide,http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/ElasticMapReduce/latest/GettingStartedGuide/ Amazon Elastic MapReduce Developer Guide,http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/ElasticMapReduce/latest/DeveloperGuide/ Apache Hadoop,http://hadoop.apache.org/ See more at https://muhammadkhojaye.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-to-run-amazon-elastic-mapreduce-job.html

How to create a real-time face detection system using HTML5, JavaScript, and OpenCV, leveraging WebRTC for webcam access and WebSockets for client-server communication.

Introduction NCron is a .Net scheduling framework, it is a .Net version of Cron - the time based job scheduler found on unix like operating systems or Cron4j - scheduling library for Java. Ncron is light weight and easy to use, with little learning curve. It comes with some cool advantages, being that you can use it in C#, Vb.net or any other .Net programming language. It takes your mind off the details of scheduling and you can focus on how to implement the business logic of your application or the job to be scheduled. Details such as threading and timers have been taken care of. Ncron Library You can point your browser to http://code.google.com/p/ncron/downloads/detail?name=ncron-2.1.zip to download the ncron library. You need to add reference to the Ncron library in your project so as to be able to access the classes and functionalities of the Ncron scheduling framework. Scheduling a Job When creating a job to be scheduled using NCron, the job is wrapped up in a class which must extend the class NCron.CronJob and override a void method Execute public class MyJob : NCron.CronJob { public override void Execute() { System.IO.File.Copy(@"c:\\output.out", @"f:\\output.out"); } } The job to be scheduled will be placed in the Execute method. The next thing to do is to give NCron control over the job execution, by calling the static method Bootstrap.Init() at the entry point of your application, for example this can be put in the Main method. You should have a static setup method, which I called JobSetup method that will be passed into the Bootstrap.Init() method. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using NCron.Fluent.Crontab; using NCron.Fluent.Generics; using NCron.Service; namespace NcronExample { public class Program { private static void Main(string[] args) { Bootstrap.Init(args, JobSetup); } private static void JobSetup(SchedulingService schedulingService) { schedulingService.At("* * * * *").Run(); } } } The line of code inside the JobSetup method is to specify how the Job is going to be run, and the parameter in the schedulingService.At() method is known as crontab expression which I will discuss shortly. The SchedulingService class has a number of methods of interest. service.Daily().Run(); //runs the scheduled job once every day service.Hourly().Run(); //runs the scheduled job once every hour service.Weekly().Run(); //runs the scheduled job once every week Crontab Expression A crontab expression is a string comprising of 5 characters, which are seperated by space. This crontab expression when parsed produces occurrences of time based on a given schedule expressed in the crontab format. NCron parses crontab expression through the use of NCrontab(Crontab for .Net) an open source library for parsing crontab expressions. A regular crontab expression is of the form * * * * * where the first * is for minute which can be from 0-59. The second * is for hour which can also be from 0-23. The third * is for day of the month from 1-31. The fourth * is for month from 1-12. The last * is for day of week from 0-6 where 0 represents Sunday. The asterisk or wildcard character if left in the expression indicates all valid or legal values for that column. If yIf you want the scheduled job to run every minute, the expresion will be in the form below. * * * * * The The expression below causes the scheduler to run the job at the fifth minute of every ninth hour everyday. 5 9 * * * To run a job every tenth minute of every hour from Monday to Friday only, the expression will be in the form below. 10 * * * 1,2,3,4,5 You can read more on crontab expressions at http://code.google.com/p/ncrontab/wiki/CrontabExamples Deploying the Scheduled Job After the application has been built and compiled, you can deploy the scheduled job as a service by opening command prompt and change directory to where the executable of the application is and then run the command. ncronexample install To install the scheduled job as a service, and that is it !!!

