?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Bugs, Meetings, Testing - brad's life — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Brad Fitzpatrick

[ website | bradfitz.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Bugs, Meetings, Testing [Jul. 10th, 2005|11:46 pm]
Brad Fitzpatrick
[Tags|, , , , ]

So the combination of like four of us teamed up to contribute seemingly benign patches which in combination produced a bug that was caught and fixed within hours of release.

It was suggested that we have a post-mortem to discuss it, but I, being stubborn, said I wouldn't be attending, since we'd already had a suitable (I thought) post-mortem with the developers involved the night of the bug, and we'd recently had a long post-mortem for another unrelated issue that ended up covering tons of stuff, so I thought nothing new could come of this 3rd post-mortem that wasn't already covered in the first two, short of playing the blame game or something.

Ah, but I was wrong.

While I wanted to avoid a meeting and perhaps hack, it appears my time savings argument was fruitless as I've likely spent more time reading/writing emails about the meeting and the issue than the proposed meeting would've taken had I just attended.

So I admit defeat, and in addition to having spent time and my precious wrists/fingers writing emails, I will also be attending the meeting, if only to cut my losses and not type anymore.

But it might be fun as I'd love to discuss writing a test suite to cover the entirety of LiveJournal. Historically I've shunned tests, mostly because anything non-trivial I work with is distributed on lots of machines, deals with timing, and is just generally a bitch to test accurately. Lately, however, I've had success writing test suites of pretty complicated things, like LWPx::ParanoidAgent, OpenID, and just this weekend with Ben, Gearman (which Ben pretty much did).

So I'm warming up to automated testing, especially considering it'd be something the sysadmins could run first to feel better about code being pushed, and there'd be proof in the code repo that a test was or was not written. (which there would then be policy to include)

In conclusion: fun, fun.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: grahams
2005-07-11 02:16 pm (UTC)
I think my resistance to automated testing is starting to wane as well... It never made much sense to me in my head, but we just hired a kid who graduated from RIT's Soft. Engr. program and of course, like every recent college graduate, he is anxious to apply all the stuff he learned in school...

We assigned him to some maintenance for one of his first projects here, and he wrote some JUnit tests for some of the code he had to work with and his results were surprising.. His tests identified where the bugs we assigned him to fix were located, and he was able to fix them pretty quickly...

While I think my "just hack it" background is still making it hard for me to make out with automated/unit testing, I was impressed... I'm starting a new project here at work in a few weeks, and I think I am going to give it a shot maintaining a test suite for the whole thing.
(Reply) (Thread)