Tag: software development

  • Continuous Delivery for Windows?

    I read a bit about the next version of Windows, which is coming in 2015 as Windows 10. I’m not sure how much I care about some of the changes coming in the OS, though having CTRL+V working in a command prompt is very welcome. However I did read this piece about the people testing the Technical Previews and was a little intrigued by one quote: “… Threshold testers … will have those features and fixes pushed automatically to them…”

    Does that mean that Microsoft has re-engineered Windows to be integrated with a Continuous Delivery process? If so, then I think this is a good move. We’ve already seen SQL Server move to a pace that releases new versions every two years and bimonthly patches to fix issues. Imagine that we could get patches even more often, as bugs are fixed.

    Also imagine that we could get those bugs quickly rolled back and patches pulled if there are issues.

    I think that’s one of the interesting things for me. There have been patches in the past which caused, issues and were sometimes hard to remove. If new changes can be pushed out quickly, I’d hope they could be removed quickly. And with all the feedback that Microsoft gets from existing installations, I could even start to see custom patches built that are deployed to only certain configurations that are compatible with the patch.

    Of course, that’s an ideal view. I suspect that we’ll still see overworked developers releasing patches that not only fix issues, but cause other problems, and at times, can’t be removed. At least we’ll probably get the patch to fix the patch, a little faster than in the past.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 3.0MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.

  • Testing your API

    I think learning to better test our software, including the database objects, is one of the ways in which we’ll build better software applications in the future. Testing is a complex subject, but this is part of a series that looks at ways in which you can use tSQLt.

    Checking Table Metadata

    One of the easy tests you can write is to compare the meta data of an object to a known quantity. The easy way to do that in tSQLt is to use the AssertResultSetsHaveSameMetaData function. This function compares the structure of two result sets, covering names, ordering, and data types, to determine if they are the same.

    Here’s a quick example of how that’s done.

    Let’s assume I have this table:

     create table Articles  (
        [ArticlesID] [int] identity(1,1) not null,
        [AuthorID] [int] null,
        [Title] [char](142) null,
        [Description] [varchar](max) null,
        [Article] [varchar](max) null,
        [PublishDate] [datetime] null,
        [ModifiedDate] [datetime] null,
        [URL] [char](200) null,
        [Comments] [int] null
      );

    If I wanted to write a test in tSQLt to check this table for changes or alterations, here’s what I’d do in code:

    create procedure Articles.[test Articles_Check_metadata]

    as

    begin

      –Assemble

    create table Articles.Expected

      (

        [ArticlesID] [int] identity(1,1) not null,

        [AuthorID] [int] null,

        [Title] [char](142) null,

        [Description] [varchar](max) null,

        [Article] [varchar](max) null,

        [PublishDate] [datetime] null,

        [ModifiedDate] [datetime] null,

        [URL] [char](200) null,

        [Comments] [int] null

      );

     
      –Act

     
      –Assert

    exec tsqlt.AssertResultSetsHaveSameMetaData

      @expectedCommand = N’select * from Articles.Expected’,

      @actualCommand = N’select * from articles’

      ;

    end

    ;

    go

    Note that I don’t have an ACT section in this test.

    The Assemble section is easy. I record the size and shape of my table. This will be what I compare the actual table to in the database.

    The Assert section is a call to AssertResultSetsHaveSameMetaData, with a SELECT * from the real table being compared to the same SELECT from the expected result table I created. If these match, I pass the test. If they don’t, the test fails.

    Why?

    This seems silly, I know. What does it matter if the table changes, and it certainly will need to change. I definitely questioned the value of a test like this when I first saw the example. However when I thought about it, and thought about the places in which I’ve developed databases, this makes some sense.

    Imagine that I have 3 or 4 (or more) developers. As we get new requirements, we’ll change the schema over time. Imagine that I actually have views built on this table, and other procedures and functions, all of which have some tests on them. If I change this schema, and run a test suite, I could see multiple failures. If I did that, one would hope I realized that the addition of a column here (or a rename) would cause those issues. However if I changed a couple things before running a test, which is something I might do at times, having this test fail tells me quickly that the schema was altered. If someone else changed the schema, I also quickly see that this change was to the schema.