Sometimes Quartz is not capable of running your job at the time when you desired. There are three reasons for that: all worker threads were busy running other jobs (probably with higher priority) the scheduler itself was down the job was scheduled with start time in the past (probably a coding error) You can increase the number of worker threads by simply customizing the org.quartz.threadPool.threadCount in quartz.properties (default is 10). But you cannot really do anything when the whole application/server/scheduler was down. The situation when Quartz was incapable of firing given trigger is called misfire. Do you know what Quartz is doing when it happens? Turns out there are various strategies (called misfire instructions) Quartz can take and also there are some defaults if you haven't thought about it. But in order to make your application robust and predictable (especially under heavy load or maintenance) you should really make sure your triggers and jobs are configured conciously. There are different configuration options (available misfire instructions) depending on the trigger chosen. Also Quartz behaves differently depending on trigger setup (so called smart policy). Although the misfire instructions are described in the documentation, I found it hard to understand what do they really mean. So I created this small summary article. Before I dive into the details, there is yet another configuration option that should be described. It is org.quartz.jobStore.misfireThreshold (in milliseconds), defaulting to 60000 (a minute). It defines how late the trigger should be to be considered misfired. With default setup if trigger was suppose to be fired 30 seconds ago, Quartz will happily just run it. Such delay is not considered misfiring. However if the trigger is discovered 61 seconds after the scheduled time - the special misfire handler thread takes care of it, obeying the misfire instruction. For test purposes we will set this parameter to 1000 (1 second) so that we can test misfiring quickly. Simple trigger without repeating In our first example we will see how misfiring is handled by simple triggers scheduled to run only once: val trigger = newTrigger(). startAt(DateUtils.addSeconds(new Date(), -10)). build() The same trigger but with explicitly set misfire instruction handler: val trigger = newTrigger(). startAt(DateUtils.addSeconds(new Date(), -10)). withSchedule( simpleSchedule(). withMisfireHandlingInstructionFireNow() //MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_FIRE_NOW ). build() For the purpose of testing I am simply scheduling the trigger to run 10 seconds ago (so it is 10 seconds late by the time it is created!) In real world you would normally never schedule triggers like that. Instead imagine the trigger was set correctly but by the time it was scheduled the scheduler was down or didn't have any free worker threads. Nevertheless, how will Quartz handle this extraordinary situation? In the first code snippet above no misfire handling instruction is set (so called smart policy is used in that case). The second code snippet explicitly defines what kind of behaviour do we expect when misfiring occurs. See the table: Instruction Meaning smart policy - default See: withMisfireHandlingInstructionFireNow withMisfireHandlingInstructionFireNow MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_FIRE_NOW The job is executed immediately after the scheduler discovers misfire situation. This is the smart policy. Example scenario: you have scheduled some system clean up at 2 AM. Unfortunately the application was down due to maintenance by that time and brought back on 3 AM. So the trigger misfired and the scheduler tries to save the situation by running it as soon as it can - at 3 AM. withMisfireHandlingInstructionIgnoreMisfires MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_IGNORE_MISFIRE_POLICY QTZ-283 See: withMisfireHandlingInstructionFireNow withMisfireHandlingInstructionNextWithExistingCount MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_RESCHEDULE_NEXT_WITH_EXISTING_COUNT See: withMisfireHandlingInstructionNextWithRemainingCount withMisfireHandlingInstructionNextWithRemainingCount MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_RESCHEDULE_NEXT_WITH_REMAINING_COUNT Does nothing, misfired execution is ignored and there is no next execution. Use this instruction when you want to completely discard the misfired execution. Example scenario: the trigger was suppose to start recording of a program in TV. There is no point of starting recording when the trigger misfired and is already 2 hours late. withMisfireHandlingInstructionNowWithExistingCount MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_RESCHEDULE_NOW_WITH_EXISTING_REPEAT_COUNT See: withMisfireHandlingInstructionFireNow withMisfireHandlingInstructionNowWithRemainingCount MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_RESCHEDULE_NOW_WITH_REMAINING_REPEAT_COUNT See: withMisfireHandlingInstructionFireNow Simple trigger repeating fixed number of times This scenario is much more complicated. Imagine we have scheduled some job to repeat fixed number of times: val trigger = newTrigger(). startAt(dateOf(9, 0, 0)). withSchedule( simpleSchedule(). withRepeatCount(7). withIntervalInHours(1). WithMisfireHandlingInstructionFireNow() //or other ). build() In this example the trigger is suppose to fire 8 times (first execution + 7 repetitions) every hour, beginning at 9 AM today (startAt(dateOf(9, 0, 0)). Thus the last execution should occur at 4 PM. However assume that due to some reason the scheduler was not capable of running jobs at 9 and 10 AM and it discovered that fact at 10:15 AM, i.e. 2 firings misfired. How will the scheduler behave in this situation? Instruction Meaning smart policy - default See: withMisfireHandlingInstructionNowWithExistingCount withMisfireHandlingInstructionFireNow MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_FIRE_NOW See: withMisfireHandlingInstructionNowWithRemainingCount withMisfireHandlingInstructionIgnoreMisfires MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_IGNORE_MISFIRE_POLICYQTZ-283 Fires all triggers that were missed as soon as possible and then goes back to ordinary schedule. Example scenario: With this strategy in our example the scheduler will fire jobs scheduled at 9 and 10 AM immediately. Then it will wait to 11 AM and go back to ordinary schedule. Note: When handling misfires it is equally important to realize that the actual job execution time might be way after the scheduled time. This means you cannot simply rely on current system date, but you need to use JobExecutionContext .getScheduledFireTime(): def execute(context: JobExecutionContext) { val date = context.getScheduledFireTime //... } withMisfireHandlingInstructionNextWithExistingCount MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_RESCHEDULE_NEXT_WITH_EXISTING_COUNT The scheduler won't do anything immediately. Instead it will wait for next scheduled time and run all triggers with scheduled intervals. See also: withMisfireHandlingInstructionNextWithRemainingCount Example scenario: at 10:15 the scheduler discovers 2 misfired executions. It waits until next scheduled time (11 AM) and fires all 8 scheduled executions every hour, stopping at 6 PM (the trigger should have stopped at 4 PM). withMisfireHandlingInstructionNextWithRemainingCount MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_RESCHEDULE_NEXT_WITH_REMAINING_COUNT The scheduler discards misfired executions and waits for the next scheduled time. The total number of trigger executions will be less then configured. Example scenario: at 10:15 two misfired executions are discarded. The scheduler waits for next scheduled time (11 AM) and fires remaining triggers up to 4 PM. Effectively it behaves as if misfire never occurred. withMisfireHandlingInstructionNowWithExistingCount MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_RESCHEDULE_NOW_WITH_EXISTING_REPEAT_COUNT First misfired trigger is executed immediately. Then the scheduler waits desired interval and executes all remaining triggers. Effectively the first fire time of the misfired trigger is moved to current time with no other changes. Example scenario: at 10:15 the scheduler runs the first misfired execution. Then it waits 1 hour and fires the second one at 11:15 AM. All 8 executions are performed, the last one at 5:15 PM withMisfireHandlingInstructionNowWithRemainingCount MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_RESCHEDULE_NOW_WITH_REMAINING_REPEAT_COUNT First misfired execution runs immediately. Remaining misfired executions are discarded. Triggers that were not misfired are executed with desired interval. Example scenario: at 10:15 the scheduler runs the first misfired execution (from 9 AM). It discards remaining misfired executions (the one from 10 AM) and waits 1 hour to execute six more triggers: 11:15, 12:15, … 4:15 PM Simple trigger repeating infinitely In this scenario trigger repeats infinite number of times at a given interval: val trigger = newTrigger(). startAt(dateOf(9, 0, 0)). withSchedule( simpleSchedule(). withRepeatCount(SimpleTrigger.REPEAT_INDEFINITELY). withIntervalInHours(1). WithMisfireHandlingInstructionFireNow() //or other ). build() Once again trigger should fire on every hour, beginning at 9 AM today (startAt(dateOf(9, 0, 0)). However the scheduler was not capable of running jobs at 9 and 10 AM and it discovered that fact at 10:15 AM, i.e. 2 firings misfired. This is a more general situation compared to simple trigger running fixed number of times. Instruction Meaning smart policy - default See: withMisfireHandlingInstructionNextWithRemainingCount withMisfireHandlingInstructionFireNow MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_FIRE_NOW See: withMisfireHandlingInstructionNowWithRemainingCount withMisfireHandlingInstructionIgnoreMisfires MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_IGNORE_MISFIRE_POLICYQTZ-283 The scheduler will immediately run all misfired triggers, then continue on schedule. Example scenario: the triggers scheduled at 9 and 10 AM are executed immediately. Future invocations (next scheduled at 11 AM) are executed according to the plan. withMisfireHandlingInstructionNextWithExistingCount MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_RESCHEDULE_NEXT_WITH_EXISTING_COUNT See: withMisfireHandlingInstructionNextWithRemainingCount withMisfireHandlingInstructionNextWithRemainingCount MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_RESCHEDULE_NEXT_WITH_REMAINING_COUNT Does nothing, misfired executions are discarded. Then the scheduler waits for next scheduled interval and goes back to schedule. Example scenario: Misfired execution at 9 and 10 AM are discarded. The first execution occurs at 11 AM. withMisfireHandlingInstructionNowWithExistingCount MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_RESCHEDULE_NOW_WITH_EXISTING_REPEAT_COUNT See: withMisfireHandlingInstructionNowWithRemainingCount withMisfireHandlingInstructionNowWithRemainingCount MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_RESCHEDULE_NOW_WITH_REMAINING_REPEAT_COUNT The first misfired execution is run immediately, remaining are discarded. Next execution happens after desired interval. Effectively the first execution time is moved to current time. Example scenario: the scheduler fires misfired trigger immediately at 10:15 AM. Then waits an hour and runs the second one at 11:15 AM and continues with 1 hour interval. CRON triggers CRON triggers are the most popular ones amongst Quartz users. However there are also two other available triggers: DailyTimeIntervalTrigger (e.g. fire every 25 minutes) and CalendarIntervalTrigger (e.g. fire every 5 months). They support triggering policies not possible in both CRON and simple triggers. However they understand the same misfire handling instructions as CRON trigger. val trigger = newTrigger(). withSchedule( cronSchedule("0 0 9-17 ? * MON-FRI"). withMisfireHandlingInstructionFireAndProceed() //or other ). build() In this example the trigger should fire every hour between 9 AM and 5 PM, from Monday to Friday. But once again first two invocations were missed (so the trigger misfired) and this situation was discovered at 10:15 AM. Note that available misfire instructions are different compared to simple triggers: Instruction Meaning smart policy - default See: withMisfireHandlingInstructionFireAndProceed withMisfireHandlingInstructionIgnoreMisfires MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_IGNORE_MISFIRE_POLICYQTZ-283 All misfired executions are immediately executed, then the trigger runs back on schedule. Example scenario: the executions scheduled at 9 and 10 AM are executed immediately. The next scheduled execution (at 11 AM) runs on time. withMisfireHandlingInstructionFireAndProceed MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_FIRE_ONCE_NOW Immediately executes first misfired execution and discards other (i.e. all misfired executions are merged together). Then back to schedule. No matter how many trigger executions were missed, only single immediate execution is performed. Example scenario: the executions scheduled at 9 and 10 AM are merged and executed only once (in other words: the execution scheduled at 10 AM is discarded). The next scheduled execution (at 11 AM) runs on time. withMisfireHandlingInstructionDoNothing MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_DO_NOTHING All misfired executions are discarded, the scheduler simply waits for next scheduled time. Example scenario: the executions scheduled at 9 and 10 AM are discarded, so basically nothing happens. The next scheduled execution (at 11 AM) runs on time. QTZ-283Note: QTZ-283: MISFIRE_INSTRUCTION_IGNORE_MISFIRE_POLICY not working with JDBCJobStore - apparently there is a bug when JDBCJobStore is used, keep an eye on that issue. As you can see various triggers behave differently based on the actual setup. Moreover, even though the so called smart policy is provided, often the decision is based on business requirements. Essentially there are three major strategies: ignore, run immediately and continue and discard and wait for next. They all have different use-cases: Use ignore policies when you want to make sure all scheduled executions were triggered, even if it means multiple misfired triggers will fire. Think about a job that generates report every hour based on orders placed during that last hour. If the server was down for 8 hours, you still want to have that reports generated, as soon as you can. In this case the ignore policies will simply run all triggers scheduled during that 8 hour as fast as scheduler can. They will be several hours late, but will eventually be executed. Use now* policies when there are jobs executing periodically and upon misfire situation they should run as soon as possible, but only once. Think of a job that cleans /tmp directory every minute. If the scheduler was busy for 20 minutes and finally can run this job, you don't want to run in 20 times! One is enough, but make sure it runs as fast it can. Then back to your normal one-minute intervals. Finally next* policies are good when you want to make sure your job runs at particular points in time. For example you need to fetch stock prices quarter past every hour. They change rapidly so if your job misfired and it is already 20 minutes past full hour, don't bother. You missed the correct time by 5 minutes and now you don't really care. It is better to have a gap rather than an inaccurate value. In this case Quartz will skip all misfired executions and simply wait for the next one.

I am starting a little series about Quartz scheduler internals, tips and tricks, this is chapter 0 - how to configure persistent job store.

when working with agile teams the daily stand up meeting provides a heart beat to the day and an opportunity for team members to share information. stand up meetings work best when they are short and balance the inputs across all the people in the team. a common problem is stand ups that start running too long. when two hands are raised then it's a signal to move the stand up meeting on the two hands rule sometimes the conversations at stand up can get too detailed or go on too long. for these situations we’ve introduced the “two hands” rule; if anyone thinks the current conversation has gone off topic, or is no longer effective, then they raise a hand. once a second person raises a hand then that’s a sign to stop the conversation and continue with the rest of the stand up. those speaking can continue the conversation after the stand up has finished. this approach makes it easy for people to share their view on the effectiveness of the conversation in a way that reduces the risk of causing offence. it also provides a way for the team to detect and correct its own behaviour. i introduced this idea recently to a team who agreed to give it a try. in a stand up a few days later i was talking with a team member and didn’t realise that our conversation had got too detailed and gone on too long. i missed seeing that two other team members had put their hands up. it wasn’t until one of them spoke up that i noticed! this is one of the characteristics of difficult conversations; we often become blind to signs, easily spotted by others, that the conversation has become ineffective. by agreeing with the team to use the “two hands” rule they helped me detect when they thought i’d become ineffective. the technique can have some downsides though. it can feel direct or confrontational, especially when people first experience it. it’s important to discuss any issues after the stand up and consider reviewing the practice in a retrospective. i’d like to hear your thoughts. have you had stand up meetings that have taken too long? what approaches have you used? if you’ve tried something like the “two hands” rule, how did it go?

We’ve been trying to grow our team for a few months now and the title we’re hiring for is Devops Engineer. One of the candidates our recruiters reached out to, let’s call him John, came back to us with a bunch of questions including: How do you feel about hiring someone with a devops title? It’s a very legittimate question, Devops is a cultural and professional movement, so how could it be a job title? What I argued in my reply to this fella is that Devops isn’t the job title, Devops Engineer is, and in this sense Devops is just a qualifier and I strongly believe a very useful one. I really sympathise with those that are fighting hard to keep Devops real and avoid the same faith that some refer to as the sad commercialisation of Agile. My campaign to make of devops a job title isn’t a campaign to come up with a set of bullet points that define Devops as a job so that I can put it on a resume or build it into a product. My argument here is that the guy I’m trying to hire, John, I want him to be a certain kind of guy and the best way I have to describe what I want is Devops Engineer. I’m looking for an operations guy , but I want him to be open to developers, consider engineering and the company as a whole, be focused on delivering value and not rathole into fights about technology or claim root access only on principle. I want that guy to have great communication skills and the interest to explore what’s besides his infrastructure, to be wanting to borrow as much good he can find in other disciplines across the organisation. And then of course there is the practical part, the desire to automate and escape a boring manual routine, the familiarity with cloud that willing or not has powered the movement, and even more specific things like configuration management. You may argue that this is just a good engineer or what systems engineers are becoming, in other words nothing new under the sun. And you may be right, but job titles are in many ways just another way to communicate, to broadcast an intent and a need. So you know what I told John about hiring Devops Engineers? That I felt pretty damn proud about it. The true ones, not the ones slapping it on their CV to get a job, are fantastic engineers and I can’t but encourage them to start to respond to that qualifier. Likewise the companies and individuals seeking them out are likely the ones building great groups those people will want to be members of. Yes, the moment it becomes a keyword recruiters start to match against we’re likely to see a spur of fakes trying to land a job, but that’s nothing new under the sun. Signed, a Devops manager Source: http://www.spikelab.org/devops-job-title/

If you need to schedule jobs in Java, it is fairly common in the industry to use Quartz directly or via Spring integration, but you might want to think twice.

