Voice of the DBA

Tag: software development

  • Bronze Age Development

    I was watching a presentation on testing recently where the speaker noted that on one project he’d spent twice as much time testing as coding. That sounds like an outrageous amount of time, but my concern was tempered when he said the release to production produced no bugs. I’m sure some bugs surfaced later, but I have often seen that most of the bugs, especially the incredibly annoying ones, are typically discovered quickly.

    I was reminded of that presentation when I saw this quote: “…the result was a two-year development process in which only about four months would be spent writing new code. Twice as long would be spent fixing that code.”

    That’s a quote on the development of Visual Studio a few years back. I wonder if the “twice as long fixing” time would have been reduced with better testing efforts earlier in development. It’s hard to know since all evidence on the value of testing is based on disparate projects with different teams working at different levels of experience, but I’ve run into a few people that think more testing reduces overall development time.

    The consultant who gave the presentation believes strongly in testing, not only at the application level, but also at the database level. This person has tried different levels of testing on different projects, and found that building and writing tests throughout development results in many fewer issues at release. Perhaps more telling is that when the person has performed less testing in later projects (because the clients declined to pay for it), there were more bugs in production.

    I don’t know if the total time spent on building software is less with testing occurring early than with allowing clients and customers to test and report bugs. Certainly some of that might depend on how many bugs you fix and how many bugs people must cope with, but I do know that the fewer issues people find with your software, the more excited they are to ask you to write more code in the future.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 2.2MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn. feed

    The Voice of the DBA podcast features music by Everyday Jones. No relation, but I stumbled on to them and really like the music. Support this great duo at www.everydayjones.com.

  • Updating tsqlt

    I was looking to write a new test with the tsqlt framework recently. I wanted to isolate a stored procedure’s logic and planned on using the FakeFunction procedure available in tsqlt.

    I wrote my test, using a template from the Pluralsight course on tsqlt and the documentation. I tried to execute the test and get a “tsqlt.fakefunction does not exist” error.

    I was slightly confused at first, but checking my list of functions and stored procedures showed that I didn’t have the FakeFunction procedure available. It’s a relatively recent addition to tsqlt, so I needed and update.

    After downloading the framework (a zip file), I opened it up to find this:

    tsqlt_a

    A number of files there, but the tsqlt.class.sql is the important one. I double clicked it from the zip and it opened in SSMS.

    tsqlt_b

    It’s a standard T-SQL script, albeit a long one. I executed it and it ran fine. My framework was updated to the latest version and I now had the function I needed.

    tsqlt_c

    Of course, I used my test to ensure this worked as expected and I was pleased to see it work well.

  • Artist or Scientist

    Which are you, an artist or a scientist? If you automate, you’re the latter. If you are a scientist, you can go on vacation. You can be more productive. People can count on you. You get things done quickly, consistently, and reliably. Everyone knows what to expect when you’re done with a task. They can expect things to be completed a certain way.

    If you manually run installation programs, click GUIs to configure options from memory, and customize each system you work on, you’re an artist. Artists build works of art, each of them unique. I know some incredibly talented artists working in technology, people who duplicate their work over and over extremely consistently. However at some point they’ll make a mistake, and then I’ll never know what state the system or code is in.

    While we need artists to push boundaries and experiment with new techniques, we don’t want them managing production systems or writing production code.  I want production code to use well known and proven techniques, best practices, good error handling, application of standards, logging and more. I want production systems to be stable, not with a lack of change, but with a lack of issues. I need scientists that produce work that can be counted on.

    Don’t build works of art. In development you must be an artist at times, but when you solve problems, ensure that the code contains best practices (secure coding and error handling among them), and make sure that your team understands and can reproduce the code later. In production, ensure you learn automation (PoSh, scripting, templates) and can build, or rebuild, your systems quickly and consistently. Deploy your builds to QA and development so that all the environments are the same.

    Become more of a scientist and not only will people depend on you, they’ll be less worried when you go on vacation because there will be fewer surprises for the person covering your work.

    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. feed

    The Voice of the DBA podcast features music by Everyday Jones. No relation, but I stumbled on to them and really like the music. Support this great duo at www.everydayjones.com.

  • One System to Rule Them All

    As I read this piece about a failed software procurement by the US Air Force, one section stood out:

    “In the original contract solicitation, the Air Force said that it wanted a system that was “truly ‘off-the-shelf’: unmodified and available to anyone.” But it also wanted a fully integrated system out of the box. What it got instead was three separate software products from Oracle and a collection of tools that a system integrator could use to put them all together ”

    I’ve been involved in this type of decision before, both at large and small companies. Many times I’d have liked to buy a single piece of software, but rarely could I find one I wanted or that even met my requirements. Even by sticking with a single vendor, I’ve often found myself with disparate applications that are somewhat cobbled together and didn’t work smoothly as one unit.

    That makes me wonder if it’s a silly dream to continue to pursue large single systems to handle our needs. Are we better off choosing specialized systems and planning on development efforts to integrate information together? Is the future of software a series of dashboards, web sites, and reports that access a disparate group of databases and services, each built, supported, and upgraded separately?

    On one hand I think that’s a better way to build large systems, mainly from the standpoint of size, scale, complexity, and likelihood of completion. However I also realize this means that all companies need to account for some level of software development, either in-house or on a contract basis.

    Perhaps there is no good solution and some companies will accept disparate systems while others perform their own integration work. In either case, I suspect we will continue to bemoan the state of software for the foreseeable future.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 2.2MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn. feed

    The Voice of the DBA podcast features music by Everyday Jones. No relation, but I stumbled on to them and really like the music. Support this great duo at www.everydayjones.com.