I haven't any real experience in BDD and I've recently discovered SpecFlow. I've read a bit about it (and Gherkin), I went through some screen casts, and I must say that I'm moderatly convinced. Of course, by nature, the examples provided as an introduction are relatively simple. Is anybody using SpecFlow on real (read "complex") projects and finding that tool helpful?
Gojko Adzic has written a whole book (www.specificationbyexample.com) where he interviewed various teams around the globe working according to these concepts for several years. The book not only describes there experience but also summarizes very well common challenges and benefits teams reported. I think this book can help convincing management as well as provides some guidance when starting with this. It is not a step-by-step cook book, though, neither does it talk in detail about specific tools (which is not necessary IMHO).
To talk about first hand experience, we (TechTalk) are using SpecFlow since several years in projects of different size, domains and architecture. We are doing mainly custom development in various domains (financial sector, government, GIS) and our projects are usually having a 2-9 months duration with a size of 150-500 PD. The largest projects we do with SpecFlow are 1800+ PD - these are long running programs for several years with ongoing frequent releases.
We are also using SpecFlow in product development, e.g. in SpecLog (www.speclog.net).
We are also coaching larger projects in ATDD and Specification-By-Example in various industries (automotive, financial services, ...) who are applying these concepts quite successfully. These projects are partly also on other platforms, e.g. on Java we used JBehave so far, although if I would start a project right now I would strongly consider Cucumber-JVM.
I also recommend checking out the (free) screen casts at skillsmatter.com who are running related conferences since several years (BDDX, CukeUp). These always have some experience reports from various domains and industries.
Related
In the expert system D3WEB, it is possible to insert\develop\use Ontology. However, I cannot get the point what's the purpose to introduce ontology in D3WEB?
The nice example on this page, https://www.d3web.de/Wiki.jsp?page=Demo%20-%20Ontology , shows how to develop an ontology in D3WEB. In my opinion, it can be more efficiently developed using Protégé. If the contents shall be changed with a real application, for instance, an ontology about 'dog', in the real application there could be instance dog A, B, C, D. It might be not feasible to 'insert' the instances into the D3WEB knowledge base. However, if the ontology changes over time, how to use the ontology in D3WEB then?
In my opinion, the best way is to develop an ontology outside of D3WEB using Java code. However, I believe the designer of D3WEB would have a nice reason to introduce ontology in D3WEB. I will appreciate it if someone let me know.
This is a somewhat common question we get regarding d3web-KnowWE, one reason might be, that our naming is somewhat misleading. So let me explain.
First there is d3web the java framework to run knowledge bases with strong problem solving knowledge, including rules, decision trees, flow-charts, covering lists, cost-benefit dialog strategies, time based reasoning, and so on. This framework in its core does not provide any GUIs, but is meant to integrate problem solving capabilities in other applications/expert systems. It also does not provide a way to properly create/author the knowledge bases it runs, aside maybe from doing it in the Java code on an API level.
To also provide proper means to author and develop a knowledge base, including some basic dialogs to run, demo, test, and debug the authored knowledge bases, we began working on the wiki system KnowWE, which today is basically a heavily extended JSPWiki. The page d3web.de itself for example is also just a build of KnowWE with specific content.
While we were working on and with KnowWE, we began to really like the approach to edit and author large knowledge bases in this 'wiki way', were you automatically support multiple distributed users to work on the same knowledge base, have automatic versioning, can add nice documentation directly beside the actual formal knowledge, can generate knowledge using script (because it's all just simple text markup), and so forth. Also, the underlying architecture of KnowWE became quite good and mature over the years.
So after some time of this, we found ourselves in the need to also author large ontologies. And yes, Protégé is a nice tool to develop ontologies, but for our use cases, it was just not well suited and we also found it to not scale very well. So we began to implement some simple markups to also allow to also develop ontologies in KnowWE. After then recognizing, that authoring ontologies the 'wiki way' indeed works pretty nicely, we decided to again also share these tools with everybody else on d3web.de. And that is why today you can author/develop both d3web knowledge bases and ontologies in KnowWE, although there is no actual connection/interoperability between both as of now. That would be nice of course and maybe we add this in the future, but for KnowWE is just a development environment for these two knowledge representation.
Maybe you can see KnowWE similar to an IDE like eclipse or IntelliJ, where the same application can be used to develop many different programming languages. KnowWE does the same for different knowledge representations.
A problem is maybe, that historically, we didn't differentiate very well between KnowWE and d3web, because KnowWE was narrowly used to build d3web knowledge bases. We also like to call KnowWE and its distribution package d3web-KnowWE for example. But maybe this should change...
Thanks for pointing this out, I will try to correct/clarify this on d3web.de
I am currently working for a large organisation with about 2k developers working in our IT department. We maintain many things including our e-commerce platform and there are currently about 30 projects currently impacting that.