Everyone knows from reading The Mythical Man Month that as you add more people to a software development project you will see diminishing marginal returns. When you add a person to a team, there’s a short-term hit as the rest of the team slows down to bring the new team member up to speed and adjusts to working with another person, making sure that they fit in and can contribute. There’s also a long-term cost. More people means more people who need to talk to each other (n x n-1 / 2), which means more opportunities for misunderstandings and mistakes and misdirections and missed handoffs, more chances for disagreements and conflicts, more bottleneck points. As you continue to add people, the team needs to spend more time getting each new person up to speed and more time keeping everyone on the team in synch. Adding more people means that the team speeds up less and less, while people costs and communications costs and overhead costs keep going up. At some point negative returns set in – if you add more people, the team’s performance will decline and you will get less work done, not more. Diminishing Returns from any One Practice But adding too many people to a project isn’t the only case of diminishing returns in software development. If you work on a big enough project, or if you work in maintenance for long enough, you will run into problems of diminishing returns everywhere that you look. Pushing too hard in one direction, depending too much on any tool or practice, will eventually yield diminishing returns. This applies to: - Manual functional and acceptance testing - Test automation - Any single testing technique - Code reviews - Static analysis bug finding tools - Penetration tests and other security reviews Aiming for 100% code coverage on unit tests is a good example. Building a good automated regression safety net is important – as you wire in tests for key areas of the system, programmers get more confidence and can make more changes faster. How many tests are enough? In Continuous Delivery, Jez Humble and David Farley set 80% coverage as a target for each of automated unit testing, functional testing and acceptance testing. You could get by with lower coverage in many areas, higher coverage in core areas. You need enough tests to catch common and important mistakes. But beyond this point, more tests get more difficult to write, and find fewer problems. Unit testing can only find so many problems in the first place. In Code Complete, Steve McConnell explains that unit testing can only find between 15% and 50% (on average 30%) of the defects in your code. Rather than writing more unit tests, people’s time would be better spent on other approaches like exploratory system testing and code reviews or stress testing or fuzzing to find different kinds of errors. Too much of anything is bad, but too much whiskey is enough. Mark Twain, as quoted in Code Complete Refactoring is important for maintaining and improving the structure and readability of code over time. It is intended to be a supporting practice – to help make changes and fixes simpler and clearer and safer. When refactoring becomes an end in itself or turns into Obsessive Refactoring Disorder, it not only adds unnecessary costs as programmers waste time over trivial details and style issues, it can also add unnecessary risks and create conflict in a team. Make sure that refactoring is done in a disciplined way, and focus refactoring on those areas that need it the most: on code that is frequently changed, routines that are too big, too hard to read, too complex and error-prone. Putting most of your attention refactoring (or if necessary rewriting) this code will get you the highest returns. Less and Less over Time Diminishing returns also set in over time. The longer that you spend working the same way and with the same tools, the less benefits you will see. Even core practices that you’ve grown to depend on don’t pay back over time, and at some point may cost more than they are worth. It’s time again for New Year’s resolutions – time to sign up at a gym and start lifting weights. If you stick with the same routine for a couple of months, you will start to see good results. But after a while your body will get used to the work – if you keep doing the same things the same way your performance will plateau and you will stop seeing gains. You will get bored and stop going to the gym, which will leave more room for people like me. If you do keep going, trying to push harder for returns, you will overtrain and injure yourself. The same thing happens to software teams following the same practices, using the same tools. Some of this is due to inertia. Teams, organizations reach an equilibrium point and they want to stay there. Because it is comfortable, and it works – or at least they understand it. And because the better the team is working, the harder it is to get better – all the low-hanging fruit has been picked. People keep doing what worked for them in the past. They stop looking beyond their established routines, stop looking for new ideas. Competence and control lead to complacency and acceptance. Instead of trying to be as good as possible, they settle for being good enough. This is the point of inspect-and-adapt in Scrum and other time boxed methods – asking the team to regularly re-evaluate what they are doing and how they are doing it, what’s going well and what isn’t, what they should do more of or less of, challenging the status quo and finding new ways to move forward. But even the act of assessing and improving is subject to diminishing returns. If you are building software in 2-week time boxes, and you’ve been doing this for 3, 4 or 5 years, then how much meaningful feedback should you really expect from so many superficial reviews? After a while the team finds themselves going over the same issues and problems and coming up with the same results. Reviews become an unnecessary and empty ritual, another waste of time. The same thing happens with tools. When you first start using a static analysis bug checking tool for example, there’s a good chance that you will find some interesting problems that you didn’t know were in the code – maybe even more problems than you can deal with. But once you triage this and fix up the code and use the tool for a while, the tool will find fewer and fewer problems until it gets to the point where you are paying for insurance – it isn’t finding problems any more, but it might someday. In "Has secure software development reached its limits?” William Jackson argues that SDLCs – all of them – eventually reach a point of diminishing returns from a quality and security standpoint, and that Microsoft and Oracle and other big shops are already seeing diminishing returns from their SDLCs. Their software won’t get any better – all they can do is to keep spending time and money to stay where they are. The same thing happens with Agile methods like Scrum or XP – at some point you’ve squeezed everything that you can from this way or working, and the team’s performance will plateau. What can you do about diminishing returns? First, understand and expect returns to diminish over time. Watch for the signs, and factor this into your expectations – that even if you maintain discipline and keep spending on tools, you will get less and less return for your time and money. Watch for the team’s velocity to plateau or decline. Expect this to happen and be prepared to make changes, even force fundamental changes on the team. If the tools that you are using aren’t giving returns any more, then find new ones, or stop using them and see what happens. Keep reviewing how the team is working, but do these reviews differently: review less often, make the reviews more focused on specific problems, involve different people from inside and outside of the team. Use problems or mistakes as an opportunity to shake things up and challenge the status quo. Dig deep using Root Cause Analysis and challenge the team’s way of thinking and working, look for something better. Don’t settle for simple answers or incremental improvements. Remember the 80/20 rule. Most of your problems will happen in the same small number of areas, from a small number of common causes. And most of your gains will come from a few initiatives. Change the team’s driving focus and key metrics, set new bars. Use Lean methods and Lean Thinking to identify and eliminate bottlenecks, delays and inefficiencies. Look at the controls and tests and checks that you have added over time, question whether you still need them, or find steps and checks that can be combined or automated or simplified. Focus on reducing cycle time and eliminating waste until you have squeezed out what you can. Then change your focus to quality and eliminating bugs, or to simplifying the release and deployment pipeline, or some other new focus that will push the team to improve in a meaningful way. And keep doing this and pushing until you see the team slowing down and results declining. Then start again, and push the team to improve again along another dimension. Keep watching, keep changing, keep moving ahead. Source: http://swreflections.blogspot.com/2011/11/diminishing-returns-in-software.html

For most large web applications, uptime is of foremost importants. Any outage can be seen by customers as a frustration, or opportunity to move to a competitor. What's more for a site that also includes e-commerce, it can mean real lost sales. Zero Downtime describes a site without service interruption. To achieve such lofty goals, redundancy becomes a critical requirement at every level of your infrastructure. If you're using cloud hosting, are you redundant to alternate availability zones and regions? Are you using geographically distributed load balancing? Do you have multiple clustered databases on the backend, and multiple webservers load balanced. All of these requirements will increase uptime, but may not bring you close to zero downtime. For that you'll need thorough testing. The solution is to pull the trigger on sections of your infrastructure, and prove that it fails over quickly without noticeable outage. The ultimate test is the outage itself. Sean Hull on Quora: What is zero downtime and why is it important? Source: http://www.iheavy.com/2011/06/23/zero-downtime-what-is-it-and-why-is-it-important/