    It’s not a big change, but it does allow me to determine that I need to refactor all the objects (potentially) that depend on this table. I can go do that work now, or add it to the list of tasks for this particular development task, and also fix the tests, which should go quickly.

    If the work doesn’t go quickly because I have a lot of objects, then I’m really glad that I learned now this is an issue.

    This becomes even more valuable with views and procedures returning result sets. If I add a column, then I may or may not want views to change, but certainly a check of view meta data will tell me if they do.

  • Database Checkups

    I am most definitely a fan of continuous delivery (CD) and the idea that we have the ability to both release our software at any time, for any change, but also have the process and mindset in place to rapidly push enhancements and patches through our development process. However I’m also no naive enough to think that the processes of Agile, Lean, Scrum, Continuous Integration, or any other methodology make this happen. It requires belief and effort by your entire team, including management, to evolve your software quicker.

    There is a downside. The faster, and more often, you release changes to your production system, the more likely you are to cause an issue. This isn’t really any different from traditional waterfall processes, which also cause issues in production, but it does mean that the perception of issues is a bit changed. People expect higher quality when they implement a CD process, and while quality might be higher (there is debate on this), it certainly isn’t perfect.

    Walgreens has implemented a CD process, and they rapidly deploy changes, but they’ve also had issues. In fact, there’s a piece that talks about an issue during a database deployment, and offers some guidance on preparation to deal with problems in your deployment process. The ideas of monitoring (which is critical), planning for recovery, coordinating development, etc are all things that we need to do in any production environment, but they are especially important in a CD process where people expect changes quickly. Whether those changes are enhancing the application, or rolling back a problematic deployment, they need to happen quickly.

    Over time, which may be decades, I expect that more and more organizations and end users will expect patches and changes to their software to happen in the background, while the system is being used. This might mean we need to plan for application architectures with sections that can be upgraded separately, or maybe we will develop ways to modify executable code without ending the process. In either case, the ideas behind CD will become more and more useful, and the more you understand them, the better off you’ll be.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 2.5MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.

  • Testing in Production

    The recent Apple keynote announcing the iPhone 6 was very heavily watched. At least, I think it was heavily viewed because I had trouble connecting, numerous pauses and regular stuttering of the video. Despite the fact that the stream was limited to Apple operating systems (iOS/OSX), it appeared that many other people had trouble watching based on the tweets I saw. On top of the scale issues, there were also different language translations overlaid in the audio and crashes of the Safari browser. Overall, the live event was a disappointment to me, though it hasn’t stopped me from upgrading my iPhone.

    The numerous problems that occurred had me wondering if any system wide testing was previously conducted. Was it possible that Apple was actually having their full scale, end to end system test in production? During the live event? I guess it’s possible, though it would be  imprudent and foolish to do so. With all the effort and expense that goes into the “Apple show”, how could a complete system test not be managed?

    Certainly a one time event like a product launch can be hard to simulate. The scale alone is difficult to predict, but certainly there are things that can be simulated. The actual people and applications can be used to record, encode, broadcast, etc. As closely as possible to the conditions of the live event, with the same size, type, and configuration of equipment should be used. The same people who will operate it should participate. We know this as technologists, and most of us would perform testing like this if we could.

    I know that resources are often constrained, and time is precious. However we need to perform some testing prior to production if we are to have confidence that everything will work during a deployment of new bits. The best way to do this is to deploy often, to a variety of environments in the same way we will to production. Execute a variety of tests each time that ensure the application functions as expected. If we find problems, we shouldn’t fix them in that environment. We should start over, fixing the issue in development, and deploying the changes again through test, pre-production, and any other environments we have. Be repeating the process over and over, we can build confidence that our production environment will work as we expect. 

    I hope Apple did this, though the end result has me feeling a bit skeptical.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 2.9MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn. feed