Talk About Quality

Software is not construction

Software is not construction, no matter how popular that statement may be. A program is not a building. Parts are not chosen first and then fitted into place. Design continues almost to the last minutes of coding. Further, almost nobody spends time creating new code, at least not for very long. Sure there are new products and new codebases. But even then, after a short period, most additional coding is extending or changing an existing codebase. So if coding is not construction, and mostly involves changing what’s already created, what is it?

Well, coding is writing. It’s using text to communicate a message. That may not sound like much, but understanding this helps a lot. Instead of struggling to make up new ways of thinking and learning, as if programming were a completely new human activity, we can look at how good writers write. People have been writing for many hundreds of years, and have become pretty good at it.

Learning to write

How do people get into writing? Do we start, as most do in programming, full grown, writing essays? No, not at all. We start as children, and learn first to talk, then to read, and finally to write. Yes, I know that school seems to teach writing, at least forming the letters, before reading. But it’s an illusion: listening to a bedtime story is essentially reading – paying attention to someone else’s writing, and understanding it – and comes before writing. Most people don’t try writing that communicates a message – expository prose – until secondary school or later.

Good writers have their audience in mind at all times. They edit their writing through several drafts, as well as getting others to review it, and give written comments. And they talk about their writing. Maybe not always directly, but when a political columnist goes to a dinner party, you can bet he’ll talk politics. When a novelist chats in the park, she’s talking about the same human struggles that will later appear in her books. Even for the solitary writer typing in a darkened room, the life that feeds the writing is one of talking with, listening to, and reading about people.

Software is Writing

Now back to software: software is not like writing, it is writing. In our industrial setting, it is too late or too radical to suggest re-teaching programming, by teaching first how to talk, then to read, then to write programs. But we can highlight where daily programming work already involves each of these three activities, and where it doesn’t, but should.

Talking includes formal design reviews and code reviews, but also whiteboard conversations and hallway arguments. How should I write this here? Why is that data structure that way? Why does the compiler give that warning? Don’t just think alone – talk it out with someone nearby. It is the same with tests. Why does that scenario fail intermittently? How should I write it differently? And even for defect entries -what does the submitter really mean? Phone him up. Why does this change fix the problem? Find the developer and ask.

Reading is for design documents, training materials and perhaps professional books. But mainly, it includes reading lots of existing code. That’s reading it until you’re really sure what it does, so you know how to change it, fix it, extend it. There is also code review — where the author asks you to read their code, not just to say that it looks fine, but to identify what’s wrong, or unclear.

Writing is the coding, of course. But who is the audience? There are two audiences. One, the compiler, which is your personal translator, from a non-native language (nobody’s mother spoke to them in C), to an almost unknown language – the machine language that the hardware actually understands. The compiler is a rigid, simple-minded, sometimes unpredictable audience, just a ghost of the person who wrote it. Here you have to be very precise, careful, and limit yourself to what the compiler understands and to what the hardware will accept. The other audience, is so very different – the next developer. This may be yourself a few weeks later, or someone else, but there will always be another developer, coming back months or years later, to fix or extend the code. She wants comments, explanations, meaningful names for things, and an easily readable structure. Because now you’re long gone, she can’t talk to you: she must read, so you must write.

Tools!

Well, with all this talk about programming being writing, let’s come back to earth. Software developers are technical people, and expect to use the best tools to do their jobs. There’s the whiteboard in the hallway — we need more of those, for talking. Defect tracking systems, where we can make sure we write clear resolution notes. And for automatically sharing and discussing code, web-hosted code tools for static analysis and code review are the way to go.

–
Originally published in company internal newsletter. Edited and released here with permission.

After spending more time than I should have troubleshooting a coding (actually static code analysis) problem, I shared the story with a co-worker, who reminded me that Kernighan and Pike had been there before:

Another effective technique is to explain your code to someone else.  This will often cause you to explain the bug to yourself.  Sometimes it takes no more than a few sentences, followed by an embarrassed “Never mind, I see what’s wrong.  Sorry to bother you.”  This works remarkably well; you can even use non-programmers as listeners.  One university computer center kept a teddy bear near the help desk.  Students with mysterious bugs were required to explain them to the bear before they could speak to a human counselor.

Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike, in The Practice of Programming

Seems that there are rules that we learn, then love to break, and are always sorry afterwards. Here’s how.