I’ve been going over a couple of posts by Steve Kilner that question whether Agile methods can be used effectively in software maintenance. It’s a surprising question really. There are a lot of maintenance teams who have had success following Agile methods like Scrum and Extreme Programming (XP) for some time now. We’ve been doing it for almost 5 years, enhancing and maintaining and supporting enterprise systems, and I know that it works. Agile development naturally leads into maintenance – the goal of incremental Agile development is to get working software out to customers as soon as possible, and get customers using it. At some point, when customers are relying on the software to get real business done and need support and help to keep the system running, teams cross from development over to maintenance. But there’s no reason for Agile development teams to fundamentally change the way that they work when this happens. It is harder to introduce Agile practices into a legacy maintenance team – there are a lot of technical requirements and some cultural changes that need to be made. But most maintenance teams have little to lose and lots to gain from borrowing from what Agile development teams are doing. Agile methods are designed to help small teams deal with a lot of change and uncertainty, and to deliver software quickly – all things that are at least as important in maintenance as they are in development. Technical practices in Extreme Programming especially help ensure that the code is always working – which is even more important in maintenance than it is in development, because the code has to work the first time in production. Agile methods have to be adapted to maintenance, but most teams have found it necessary to adapt these methods to fit their situations anyways. Let’s look at what works and what has to be changed to make Agile methods like Scrum and XP work in maintenance. What works well and what doesn’t Planning Game Managing maintenance isn’t the same as managing a development project – even an Agile development project. Although Agile development teams expect to deal with ambiguity and constant change, maintenance teams need to be even more flexible and responsive, to manage conflicts and unpredictable resourcing problems. Work has to be continuously reviewed and prioritized as it comes in – the customer can’t wait for 2 weeks for you to look at a production bug. The team needs a fast path for urgent changes and especially for hot fixes. You have to be prepared for support demands and interruptions. Structure the team so that some people can take care of second-level support, firefighting and emergency bug fixing and the rest of the team can keep moving forward and get something done. Build slack into schedules to allow for last-minute changes and support escalation. You will also have to be more careful in planning out maintenance work, to take into account technical and operational dependencies and constraints and risks. You’re working in the real world now, not the virtual reality of a project. Standups Standups play an important role in Agile projects to help teams come up to speed and bond. But most maintenance teams work fine without standups – since a lot of maintenance work can be done by one person working on their own, team members don’t need to listen to each other each morning talking about what they did yesterday and what they’re going to do – unless the team is working together on major changes. If someone has a question or runs into a problem, they can ask for help without waiting until the next day. Small releases Most changes and fixes that maintenance teams need to make are small, and there is almost always pressure from the business to get the code out as soon as it is ready, so an Agile approach with small and frequent releases makes a lot of sense. If the time boxes are short enough, the customer is less likely to interrupt and re-prioritize work in progress – most businesses can wait a few days or a couple of weeks to get something changed. Time boxing gives teams a way to control and structure their work, an opportunity to batch up related work to reduce development and testing costs, and natural opportunities to add in security controls and reviews and other gates. It also makes maintenance work more like a project, giving the team a chance to set goals and to see something get done. But time boxing comes with overhead – the planning and setup at the start, then deployment and reviews at the end – all of which adds up over time. Maintenance teams need to be ruthless with ceremonies and meetings, pare them down, keep only what’s necessary and what works. It’s even more important in maintenance than in development to remember that the goal is to deliver working code at the end of each time box. If some code is not working, or you’re not sure if it is working, then extend the deadline, back some of the changes out, or pull the plug on this release and start over. Don’t risk a production failure in order to hit an arbitrary deadline. If the team is having problems fitting work into time boxes, then stop and figure out what you’re doing wrong – the team is trying to do too much too fast, or the code is too unstable, or people don’t understand the code enough – and fix it and move on. Reviews and Retrospectives Retrospectives are important in maintenance to keep the team moving forward, to find better ways of working, and to solve problems. But like many practices, regular reviews reach a point of diminishing returns over time – people end up going through the motions. Once the team is setup, reviews don’t need to be done in each iteration unless the team runs into problems. Schedule reviews when you or the team need them. Collect data on how the team is working, on cycle time and bug report/fix ratios, correlate problems in production with changes, and get the team together to review if the numbers move off track. If the team runs into a serious problem like a major production failure, then get to the bottom of it through Root Cause Analysis. Sustainable pace / 40-hour week It’s not always possible to work a 40-hour week in maintenance. There are times when the team will be pushed to make urgent changes, spend late nights firefighting, releasing after hours and testing on weekends. But if this happens too often or goes on too long the team will burn out. It’s critical to establish a sustainable pace over the long term, to treat people fairly and give them a chance to do a good job. Pairing Pairing is hard to do in small teams where people are working on many different things. Pairing does make sense in some cases – people naturally pair-up when trying to debug a nasty problem or walking through a complicated change – but it’s not necessary to force it on people, and there are good reasons not to. Some teams (like mine) rely more on code reviews instead of pairing, or try to get developers to pair when first looking at a problem or change, and at the end again to review the code and tests. The important thing is to ensure that changes get looked at by at least one other person if possible, however this gets done. Collective Code Ownership Because maintenance teams are usually small and have to deal with a lot of different kinds of work, sooner or later different people will end up working on different parts of the code. It’s necessary, and it’s a good thing because people get a chance to learn more about the system and work with different technologies and on different problems. But there’s still a place for specialists in maintenance. You want the people who know the code the best to make emergency fixes or high-risk changes – or at least have them review the changes – because it has to work the first time. And sometimes you have no choice – sometimes there is only one person who understands a framework or language or technical problem well enough to get something done. Coding Guidelines – follow the rules Getting the team to follow coding guidelines is important in maintenance to help ensure the consistency and integrity of the code base over time – and to help ensure software security. Of course teams may have to compromise on coding standards and style conventions, depending on what they have inherited in the code base; and teams that maintain multiple systems will have to follow different guidelines for each system. Metaphor In XP, teams are supposed to share a Metaphor: a simple high-level expression of the system architecture (the system is a production line, or a bill of materials) and common names and patterns that can be used to describe the system. It’s a fuzzy concept at best, a weak substitute for more detailed architecture or design, and it’s not of much practical value in maintenance. Maintenance teams have to work with the architecture and patterns that are already in place in the system. What is important is making sure that the team has a common understanding of these patterns and the basic architecture so that the integrity isn’t lost – if it hasn’t been lost already. Getting the team together and reviewing the architecture, or reverse-engineering it, making sure that they all agree on it and documenting it in a simple way is important especially when taking over maintenance of a new system and when you are planning major changes. Simple Design Agile development teams start with simple designs and try to keep them simple. Maintenance teams have to work with whatever design and architecture that they inherit, which can be overwhelmingly complex, especially in bigger and older systems. But the driving principle should still be to design changes and new features as simple as the existing system lets you – and to simplify the system’s design further whenever you can. Especially when making small changes, simple, just-enough design is good – it means less documentation and less time and less cost. But maintenance teams need to be more risk adverse than development teams – even small mistakes can break compatibility or cause a run-time failure or open a security hole. This means that maintainers can’t be as iterative and free to take chances, and they need to spend more time upfront doing analysis, understanding the existing design and working through dependencies, as well as reviewing and testing their changes for regressions afterwards. Refactoring Refactoring takes on a lot of importance in maintenance. Every time a developer makes a change or fix they should consider how much refactoring work they should do and can do to make the code and design clearer and simpler, and to pay off technical debt. What and how much to refactor depends on what kind of work they are doing (making a well-thought-out isolated change, or doing shotgun surgery, or pushing out an emergency hot fix) and the time and risks involved, how well they understand the code, how good their tools are (development IDEs for Java and .NET at least have good built-in tools that make many refactorings simple and safe) and what kind of safety net they have in place to catch mistakes – automated tests, code reviews, static analysis. Some maintenance teams don’t refactor because they are too afraid of making mistakes. It’s a vicious circle – over time the code will get harder and harder to understand and change, and they will have more reasons to be more afraid. Others claim that a maintenance team is not working correctly if they don’t spend at least 50% of their time refactoring. The real answer is somewhere in between – enough refactoring to make changes and fixes safe. There are cases where extensive refactoring, restructuring or rewriting code is the right thing to do. Some code is too dangerous to change or too full of bugs to leave the way it is – studies show that in most systems, especially big systems, 80% of the bugs can cluster in 20% of the code. Restructuring or rewriting this code can pay off quickly, reducing problems in production, and significantly reducing the time needed to make changes and test them as you go forward. Continuous Testing Testing is even more important and necessary in maintenance than it is in development. And it’s a major part of maintenance costs. Most maintenance teams rely on developers to test their own changes and fixes by hand to make sure that the change worked and that they didn’t break anything as a side effect. Of course this makes testing expensive and inefficient and it limits how much work the team can do. In order to move fast, to make incremental changes and refactoring safe, the team needs a better safety net, by automating unit and functional tests and acceptance tests. It can take a long time to put in test scaffolding and tools and write a good set of automated tests. But even a simple test framework and a small set of core fat tests can pay back quickly in maintenance, because a lot changes (and bugs) tend to be concentrated in the same parts of the code – the same features, framework code and APIs get changed over and over again, and will need to be tested over and over again. You can start small, get these tests running quickly and reliably and get the team to rely on them, fill in the gaps with manual tests and reviews, and then fill out the tests over time. Once you have a basic test framework in place, developers can take advantage of TFD/TDD especially for bug fixes – the fix has to be tested anyways, so why not write the test first and make sure that you fixed what you were supposed to? Continuous Integration To get Continuous Testing to work, you need a Continuous Integration environment. Understanding, automating and streamlining the build and getting the CI server up and running and wiring in tests and static analysis checks and reporting can take a lot of work in an enterprise system, especially if you have to deal with multiple languages and platforms and dependencies between systems. But doing this work is also the foundation for simplifying release and deployment – frequent short releases means that release and deployment has to be made as simple as possible. Onsite Customer / Product Owner Working closely with the customer to make sure that the team is delivering what the customer needs when the customer needs it is as important in maintenance as it is in developing a new system. Getting a talented and committed Customer engaged is hard enough on a high-profile development project – but it’s even harder in maintenance. You may end up with too many customers with conflicting agendas competing for the team’s attention, or nobody who has the time or ability to answer questions and make decisions. Maintenance teams often have to make compromises and help fill in this role on their own. But it doesn’t all fit…. Kilner’s main point of concern isn’t really with Agile methods in maintenance. It’s with incremental design and development in general – that some work doesn’t fit nicely into short time boxes. Short iterations might work ok for bug fixes and small enhancements (they do), but sometimes you need to make bigger changes that have lots of dependencies. He argues that while Agile teams building new systems can stub out incomplete work and keep going in steps, maintenance teams have to get everything working all at once – it’s all or nothing. It’s not easy to see how big changes can be broken down into small steps that can be fit into short time boxes. I agree that this is harder in maintenance because you have to be more careful in understanding and untangling dependencies before you make changes, and you have to be more careful not to break things. The code and design will sometimes fight the kinds of changes that you need to make, because you need to do something that was never anticipated in the original design, or whatever design there was has been lost over time and any kind of change is hard to make. It’s not easy – but teams solve these problems all the time. You can use tools to figure out how much of a dependency mess you have in the code and what kind of changes you need to make to get out of this mess. If you are going to spend “weeks, months, or even years” to make changes to a system, then it makes sense to take time upfront to understand and break down build dependencies and isolate run-time dependencies, and put in test scaffolding and tests to protect the team from making mistakes as they go along. All of this can be done in time boxed steps. Just because you are following time boxes and simple, incremental design doesn’t mean that you start making changes without thinking them through. Read Working With Legacy Code – Michael Feathers walks through how to deal with these problems in detail, in both object oriented and procedural languages. What to do if it takes forever to make a change. How to break dependencies. How to find interception points and pinch points. How to find structure in the design and the code. What tests to write and how to get automated tests to work. Changing data in a production system, especially data shared with other systems, isn’t easy either. You need to plan out API changes and data structure changes as carefully as possible, but you can still make data and database changes in small, structured steps. To make code changes in steps you can use Branching by Abstraction where it makes sense (like making back-end changes) and you can protect customers from changes through Feature Flags and Dark Launching like Facebook and Twitter and Flickr do to continuously roll out changes – although you need to be careful, because if taken too far these practices can make code more fragile and harder to work with. Agile development teams follow incremental design and development to help them discover an optimal solution through trial-and-error. Maintenance teams work this way for a different reason – to manage technical risks by breaking big changes down and making small bets instead of big ones. Working this way means that you have to put in scaffolding (and remember to take it out afterwards) and plan out intermediate steps and review and test everything as you make each change. Sometimes it might feel like you are running in place, that it is taking longer and costing more. But getting there in small steps is much safer, and gives you a lot more control. Teams working on large legacy code bases and old technology platforms will have a harder time taking on these ideas and succeeding with them. But that doesn’t mean that they won’t work. Yes, you can be Agile in maintenance.

The Goal by Eli Goldratt is a business book in the form of a novel, where the protagonist must save his factory from closing due to very low productivity. The Goal is not limited to the management of a large organization (not even to for-profit companies): you simply have to define different units of measurement, like goal units instead of making money, the default goal. In fact, from the applications of the Theory of Constraints in our field I think it applies to software development too. What follows is my translation of the themes of The Goal to our field. The Goal is... Mking money, of course. For the ones of you with knowledge in accounting, the original goal is: raising throghput, the amounts of items sold (not produced) in the unit of time. Lowering investment/inventory, all the money tied up in the system in the form of assets that could be sold or products that stay in a warehouse. Lowering operational expense, all the money that we have spent as support and that cannot be recovered. How does these measurements apply to software development? A team does not always have an impact on contract negotiation, so often talking about money is far from everyday reality (kudos to you if you can apply that point of the Agile Manifesto.) The goal for software development can be translated, in my opinion, to: raising the throughput, the amount of features delivered (deployed, not implemented or tested) in the unit of time. You can measure this amount in story points, since feature vary in size. lowering investment/inventory, all the time tied up in the system in the form of undeployed or untested features that clutter the code base. In a minor part, also investment in the form of hardware, but that's by far less important than the team's time. lower operational expense, the time spent by developers every day in order to support the development. Automation is a kind of time investment that will bring more time (and quality) in the future, lowering operational expense. Like for material products, WIP has storage and opportunity costs which goes into the operational expense. Kanban is a tool that tries to reduce WIP in order to foster the two latter points. Throughput accounting This kind of throughput accounting is emphasized in the novel, over the use of cost accounting, where each developer (ehm, factory worker) has to be occupied all the time, even if the work he is doing isn't moving towards the goal: neverending refactoring. Specification of a feature which cannot be implemented until two months are gone, and will have to be rewritten. Implementation of features which won't be merged with the main branch any time soon. With Test-Driven Development, we are getting good at moving a feature from implemented to tested directly in the same commit. Yet the missing step is getting the feature to the users: maybe that's also what Continuous Deployment is all about... Dependent events Dependent events and statistical fluctuations are production systems topics that make a balanced plant close to bankruptcy: however, we're not at the point in which we can model our team as precisely as a factory. The basic point is that a plant in which everyone is working all the time is inefficient: when an early stage (like defining a specification or implementing a feature) gets delayed, downstream step such as deployment are dalayed too. Converely, when an upstream step finish earlier, the downstream stage is already at maximum efficiency and cannot process the intermediate result faster. I wonder if this applies to software development too. In a factory, workers are specialized and can do just a few jobs across the plant. Since workers and machines have different production rates, there will be just one bottleneck: the slowest one. If products have to pass from the bottleneck, anyone producing faster than the bottleneck will just accumulate WIP in front of him. Continuing with our example, if the analyst or domain expert is churning out specifications for new features every day, most of them are just WIP in front of the development team. Once there is an established buffer, any additional specification won't raise throughput any faster; instead, it will raise the inventory (partial features) and the time spent in managing it. I think this is not always true in the most technical phases of development instead. For example, in a small team a developer may be moved to testing or refactoring, or setting up Continuous Integration or evaluation of a new library. Unless you have a DBA which can just manage databases, your developer is not fixed into a stage of the system. The bottleneck The previous example featured a bottleneck, the most famous concept of the Theory of Constraints introduced in the book. This translation to the software development case is mine and could be incomplete. A feature (or a user story) has to pass in a series of stations where different people will work on it to make it real: specification from a domain expert, implementation from a technical team, extended testing with optional customer validation, deployment which should be fast but at the same time must not kill the current version of the application. Each station has an average velocity. By definition, there is a station which is the slowest and can process fewest story points in the unit of time. This is the bottleneck. (This is not always true, as velocity may vary greatly in time with the addition of new people or hidden lines discovered in a feature. Becoming good at estimation and stabilizing a team are two objectives that help reach the assumption.) You can identify a bottleneck by looking at where is the WIP: it will accumulate in front of it. If you already have a kanban board, this phase is simpler... Once identified, the throughput of the system can only be improved by raising the bottleneck's capacity enough so that it is no more a bottleneck. You can move people to it (keeping an eye on communication costs); ensure it is used at maximum efficiency by freeing the specialized developers from other mundane tasks. Now you can restart and find a new bottleneck... Conclusions This is just a little introduction to the themes of the Theory of Constraints and Goldratt's teachings; I don't pretend to explain the whole book in an article. It is also against the Socratic method: you should reach the answers yourself, and these are just examples from my experience. There is more to Goldratt and The Goal than bottlenecks and throughput, such as continuous improvement. If you're working or managing in a software development team, I suggest you to read this book if you have the opportunity. Even when freelancing, it is an eye-opener in moving towards a Goal instead of busyworking; and it's written with a never boring teaching method.

If you're looking for a cloud expert, specifically someone who knows Amazon Web Services and EC2, you'll want to have a battery of questions to assess their knowledge.

What happens when you have no product owner at all? How does a team know what features to develop in what order? Several teams I know encountered this. They all had product managers. Most of them had BAs. All of them had a technical manager who was willing to be their product owner, but they had no real product owner. They called themselves Scrum-but. I used to think this was ok. I now think Scrum-but is a bad label. That’s because agile needs a responsible person who is not part of the cross-functional technical team to rank the backlog so the team knows the order of the work. Without that person, the team does not know what to do. So why is it so bad for a team to call itself Scrum-but? Because it’s not Scrum-but. It’s not Scrum. It’s iterative and incremental, but it’s not even close to Scrum. It’s not agile. Johanna's General Agile Picture When you have no product owner who is not outside the team, or outside the hierarchy of the team, you lose something very precious to agility, the notion of the customer or customer surrogate. You lose the person who could be helping the team understand what the customer really wants. You lose the back-and-forth about the product that the customer helps the team understand. The manager can help the team understand the requirements, but the manager is not the customer. The manager is not the person who can set the real acceptance criteria. The manager can see the demo, but the manager cannot say for sure that the team is developing the correct requirements in the correct order. So why am I so insistent that we stop calling this Scrum-but, and even stop calling this agile? Because it breaks down the separation when-and-what-to-build (responsible person responsibility from ongoing incremental delivery of product on a regular basis (the cross-functional team responsibility). The customer or responsible person explains when-to-build in my little picture. The team decides how to build it. When the team manager gets involved, that allows the “business” to be unaccountable for developing the system. How do you know what is shippable product without the responsible person? The problem is this: System development, product development is a joint venture between the business people and the technical people. We need the legal, marketing, sales, and anyone else on the “business” side of the house to help us with the what-and-when to build decisions. That’s why we need a responsible person. In Scrum, that person is called a product owner. And, we need a technical project team to deliver the value. We use agile as an approach and use the demo because it shows business value every iteration. When the business is unaccountable, the agile ecosystem breaks down. We no longer have ideas coming into that funnel, being evaluated by that responsible person. Sure that responsible person has a lot to do. And, that responsible person should develop product roadmaps and make the potential product direction transparent to the rest of the organization. That way, the next iteration or two is clear for the team, and everyone can fight discuss the product direction. But when all the discussion is in the technical organization, those discussions tend to not happen. Or the discussions go off in a different direction than the product needs to go. And, that’s a Very Bad Thing. Because, when the discussions don’t occur, the technical group takes all the responsibility for the product: for what to build, when to build it, and for how to build it. And that means we have let the rest of the business abdicate all of their responsibility for their part of the product. That’s not the partnership agile promises us, nor is the transparency agile promises us. So, when you hear Scrum-but because you have no product owner, substitute “On the road to agile.” You’re actually iterative and incremental, but not agile. You have not made one of the necessary cultural changes for transitioning to agile. Can you keep doing what you are doing? Sure, if it’s working for you. And, that’s the million dollar question: How is this working for you? (If you would like more hints as to what else to do, consider my project management book, Manage It! Your Guide to Modern, Pragmatic Project Management. You have other options, if you cannot manage the agile cultural change right now. Those other options will help you move closer to agile than trying Scrum-but and failing.) This is one of the points—the agile ecosystem and making it succeed—I’m working on for my keynote at the Agile Vancouver conference in late October.

This is what Wikipedia writes about the watermelon: The Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.), family Cucurbitaceae) can be both the fruit and the plant of a vine-like (scrambler and trailer) plant originally from southern Africa, and is one of the most common types of melon. [...] The watermelon fruit, loosely considered a type of melon (although not in the genus Cucumis), has a smooth exterior rind (green, yellow and sometimes white) and a juicy, sweet interior flesh (usually pink, but sometimes orange, yellow, red and sometimes green if not ripe). Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.), family Cucurbitaceae) can be both the fruit and the plant of a vine-like (scrambler and trailer) plant originally from southern Africa, and is one of the most common types of melon. This flowering plant produces a special type of fruit known by botanists as a pepo, a berry which has a thick rind (exocarp) and fleshy center (mesocarp and endocarp); pepos are derived from an inferior ovary, and are characteristic of the Cucurbitaceae. The watermelon fruit, loosely considered a type of melon (although not in the genus Cucumis), has a smooth exterior rind (green, yellow and sometimes white) and a juicy, sweet interior flesh (usually pink, but sometimes orange, yellow, red and sometimes green if not ripe). For my metaphor, I’ll use the one with red flesh but orange and yellow would work too. I think most of us experienced the phenomenon when the project status is red but is getting greener and greener when climbing the management ladder. The project’s core is red but for the management it has a nice green paring, so it looks like a watermelon. This is why I call this phenomenon Watermelon Reporting. But why are we creating such reports and how can we avoid it? Why? The bearer of bad news already had a bad time in the ancient world. If he was lucky, they gave him the chop but in other cases they simply chopped his head of. This hasn’t changed until now but fortunately only in a figurative sense. Some bosses aren’t interested that there are problems with a project in their responsibility because if they know about it, they are in charge. So what do they do to avoid incurring the wrath of their boss ? They tweak the project status just a bit and the melon starts growing. Another reason could be that nobody wants to be in the focus of management, thus they embellish the project status in the hope that everything turns for the better. And as we all know hope is the last to die. In the end the result is the same.. Eventually the overripe melon bursts and there is no rescue for the project anymore. How to avoid it? The answer is easy: Transparency, transparency and transparency. If there is no way to hide the current status the watermelon can’t grow. Fortunately Scrum and other agile frameworks provide tools like burndown charts and backlogs to help the team with their transparency. But there are also tools like dashboards or kanban boards to do this job, but this will be the subject of one of my next blog posts. Conclusion The nuts and bolts of any project are transparency. If the project status is transparent, the watermelons can’t arise. If anybody is able to get the information, it will be difficult to hide something.