My code doesn’t work

• I’ll just try this change to see if that fixes everything. And then this change, and this other change.
• I’ve been stuck for 10 minutes, but since nobody knows this code like I do, I won’t ask anyone for help.
• I know I don’t understand what every line of code does, but it’s OK — I’ll figure out the problem anyway.
• A complete build takes only a few minutes, so there’s no need to try a 3-line sample instead.
• I’ve read the documentation and I’m sure I’ve understood it, so I won’t ask anyone for a second opinion.
• I already asked someone 3 times for help and got it, so I can’t bother him or her a fourth time.
• It doesn’t compile (cleanly, or at all) just now, but soon it will again if I just keep at it

(The only way I got home today was that somehow I did realize it was, um, OK to call the tool support line.)

What are your favorite ”justifications” for why it’s better to stay stuck than to get help, or at least take a break and share your problem with someone else?

While I’m waiting, I’ll go talk to my teddy bear.

One of the big human challenges to code review is ego. For all the talk about “egoless programming”, ego still means “self” and when a person writes code, or owns it for maintenance, s/he identifies with the code. That kind of “ego” or “self” thinking is what lets the code author work through problems by saying, “let’s see, when I receive this signal, I enter this loop and I calculate that value.” So how can code author and code reviewer(s) go into a code review, whether it be a meeting or online, and yet avoid criticism and defensiveness?

Here’s an image that can help: when code review participants enter the review, imagine everyone sitting on the same side of the table, with only the code on the other side. The code author is no longer the author or owner — just another reviewer. The two or more people in the room, or in the online review, form a team together to find as many things as possible in the code to improve. Now nobody needs to defend the code, because everyone is a reviewer. Still, though, if criticism is in the air, the real code author will feel it.

The desired result of a code review is a list of important things to improve. Comments which the code author can take back to the code and say, “I understand what I need to do to make this code better.” Take a concept from the topic of assertive communication: The “I” message. Best explained by an example:

Let’s say I’m a busy, pressured group leader who has to lead meetings, and someone is always late for the group meetings — much later than everyone else . I decide to speak to that person. What can I say to him that will cause him to feel what I feel, and based on that, to join me in solving the problem? Not to feel criticized, and to become defensive. An “I” message would be:

“I’m under a lot of pressure when leading our weekly status meetings, and when I see you come in 20 minutes late to the meeting, it makes me more tense, and makes it hard for me to keep the meeting on track.”

The idea is that, while I have mentioned the person’s lateness, I have described only what I see, and described a problem that I have. All the focus is on me and my problem, which the group member may realize is his problem too, since he may benefit from a calmer group leader and a more effective meeting. Hopefully, he is drawn into solving my, or our, problem.

Similarly with code review. Instead of a critical comment like, “this code is very confusing,” say, “when I read through this function — both the comments and the code — I get to the end and I still have no idea what it’s really supposed to do. If I had a change request on this code, I would not be able to confidently make the change.” Given that the code author probably does not have the same problem, this comment draws the author into saying, “I understand what the function is supposed to do, but apparently you don’t from reading the code. I’ll try to improve the comments or clarify the code so that you understand what I understand.”

Try this method in your code reviews to get everyone working together against the code, to improve the code.

Sometimes I get the feeling that when people consider and talk about code review, they’re talking about different things but they don’t know it. I see code review everywhere during coding.

Try this: put aside the image of code review as a meeting, or even code review as an independent activity. Limit your description of code review to: someone else is reading your code, you’re discussing it together, and there’s effective writing as a result. If you see those three things happening, you’re seeing code review.

Debugging

The great hope was that code review would be solely a preventive activity: do code review before execution, and there won’t be anything to debug. That’s not going to happen. Too much code is delivered under pressure, without code review. But all is not lost. Just review the code when debugging. Look again at the three steps — how does code review, as defined above, change debugging? First, don’t debug alone. Whatever you may think of pair programming for or against, pair debugging is a must. Especially if you wrote the code, having someone else look for the problem, or better, restate the problem, is essential. Second — discussion. Debugging that rushes to a fix often produces the wrong fix. And finally, effective writing. Sure there’s the writing which is fixing the code. But what about adding comments? And perhaps more important and effective, especially if it’s a quick fix: submit a new defect or change request to your tracking system for what really needs changing to reduce the chance of this failure recurring.