I recently attended the Agile Coach Gathering UK in Bletchley Park near London. I met a lot of interesting people, had some great talks and discussion and learned a ton. As the gathering was an open space conference I also proposed a session with the topic “What’s your favorite Agile Game?”. The goal was to collect some great games I could play in my next Scrum or Kanban trainings. A fun fact of this session was that everybody found out that we knew more games than we expected before. We came up with the following list of games. P&Q P&Q is not really a game but a collaborative process. The P&Q is a simple process which makes just two things; “P’s” and “Q’s.” The objective of the exercise is to make a decision as to how to best maximize the profit of this process. A more precise description can be found here. The XP Game The XP Game if one of the oldest and most known games in the agile community. The XP Game is a playful way to familiarize the players with some of the more difficult concepts of the XP Planning Game, like velocity, story estimation, yesterday’s weather and the cycle of life. A detailed description of the game can be found here. There are several variations of the game but my personal favorite is the LEGO(c) XP Game. I’m a big LEGO(c) fan and use any excuse to play with those bricks. Here are some photos of a team playing this game. I highly recommend this game to any team new to agile. Scrum from hell Scrum from hell is more a role play than a game and simulates a dysfunctional daily scrum meeting. It is always fun observing the participants playing the roles. The duration of this game is only 15 minutes and a must for any Scrum training. A description of this game can be found here. The communication game As I don’t have the real name of this game I just named it this way. This game is all about communication. The following roles are part of this game: Client Business Analyst Architect Developer In the first round nobody is allowed to speak. The client describes his requirements as written document to the business analyst and the BA passes on what he did understand to his architect and finally to the developer. As the info arrives at the developer he starts to build what he understood. When he is ready the review starts. In most cases the client don’t get what he has expected. In the second round everybody is allowed to speak and ask questions. In most cases this leads to a product the client asked for. If you have some more info about this game or even some artifacts, leave a comment. The ballpoint game This game is also one of my favorites. It’s about passing as many balls as possible between the players during a given time. With this game the concept of iterations/sprints and retrospective are explained. I already posted a more detailed description of this game in my blog which can be found here. Making paper hats In this game the concepts of velocity and iteration/sprint are explained. The main goal is to map the planned amount of paper hats with the actual amount. This game can also be played by blowing balloons or any other simple task. The customer in this game tries to push the development team to build as many paper hats as possible during an iteration. The result is that most of the build paper hats are useless as the quality is quite low. The customer keeps pushing until the team realizes that they are only able to build x paper hats during one iteration in the requested quality. Now the team knows his own velocity and is able to negotiate with the customer on the maximum number of paper hat. Another outcome of this game is that the player realize that quality is not negotiable. If someone has a link to a more precise description, please leave a comment. Other games There are a lot of agile games online. During the session I suggested the following places to search for additional games: http://www.tastycupcakes.com – This is a great resource for agile games. I highly recommend to have look here http://www.kanbangames.net – On this page you’ll find some games explaining the concepts of kanban and lean software development. AgileGames on Google Groups – If you’re interested in the newest games or want to discuss about games, this is the place to go. Come and join our group. If you have any other resources or any other addition to this blog post, feel free to leave a comment.

The Agile Chronicles is a set of articles documenting my experiences using an Agile process (Scrum) in software development on my current Flex project. Part 1 – Stressful Part 2 – Code Refactoring Part 3 – Branch Workflow Part 4 – POC, Strategy, and Design Challenges Part 5 – Acceptance Criteria & Punting Part 6 – Tools, Extra Merge Day, and Postponed Transitions Part 7 – Bugs, Unit Testing, and Throughput Part 8 – Demo, Burnout, and Feature Juggling Part 9 – Scope Creep Part 10 – Conclusions This entry is about defining what the acceptance criteria for user stories are so you can confirm you really did complete them during the UAT at the end of the sprint. It’s also about determining when you should abort a task that is taking too much time. Acceptance Criteria – Is the User Story Really Done? Each of our 2 week sprints include a set of user stories each developer must complete by the end of the sprint. We naturally overload our selves to ensure we have an added sense of urgency, additional user stories to tackle of we encounter a major roadblock to completing a particular story, and to clearly articulate what is priority in a bigger picture. On the 2nd Friday, we do our UAT (User Acceptance Testing). The way we do it is go through the latest build from SVN’s trunk, and collectively try to do each of the user stories. Like, “User story #32 says, ‘The user can type in their user name and password, and if they are a registered user, they will be taken to the main screen’”. If this happens, that user story is complete, we get confirmation from the client as such, and move to the next. It’s not always that black and white, though. Some user stories, even if still simple, have certain acceptance criteria associated with them. The first, and only, acceptance criteria we used in the beginning was what I just described; clearly written user stories that are easily testable. As the application grows in complexity, and certain things are assumed to go along with the user story, we’ve had to add some acceptance criteria to certain user stories. For example, even though in Sprint #1 I did in fact get the login working, none of the fonts were correct, and the alignment on some of the graphics were off. This was obvious to all, including me. Did this mean that I still completed the user story? Yes. “Yes” according to who? The client. Therefore, user story acceptance criteria seems client driven. Some clients, those not like the kind agencies have, are more functionality oriented and they don’t notice subtle design inconsistencies all the time like Verdana vs. Helvetica LT 57 Condensed. Others are more about design, and less about functionality. Some are both. Our particular client is more on the functionality side of the fence because we are working with them to complete functionality; it’s not just us working alone. That said, it still seems like each user story has it’s own unique acceptance criteria. This isn’t always easy to do, either. You really need to announce the assumptions because if you don’t, one thing you can count on is the following Friday’s UAT pointing them out; either they were assumed, and are in there, or weren’t, and aren’t. Sometimes you don’t know what those assumptions are, and thus, yet again one of the validations of using iterative development in short sprints; getting the functionality done quickly and in front of the client so they can see those assumptions. Regardless, this is something our project manager and client have been doing every Monday, both during and after, our planning session. Adding more implied functionality to a user story implies it could be more challenging, thus more work involved, and thus worth more points. This in turn affects how many user stories should be tackled per sprint. Punt – You’re in a downward spiral, pull up! You ever attempt to code something really hard, and not quite get there? Or worse, you keep getting close, yet every step feels like you’re only getting farther away as you start running out of ideas… or you have less time to implement your new ideas? This is what I call the downward spiral, akin to an airplane which stalled from going too high too quickly, and now is in a downward spiral. It can happen to those who compensate for lack of intelligence with willpower (me) and those who are smart, get in the zone, and never come out. I did that this sprint, badly. I had a really challenging component, a sub-task in a user story, and greatly underestimated my ability to pull it off. As the days wore on, my determination only increased. Two times I had a “flashback” to my Flash days, and thought about ways of faking it as well as having a plan B. Upon taking 10 minutes to test my Plan B three days in, I realized my Plan B wasn’t going to work either. I then started to do the math, and figure out how many days I had left in the Sprint, and how many user stories I had left to complete in those days. I was over what I should of been. In short, I was screwed. There is an old investment lesson called “cutting your losses”. It’s about recognizing that your investment in a particular company or mutual fund is bad. The company could be blatantly going downhill, and you can’t sell short for whatever reason (selling a hammer to someone, and then buying it back for less than you sold it for). So, the only option is to pull your money out before you lose more money. It’s the right business decision to do. The analogy is an alligator has bitten your arm. You can run, and lose your arm, or attempt to kick it, and hope it opens its mouth long enough for you to pull your arm out. This is usually destined to be bad because you could then lose your leg… or worse. Same with bad investments. If they are bad, pull your money out. The only thing you have to show for it is the money you saved. Same with aborting coding a component you won’t complete in a reasonable time frame. By stopping your aren’t giving up. People like me take it very personally, and perceive it as giving up. Jesse Warden doesn’t give up. I really have to change my mindset that, given enough time, I could complete it. However, there are more important things left to be done, so I put it “on hold”. Whatever bs you tell yourself to pull up out of the downward spiral will do. This is what I call punting. Punting is a play that you do in American football. If you’re on offense, your goal is to carry the ball into the opponents end zone. If you don’t get far enough after your allotted 4 downs, you’re going to be in trouble if the opponent gets the ball, and is closer to your end zone than you their’s. So, you punt; kick the ball as far as you can down towards their end zone, yet not on it, in the hopes you make them travel as far as possible back to your end zone. If for whatever reason, your team cannot take the ball to the opponents end zone by 3rd down, on the 4th, you need to make the decision: Do you go for it or do you not take the risk and end up screwing yourself if you don’t make it, and punt instead? In American Football, this can be a very complicated decision. In Agile software, not so much. Do the math; how many days / hours do you have to play with to hit the rest of your user stories? Is it worth it to you to work 12 hour days just in case your risk doesn’t pay off? It is it worth it to work 12 hour days EVEN IF you end up failing? I did the math too late this time, but won’t make that same mistake again. That’s what I’ll keep telling myself as I work this Saturday on Thanksgiving weekend, and next week as I work 12 hour days.

The Eclipse Communication Framework has been a steady participant in the Eclipse release trains, continuously adding to its impressive list of features. This year’s inclusion of ECF 3.5 in the Indigo release train is no exception. In this article, I'll take a look at five key features of the release: OSGi 4.2 Remote Services/RSA Standards Support ECF Indigo implements two recently-completed OSGi standards: OSGi remote services and OSGi Remote Service Admin (RSA). The OSGi Remote Services spec provides a simple, standardized way to expose OSGi services for network discovery and remote access. ECF Indigo also implements the Enterprise specification for remote services management known as Remote Services Admin (RSA). The RSA specification defines a management agent to allow for enterprise-application control of the discovery and distribution of remote services via a standardized API. Also included in the RSA specification is a standardized format for communicating meta-data about remote services, advanced handling of security, discovery and distribution event notification, and advanced handling of remote service versioning. ECF has run its implementation of RS/RSA through the OSGi Test Compatability Kit to ensure that it is compliant with the OSGi specification. Extensibility through Provider Architecture ECF has a provider architecture, that allows major components of the OSGi remote services/RSA implementation to be extended, enhanced, or replaced as needed. For example, for interoperability with existing services and applications, it’s frequently desirable to be able to substitute the wire protocol/transport to one that is already being used. With the ECF provider architecture, it’s possible to substitute the underlying protocol...and use other frameworks based upon REST, SOAP, JMS, XML-RPC, XMPP, and/or others. If you wish, you can even define and use a proprietary provider and use it to expose your remote services. Or you can use one provider for remote services development and testing, and another for deployment. Asynchronous Proxies ECF has support for remote service access via asynchronous proxies. This allows client consumers of remote services to avoid the reliability problems that are frequent when synchronous proxies are used over a relatively slow and unreliable network. The choice of whether to use synchronous or asynchronous proxies is up to the programmer, and can be made at runtime. Here is more information about this feature of ECF’s remote services implementation. XML-RPC provider ECF Indigo has an XML-RPC-based provider, which implements the remote services API. Remote Service invocation through a proxy and/or async proxy is supported too. In addition to being usable for interoperability with existing XML-RPC-based services, it can also be used as an example of how to easily use an existing framework to create a remote service provider. Google wave provider Although discontinued by Google, Wave is an open protocol with an open source implementation of the Wave server available. This means you can still build applications that take advantage of the real time shared editing functionality from within your Eclipse environment using this provider. Already, ECF provides real time shared editing using cola. This is limited to two users on a a document at a time - using the Wave provider, you could have multiple authors collaborating on the same document. Mustafa and Sebastian created a multiplayer Android phone game for EclipseCon this year, using the Wave protocol for concurrency control. Take a look at the results in the video below. ECF on Other OSGi Frameworks You're not limited to running ECF on Equinox anymore: ECF4Felix allows ECF to run on the Felix OSGi framework. So far testing has only been done on Felix. But if you are willing to help with testing ECF Remote Services/RSA on another framework, please send an email to the ecf-dev mailing list. ECF Documentation Project ECF recently started the ECF Documentation Project. This project is an approach to improve the amount and quality of the ECF documentation with the help of the committer, contributor, and consumer communities. It also aims to use of ECF for new and existing consumers. Currently this includes a Users Guide and an Integrators Guide. As a user of ECF, the documentation effort is a huge help in getting ECF to work right within your application. Great credit is due to the ECF team for this, and all other features listed here. ECF wiki: http://wiki.eclipse.org/ECF Remote services section of ECF wiki: http://wiki.eclipse.org/ECF#OSGi_Remote_Services OSGi compendium specification (Chap 13 is Remote Services): http://www.osgi.org/download/r4v42/r4.cmpn.pdf OSGi Enterprise Specification (Chap 122 is RSA): http://www.osgi.org/download/r4v42/r4.enterprise.pdf RSA wiki pages: http://wiki.eclipse.org/Remote_Services_Admin Getting Started with Remote Services: http://wiki.eclipse.org/EIG:Getting_Started_with_OSGi_Remote_Services Asynchronous Proxies (examples): http://wiki.eclipse.org/Asynchronous_Proxies_for_Remote_Services ECF Builder: https://build.ecf-project.org/jenkins/ ECF Github site (other providers, examples, Wave, and Newsreader) : https://github.com/ECF ECF4Felix: https://github.com/ECF/ECF4Felix

Here are some Java interview questions which are un-common What is the performance effect of a large number of import statements which are not used? Answer: They are ignored if the corresponding class is not used. Give a scenario where hotspot will optimize your code? Answer: If we have defined a variable as static and then initialized this variable in a static block then the Hotspot will merge the variable and the initialization in a single statement and hence reduce the code. What will happen if an exception is thrown from the finally block? Answer: The program will exit if the exception is not catched in the finally block. How does decorator design pattern works in I/O classes? Answer: The various classes like BufferedReader , BufferedWriter workk on the underlying stream classes. Thus Buffered* class will provide a Buffer for Reader/Writer classes. If I give you an assignment to design Shopping cart web application, how will you define the architecture of this application. You are free to choose any framework, tool or server? Answer: Usually I will choose a MVC framework which will make me use other design patterns like Front Controller, Business Delegate, Service Locater, DAO, DTO, Loose Coupling etc. Struts 2 is very easy to configure and comes with other plugins like Tiles, Velocity and Validator etc. The architecture of Struts becomes the architecture of my application with various actions and corresponding JSP pages in place. What is a deadlock in Java? How will you detect and get rid of deadlocks? Answer: Deadlock exists when two threads try to get hold of a object which is already held by another object. Why is it better to use hibernate than JDBC for database interaction in various Java applications? Answer: Hibernate provides an OO view of the database by mapping the various classes to the database tables. This helps in thinking in terms of the OO language then in RDBMS terms and hence increases productivity. How can one call one constructor from another constructor in a class? Answer: Use the this() method to refer to constructors. What is the purpose of intern() method in the String class? Answer: It helps in moving the normal string objects to move to the String literal pool How will you make your web application to use the https protocol? Answer: This has more to do with the particular server being used than the application itself. Here is how it can be done on tomcat: http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-4.1-doc/ssl-howto.html From http://extreme-java.blogspot.com/2011/05/10-tricky-java-interview-questions.html