Static Analysis

Tools! If I have tools that can find problems, I won’t have to review code. Yes, you will. And you should want to. Static Analysis tools are great for finding simple errors, and potential defects. For narrowing the field of focus. But then, to find out what’s really wrong … code review. Additional benefit of the tool — since it has no feelings, it can be two of you against the reviewer: read the code with a partner, discuss why the tool thinks there’s a problem and whether you agree, and again, effective writing. Not just the fix, but why that fix, and also perhaps an adjustment to the tool so it will do better next time. High-end static analysis systems let you document that right inside the tool.

Testing

Testing, and its partner, code coverage, are often seen as the opposite of code review. Whatever I couldn’t catch by code review (and static analysis) is left for exercising the code under controlled conditions, causing failures, and fixing them. Actually code review is the most important part of developer testing. Not only reviewing the code under test in order to design good white-box tests. But also reviewing the code based on the test results and coverage results. Why does the software intermittently fail this test? Why is it so difficult to cover all the branches in this function? Again, read together, discuss, write. Here the effective writing is likely to be refactoring the code. If someone wants code review “documentation” — give them a diff and a one-sentence explanation of what you did and why.

Code Review is All-Purpose

There are many more activities in the developer’s daily life. Detailed design, branching and merging, delivery — all can benefit from in-line code review with this three-step model of reading, discussion, and effective results-writing. And by acknowledging this model, we see that code review, or almost code review, is happening all the time. Just have to complete the steps to get code review that real people will do.

Someone comes to me with a problem that sounds like,

“I wanted to do X but it doesn’t work.”

When I hear that request, often they know a lot more about the technical details than I do. I need them to teach me in a way that lets me put things in order. My method starts from success … and progresses to failure. Strange? But it works.

The questioner is focused on the failure scenario. I crave success. There must be some around — just have to find it. I ask what similar scenario succeeds. What version of the file did work? What build compiled successfully? When did this test last pass? As we discuss the successful scenario, I learn why it worked. What requirements were met by that configuration. I repeat those requirements out loud for confirmation.

With a success in hand, well understood, we have a checklist to apply to the failed configuration. We can go over the failure and check whether all the things that made something similar work are present. Of course, one will be missing. We have found the problem. I may not know how to fix it. But usually the questioner does.

A new project is ramping up and needs more resources. Another project is winding down — maybe it can do with less.

Let’s move some people from one team to the other

What’s wrong with this common resource allocation decision? It’s not the decision. Moving resources to the project that needs them makes sense. What’s wrong is the words, which hide a false assumption.

Here, “team” means location. Move people from one place to another. Like conductors putting people on a train: the “teams” are two train stations. One called “Project A Station” and the other one, “Project B Station”.

But teams are not train stations. A team is not the room it sits in, or its box on the org chart. A team is the particular combination of people — their skills and personalities — and their shared experience. They know their project or product best right now, and equally important, they know each other and the special role each person fills. Reassigning people from one team to another is more than moving a person. It is actually dismantling the first team, and disturbing the second. The movement of people based on the train-station model of teams leads to a contradiction: both teams — origin and destination — cease to exist.

If we must model people and treat them as resources, a better model is a hand at cards. The managers are the players and partners; the game is getting more projects completed. There’s a fixed deck — the “human resources” of the company. Some cards may be similar in strength or level, but every card is unique.

The value of your hand is based entirely on the combination of cards you’re holding right now. If you or your partners need a stronger hand, everyone knows that some cards will have to be exchanged. Put down 2, pick up 2. I pick up what you put down. Resources. Cards. I know this doesn’t sound any better to workers than “counting heads”, but it is. Because every card player thinks twice before putting down a good card, and prefers to take over an entire good hand if they can.

Why Code Review?

We write code for two audiences. One audience is the hardware: the compiler, and the platform where the executable runs so that the user can operate it. The other audience, no less important, is the “next developer”: someone else (or even yourself a few months later) who has to modify the code to fix it or add new features.

The hardware’s reaction to the code is clear from testing. But the only way to find out if the code is easily maintainable is to have someone else—a knowledgeable developer—read the code. And the earlier, and more often, the better, since errors can be caught sooner and cheaper as well.

Additional benefits of code review: improving the code author’s coding (footnote 1) through the experience of guided correction, and finding and preventing systematic errors.

Code Reviewer and Code Author are Partners

The code reviewer must know the programming language well, be familiar with the technology (footnote 2) that the code implements, and be patient and effective in giving constructive criticism. The code author is the current maintainer of the code. Both must see themselves as working together to improve the code.