An automated regression suite can play a vital role on a software project, valuable both for reducing defects in production and essential for evolutionary design. In talking with development teams I've often heard about the problem of non-deterministic tests - tests that sometimes pass and sometimes fail. Left uncontrolled, non-deterministic tests can completely destroy the value of an automated regression suite. In this article I outline how to deal with non-deterministic tests. Initially quarantine helps to reduce their damage to other tests, but you still have to fix them soon. Therefore I discuss treatments for the common causes for non-determinism: lack of isolation, asynchronous behavior, remote services, time, and resource leaks. I've enjoyed watching ThoughtWorks tackle many difficult enterprise applications, bringing successful deliveries to many clients who have rarely seen success. Our experiences have been a great demonstration that agile methods, deeply controversial and distrusted when we wrote the manifesto a decade ago, can be used successfully. There are many flavors of agile development out there, but in what we do there is a central role for automated testing. Automated testing was a core approach to Extreme Programming from the beginning, and that philosophy has been the biggest inspiration to our agile work. So we've gained a lot of experience in using automated testing as a core part of software development. Automated testing can look easy when presented in a text book. And indeed the basic ideas are really quite simple. But in the pressure-cooker of a delivery project, trials come up that are often not given much attention in texts. As I know too well, authors have a habit of skimming over many details in order to get a core point across. In my conversations with our delivery teams, one recurring problem that we've run into is tests which have become unreliable, so unreliable that people don't pay much attention to whether they pass or fail. A primary cause of this unreliability is that some tests have become non-deterministic. A test is non-deterministic when it passes sometimes and fails sometimes, without any noticeable change in the code, tests, or environment. Such tests fail, then you re-run them and they pass. Test failures for such tests are seemingly random. Non-determinism can plague any kind of test, but it's particularly prone to affect tests with a broad scope, such as acceptance or functional tests. Why non-deterministic tests are a problem Non-deterministic tests have two problems, firstly they are useless, secondly they are a virulent infection that can completely ruin your entire test suite. As a result they need to be dealt with as soon as you can, before your entire deployment pipeline is compromised. I'll start with expanding on their uselessness. The primary benefit of having automated tests is that they provide bug detection mechanism by acting as regression tests[1]. When a regression test goes red, you know you've got an immediate problem, often because a bug has crept into the system without you realizing. Having such a bug detector has huge benefits. Most obviously it means that you can find and fix bugs just after they are introduced. Not just does this give you the warm fuzzies because you kill bugs quickly, it also makes it easier to remove them since you know the bug got in with the last set of changes that are fresh in your mind. As a result you know where to look for the bug, which is more than half the battle in squashing it. The second level of benefit is that as you gain confidence in your bug detector, you gain the courage to make big changes knowing that when you goof, the bug detector will go off and you can fix the mistake quickly. [2] Without this teams are frightened to make the changes code needs in order to be kept clean, which leads to a rotting of the code base and plummeting development speed. The trouble with non-deterministic tests is that when they go red, you have no idea whether its due to a bug, or just part of the non-deterministic behavior. Usually with these tests a non-deterministic failure is relatively common, so you end up shrugging your shoulders when these tests go red. Once you start ignoring a regression test failure, then that test is useless and you might as well throw it away. Indeed you really ought to throw a non-deterministic test away, since if you don't it has an infectious quality. If you have a suite of 100 tests with 10 non-deterministic tests in them, than that suite will often fail. Initially people will look at the failure report and notice that the failures are in non-deterministic tests, but soon they'll lose the discipline to do that. Once that discipline is lost, then a failure in the healthy deterministic tests will get ignored too. At that point you've lots the whole game and might as well get rid of all the tests. Quarantine My principal aim in this article is to outline common cases of non-deterministic tests and how to eliminate the non-determinism. But before I get there I offer one piece of essential advice: quarantine your non-deterministic tests. If you have non-deterministic tests keep them in a different test suite to your healthy tests. That way you'll you can continue to pay attention to what's going on with your healthy tests and get good feedback from them. Place any non-deterministic test in a quarantined area. (But fix quarantined tests quickly.) Then the question is what to do with the quarantined test suites. They are useless as regression tests, but they do have a future as work items for cleaning up. You should not abandon such tests, since any tests you have in quarantine are not helping you with your regression coverage. A danger here is that tests keep getting thrown into quarantine and forgotten, which means your bug detection system is eroding. As a result it's worthwhile to have a mechanism that ensures that tests don't stay in quarantine too long. I've come across various ways to do this. One is a simple numeric limit: e.g. only allow 8 tests in quarantine. Once you hit the limit you must spend time to clear all the tests out. This has the advantage of batching up your test-cleaning if that's how you like to do things. Another route is to put a time limit on how long a test may be in quarantine, such as no longer than a week. The general approach with quarantine is to take the quarantined tests out of the main deployment pipeline so that you still get your regular build process. However a good team can be more aggressive. Our Mingle team puts its quarantine suite into the deployment pipeline one stage after its healthy tests. That way it can get the feedback from the healthy tests but is also forced to ensure that it sorts out the quarantined tests quickly. [3] Lack of Isolation In order to get tests to run reliably, you must have clear control over the environment in which they run, so you have a well-known state at the beginning of the test. If one test creates some data in the database and leaves it lying around, it can corrupt the run of another test which may rely on a different database state. Therefore I find it's really important to focus on keeping tests isolated. Properly isolated tests can be run in any sequence. As you get to larger operational scope of functional tests, it gets progressively harder to keep tests isolated. When you are tracking down a non-determinism, lack of isolation is a common and frustrating cause. Keep your tests isolated from each other, so that execution of one test will not affect any others. There are a couple of ways to get isolation - either always rebuild your starting state from scratch, or ensure that each test cleans up properly after itself. In general I prefer the former, as it's often easier - and in particular easier to find the source of a problem. If a test fails because it didn't build up the initial state properly, then it's easy to see which test contains the bug. With clean-up, however, one test will contain the bug, but another test will fail - so it's hard to find the real problem. Starting from a blank state is usually easy with unit tests, but can be much harder with functional tests [4] - particularly if you have a lot of data in a database that needs to be there. Rebuilding the database each time can add a lot of time to test runs, so that argues for switching to a clean-up strategy. One trick that's handy when you're using databases, is to conduct your tests inside a transaction, and then to rollback the transaction at the end of the test. That way the transaction manager cleans up for you, reducing the chance of errors[5]. Another approach is to do a single build of a mostly-immutable starting fixture before running a group of tests. Then ensure that the tests don't change that initial state (or if they do, they reverse the changes in tear-down). This tactic is more error-prone than rebuilding the fixture for each test, but it may be worthwhile iff it takes too long to build the fixture each time. Although databases are a common cause for isolation problems, there are plenty of times you can get these in-memory too. In particular be aware with static data and singletons. A good example for this kind of problem is contextual environment, such as the currently logged in user. If you have an explicit tear-down in a test, be wary of exceptions that occur during the tear-down. If this happens the test can pass, but cause isolation failures for subsequent tests. So ensure that if you do get a problem in a tear-down, it makes a loud noise. Some people prefer to put less emphasis on isolation and more on defining clear dependencies to force tests to run in a specified order. I prefer isolation because it gives you more flexibility in running subsets of tests and parallelizing tests. Asynchronous Behavior Asynchrony is a boon that allows you to keep software responsive while taking on long term tasks. Ajax calls allow a browser to stay responsive while going back to the server for more data, asynchronous message allow a server process to communicate with other system without being tied to their laggardly latency. But in testing, asynchrony can be curse. The common mistake here is to throw in a sleep: //pseudo-code makeAsyncCall; sleep(aWhile); readResponse; This can bite you two ways. First off you'll want to set the sleep time to long enough that it gives plenty of time to get the response. But that means that you'll spend a lot of time idly waiting for the response, thus slowing down your tests. The second bite is that, however long you sleep, sometimes it won't be enough. There will be some change in environment that will cause you to exceed the sleep - and you'll get false failure. As a result I strongly urge you to never use bare sleeps like this. Never use bare sleeps to wait for asynchonous responses: use a callback or polling. There are basically two tactics you can do for testing an asynchronous response. The first is for the asynchronous service to take a callback which it can call when done. This is the best since it means you'll never have to wait any longer than you need to [6]. The biggest problem with this is that the environment needs to be able to do this and then the service provider needs to do it. This is one of the advantages of having the development team integrated with testing - if they can provide a callback then they will. The second option is to poll on the answer. This is more than just looking once, but looking regularly, something like this //pseudo-code makeAsyncCall startTime = Time.now; while(! responseReceived) { if (Time.now - startTime > waitLimit) throw new TestTimeoutException; sleep (pollingInterval); } readResponse The point of this approach is that you can set the pollingInterval to a pretty small value, and know that that's the maximum amount of dead time you'll lose to waiting for a response. This means you can set the waitLimit very high, which minimizes the chance of hitting it unless something serious has gone wrong. [7] Make sure you use a clear exception class that indicates this is a test timeout that's failing. This will help make it clear what's gone wrong should it happen, and perhaps allow a more sophisticated test harness to take account of this information in its display. The time values, in particular the waitLimit, should never be literal values. Make sure they are always values that can be easily set in bulk, either by using constants or set through the runtime environment. That way if you need to tweak them (and you will) you can tweak them all quickly. All this advice is handy for async calls where you expect a response from the provider, but how about those where there is no response. These are calls where we invoke a command on something and expect it to happen without any acknowledgment. This is the trickiest case since you can test for your expected response, but there's nothing to do to detect a failure other than timing-out. If the provider is something you're building you can handle this by ensuring the provider implements some way of indicating that it's done - essentially some form of callback. Even if only the testing code uses it, it's worth it - although often you'll find this kind of functionality is valuable for other purposes too[8]. If the provider is someone else's work, you can try persuasion, but otherwise may be stuck. Although this is also a case when using Test Doubles for remote services is worthwhile (which I'll discuss more in the next section). If you have a general failure in something asynchronous, such that it's not responding at all, then you'll always be waiting for timeouts and your test suite will take a long time to fail. To combat this it's a good idea to use a smoke test to check that the asynchronous service is responding at all and stop the test run right away if it isn't. Gerard Meszaros's book, xUnit Test Patterns, contains lots of good patterns for constructing tests. You can also often side-step the asynchrony completely. Gerard Meszaros's Humble Object pattern says that whenever you have some logic that's in a hard-to-test environment, you should isolate the logic you need to test from that environment. In this case it means put most of the logic you need to test in a place where you can test it synchronously. The asynchronous behavior should be as minimal (humble) as possible, that way you don't need that much testing of it. Remote Services Sometimes I'm asked if ThoughtWorks does any integration work, which I find somewhat amusing since there's hardly any project we do that doesn't involve a fair bit of integration. By their nature, enterprise applications involve a great deal of combining data from different systems. These systems are maintained by other teams operating to their own schedules, teams that often use a very different software philosophy to our heavily test-driven agile approach. Testing with such remote systems brings a number of problems, and non-determinism is high on the list. Often remote systems don't have test system we can call, which means hitting a live system. If there is a test system, it may not be stable enough to provide deterministic responses. In this situation it's vital to ensure determinism, so it's time to reach for a Test Double - a component that looks like the remote service, but is really just a pretend version that mimics the remote system's behavior. The double needs to be setup so that provides the right kind of response in interaction with our system, but in a way we control. In this manner we can ensure determinism. Using a double has a downside, in particular when we are testing across a broad scope. How can we be sure that the double behaves in the same way that remote system does? We can tackle this again using tests, a form of test that I call Integration Contract Tests. These run the same interaction with the remote system and the double, and check that the two match. In this case 'match' may not mean coming up with the same result (due to the non-determinisms), but results that share the same essential structure. Integration Contract Tests need to be run frequently, but not part of our system's deployment pipeline. Periodic running based on the rate of the change of the remote system is usually best. For writing these kinds of test doubles, I'm a big fan of Self Initializing Fakes - since these are very simple to manage. Some people are firmly against using Test Doubles in functional tests, believing that you must test with real connection in order to ensure end-to-end behavior. While I sympathize with their argument, automated tests are useless if they are non-deterministic. So any advantage you gain by talking to the real system is overwhelmed by the need to stamp out non-determinism[9]. Time Few things are more non-deterministic than a call to the system clock. Each time you call it, you get a new result, and any tests that depend on it can thus change. Ask for all the todos due in the next hour, and you regularly get a different answer[10]. The most important thing here is to ensure that you always wrap the system clock with routines that can be replaced with a seeded value for testing. A clock stub can be set to particular time and frozen at that time, allowing your tests to have complete control over its movements. That way you can synchronize your test data to the values in the seeded clock.[11][12] Always wrap the system clock, so it can be easily substituted for testing. One thing to watch with this, is that eventually your test data might start having problems because it's too old, and you get conflicts with other time based factors in your application. In this case you can move the data, and your clock seeds to new values. When you do this, ensure that this is the only thing you do. That way you can be sure that any tests that fail are due to time-movement in the test data. Another area where time can be a problem is when you rely on other behaviors from the clock. I once saw a system that generated random keys based on clock values. This systems started failing when it was moved to a faster machine that could allocate multiple ids within a single clock tick.[13] I've heard so many problems due to direct calls to the system clock that I'd argue for finding a way to use code analysis to detect any direct calls to the system clock and failing the build right there. Even a simple regex check might save you a frustrating debugging session after a call at an ungodly hour. Resource Leaks If your application has some kind of resource leak, this will lead to random tests failing, since it's just which test causes the resource leak to go over a limit that gets the failure. This case is awkward because any test can fail intermittently due to this problem. If it isn't a case of one test being non-deterministic then resource leaks are a good candidate to investigate. By resource leak, I mean any resource that the application has to manage by acquiring and releasing. In non-memory-managed environments, the obvious example is memory. Memory-management did much to remove this problem, but other resources still need to be managed, such as database connections. Usually the best way to handle these kind of resources is through a Resource Pool. If you do this then a good tactic is to configure the pool to a size of 1 and make it throw an exception should it get a request for a resource when it has none left to give. That way the first test to request a resource after the leak will fail - which makes it a lot easier to find the problem test. This idea of limiting resource pool sizes, is about increasing constraints to make errors more likely to crop up in tests. This is good because we want errors to show in tests so we can fix them before they manifest themselves in production. This principle can be used in other ways too. One story I heard was of a system which generated randomly named temporary files, didn't clean them up properly, and crashed on a collision. This kind of bug is very hard to find, but one way to manifest it is to stub the randomizer for testing so it always returns the same value. That way you can surface the problem more quickly.