Review Comments, Reactions, Tracking to Closure

The code reviewer reads the code and makes comments. The code author responds by changing the code to improve it according to the comments s/he accepts. All comments must be recorded, electronically, both for tracking to closure, and for later review for systematic errors. If the author makes some changes during the review meeting, a “diff” of those changes may substitute for a list of those accepted comments.

First, Leave the Reviewer Alone to Read the Code

The reviewer first reads the code, alone, in a code browser that maps, and supports easy navigation of, the code’s structure. This method best simulates the “next developer’s” experience: the code author does not come packaged with the code—it must stand on its own.

Afterwards the reviewer meets with the author. If there are multiple reviewers, they may meet together with the author in a group review, but each reviewer must have first reviewed the code alone. A meeting should be in-person, but may be (less desirably) telephone or electronic, as long as it is interactive.

What Code Author and Code Reviewer Provide to each other

The author makes a labeled version of the codebase available to the reviewer. The requirements for the new, improved, or fixed code, and any required design, should also be known to the reviewer.

The reviewer reads the code for clarity = readability + understandability. Code is readable if it has the right balance of abstraction vs. detail at each level of the code. Code is understandable if the reviewer can, without help from the author, see what the code does, and why. The reviewer may use detailed checklists of common errors, and use the coding standard as reference, but review for clarity will lead to all the others.

When to Review Code: At Minimum, Before Check-in to a Shared Work Area

Code may be reviewed at any time. Here are some different times, and the benefits of review at those times:

• As code is written: Find errors earliest, prevent repetition by improving the author’s performance
• Before static analysis: Avoid analysis time on code that doesn’t belong
• After static analysis: Avoid review time finding errors that a tool could find
• Before check-in: Maintain quality of the codebase
• After check-in: Allows time for thorough review
• Before delivery: Catch errors before testing group
• Before debugging: Narrow down debugging steps; possibly find error without debugging
• After field deployment: Understand problem areas reported from the field; make improvement recommendations

The team, group, or department lead may decide when to review code according to his or her desired benefit. However, if time constraints limit code review to just one of these stages, the required stage is before check-in to a shared work area, to maintain the quality of the codebase that others will learn from and use.

Which Code to Review?

All new or changed code should be reviewed as above, at least before check-in to shared codebase. More complex or historically problematic code—more thoroughly. Take care also to review the new or changed code’s “nearest neighbors” to make sure the code still works with existing code it interfaces with.

Footnotes

1. If there are multiple reviewers, the reviewers can also learn from each other’s review comments. But there are tradeoff costs of multiple-reviewer reviews: variation in quality of review, need for a strong moderator, and more time. Better for reviewers to learn from code review in the code author role, or in code walkthroughs specifically planned for cross-training.
2. There may be exceptions in special-purpose code reviews such as performance or security reviews, where the reviewer must then be knowledgeable in those areas, but not necessarily in the technology.

A co-worker forwarded me this article ”5 Reasons for Software Developers to Do Code Reviews (Even If You Think They’re a Waste of Time)” which certainly sounded promising. Even when I don’t think code reviews are a waste of time. But as I read through it, it became clear that more is less. The article says too much, and detracts from its own message.

1. Developers know their code will be evaluated, so they work harder. “The most useful thing about a code review is the fact that the coder knows that someone is going to review the code,” says Oliver Cole, president of OC Systems and also lead for the open-source Eclipse Test and Performance Tools Platform project.

Work hard because you enjoy it. And of course your code will be evaluated, but not primarily by code review. Rather, the main user of your code is the “next developer”—possibly someone on your team, or even you yourself a few months later. That’s where the evaluation happens.

 2. It improves a developer’s own programming skills.
In your heart, you might not care that much about the success of this particular software project. But most programmers want to improve their personal skills, and that means learning from other people.

If you don’t care about the success of the project, code review won’t help.

3. It’s an opportunity for mentoring, so the programmers you work with get smarter (and thus, more fun to hang around with).” [...] While the intention [to mentor individuals] is generally well meaning, it can often lead to individual discomfort and perceived or actual criticism. In these cases, the greatest opportunity for mentoring usually exists in the context of small collaborative teams working together to realize goals and not in a code review.”

Criticism is not bad, it is essential. It is not personal, but professional. And of course, the smaller the meetings (down to even just 2 people — reviewer and author), the better.

4. It creates consistency and a culture of quality across the project. [...] Developers are quick to complain about being judged on the wrong metrics, but, says Gary Heusner, client partner at custom software developer Geneca, “We have to change the rules to allow for quality and efficient development to be valued over making milestones that are really yardsticks of process more than milestone of value delivered.” Code reviews are a big part of that.

Code reviews are simply part of good software development.  When management, together with the team, track value delivered, that is a big part of creating a culture of quality. Only when the environment is right can code reviews have a chance of being effective.

5. It encourages team bonding. “People think code review is just about finding bugs, but it brings people together, says Smartbear’s Jason Cohen. Often, he says, it can deliver far more than expected.

“Success stories happen very often when performing code reviews,” says Dave Katauskas, senior architect at Geneca. “But the best success story is the pattern that develops once a team has gelled. The longer you’re into a project, the better quality code is created. This is all due to the code review process and governance that occurred up stream in the beginning of the project.”

I had to read this one a few times. Right answer for wrong reasons. I will not credit code review where credit is not due. Even the writer with the “success story” realizes the true origin of the success is the gelled team.

But still, I had to click on the Jason Cohen link to see why code review “brings people together”. Go ahead—click below on “Lightweight Code Review Episode 5: Team Building for the Cold, Dark, and Alone”. But first, get ready to read it right: code review doesn’t create good teams. Rather, good teams benefit from code review. OK, now click.

Lightweight Code Review Episode 5: Team Building for the Cold, Dark, and Alone

This week, I moved from a general process improvement group to a software development department, to specifically focus on code quality. The most mature tool and process I left behind was a defect tracking system. Of course, in our development department, we use that defect tracking system. In case anyone asks me what it’s for, here’s my answer.

Prevent Errors, Fix Defects, Describe Failures

There are many definitions of those terms, but since when we fix problematic code we close “defects” in the “defect tracking system”, I started with that word in the middle. Leads to these definitions:

Error: The mistake someone made. (The root cause is the earliest error in the chain.)

Defect: The wrong code (missing, extra, or incorrect).

Failure: The unacceptable behavior of the code when running.

Detect each as early as possible

Each can be detected with appropriate tools. Detect earlier to minimize cost and annoyance.

Meanwhile, do it right

How?

With tools, learning, and discussion for writing good code.

Usually I just write my book reviews on Amazon, but this book is important enough that I wanted to post my review here too. Dreaming in Code by Scott Rosenberg.

We’re Not in Kansas Anymore

And we haven’t been for a long time. To hear Rosenberg tell it, we briefly entered modernity in the 1950′s with computer hardware, and then quickly regressed into an ironic Greek tragedy of software, where all of us spend our time playing either Sisyphus, fixing endless “bugs”, or Tantalus, finding on-time delivery methods just beyond our reach. Ironic because in this story, Sisyphus is often happy.

Dreaming in Code is not about coding. Nor is it fiction. It is disturbing, realistic fact. An outsider’s diary of a software project, blessed with a successful visionary leader—Mitch Kapor of Lotus 1-2-3 fame—and almost no resource constraints, which nevertheless exhibits all the “usual” problems.

Rosenberg competently brings in software history and references all in the field will recognize. More important, though, he shows software to be one of those great advances that is fraught with deadly imperfections. Like, say, hospitals, or automobile travel.

To software people. You can keep your eyes closed, come to work, and enjoy dreaming in code. Or you can wake up for a day and read this book.

(An extra note, since I’ve read some of the reviews, including those on the back cover. Some miss the point. This book is not about the Chandler project, nor should members of apparently successful software projects ignore it lightly. It is also not a disguised methodology book on how to develop software. It is about our expectations from software and from ourselves, to show us ourselves in a mirror and raise questions.)

To everyone else. I haven’t the slightest idea what non-software people will think reading this book. But Rosenberg has made it accessible, using few technical terms and explaining them simply. So you owe it to yourself to look here. And we need your insight— don’t leave the field just to us.

Postscript

I remember back in the 60′s and 70′s, a two-sentence conversation I often used to have with people outside of the computer (software) field, when space adventure movies (I’m thinking of Kubrick’s “2001“) were popular:

Them: Gosh, imagine what it would be like out on a spaceship, depending only on a computer for life support.

Me: You don’t have to imagine anymore. We are both on one right now.