Recently all of our teams have been instructed to deliver a series of automated tests using Concordion and Selenium Webdriver. For a while this has been going fairly well and many tests have been created but lately maintaining the existing tests while our e-commerce platform constantly changes has been somewhat of a nightmare. We have thousands of test scripts covering many parts of our website but there does not seem to be any facility in Concordion to split scripts into reusable compartments which could then be maintained once, rather than having to make changes to hundreds of HTML files for one change.
How are other people approaching this?
The goal of Concordion is not to implement test scripts as HTML, but rather for the HTML to describe the behaviour that you are testing (what you are trying to achieve). The implementation details (how it is being tested) are implemented as Java code. This code can then be structured with an appropriate level of abstraction so that each change to the system under test only requires a change to one part of the code.
Your HTML specifications should only need to change on the rare occasions that the business rules change.
These concepts are described further on the Hints and Tips tab of the Concordion home page.
Thank you for sharing your experience with us. It’s great to hear / read about large scale application of behavior driven development / specification by example.
One approach that could help you is to focus on key examples (http://gojko.net/2014/05/05/focus-on-key-examples). During specification workshops the entire team is working to get a common understanding of the new user needs and requirements. Then you go on and write specification documents containing key examples. There you should not try to cover everything, but to write only as many examples as necessary to express the common understanding.
Additionally, you should try to identify concepts, on which the examples are based. Are there some examples related to a similar topic – this is probably an underlying concept. It is often easier to understand the examples, if they focus just on one concept (e.g. the validation of a card number). Each concept can be usually described with only a few examples.
Do you have any other types of automated tests (e.g. unit tests)? Are you experiencing the same maintainability challenges with these other tests? Could you use good practices from these other test types to improve your Concordion approach?
Could you tell us more about your setup? How many active specifications have you already created within your company?
We've got an Excel spreadsheet floating around right now (globally) at my company to capture various pieces of information about each countries technology usage. The problem is that it goes out, gets changes, but they're never obvious, and often conflicting - and then we have to smash them together. To me, the workbook is no more than a garbage in/garbage out type application waiting to be written.
In a company that has enough staff and knowledge to dedicate to Enterprise projects, for some reason, agile and language/frameworks such as Rails, Grails, etc. are frowned upon. That said, I can't help but think that this is almost a perfect fit for the need, given the scaffolding features for extremely simple implementations of capturing raw fields with only a couple lookups (i.e. a pre-defined category). I'm thinking this would be considered a very appropriate use of these frameworks.
Has anyone worked on these types of quick and dirty apps before in normally large-scale, heavy-handed enterprise environments with success? Any tips for communicating this need/appropriateness to non-technical management?
The only way to get this implemented in a rigid organization is to get this working and demo it -- without approval. It's very hard for management to say no to a finished project.
I work for a really big company & have written many utility apps based on Rails (as well as contributed to some larger Rails projects). That said, the biggest concern is not the quality of the app, but who's going to support/maintain it when you leave or get hit by the bus.
IMHO, The major fear that an enterprise organization has - especially if the application becomes more critical to it's core business - is how to support it. If it doesn't fit into it's neat little box of supported technologies, it's less likely to happen.
Corporations have been bitten by this many times in the past & are cautious when bringing in new technology.
So, if you can drum up more folks to learn Ruby/Rails in your group (or elsewhere in your company), you may be able to make a good case for it. Otherwise, sad to say, your probably better off implementing something on Sharepoint :-(.
If you already have a Java infrastructure, then creating a Grails app will require little to no additional IT ramp up to support and maintain. The support and maintenance cost and effort should be the same as for a Java application (i.e. Grails apps run on Tomcat, use the same JVM, use the same diagnostic/profiling tools, etc.).
In my experience, larger IT organizations have a harder time supporting Ruby when its not already in the toolchain because its a new language, new deployment environment, and requires a considerable amount of support and maintenance ramp up.
I would develop a minimal viable product, then make friends with someone in IT who can help you deploy it into a staging or production environment. Then get a few of the users to hop on board and test it like its a Beta product. After that, open it up to a larger audience.
So as others have said, forgiveness over permission, but be smart about the impact on the IT organization.
Can you please give a methodology that stands to alleviate the disadvantages of waterfall model?
The problem with Waterfall is that it consists of monolithic stages, each building on the previous stage. So the code is developed in one chunk after the entire system has been designed, which in turn happened after all the requirements have been gathered and signed off.
This is problem because any change has to be ratified by a complex procedure and rippled through all the stages. But the lesson of history is: change happens. The requirements are always incomplete, or mis-specified or simply out-of-date by the time we get to coding. Too often design and build proceed on the basis of assumptions which are nullified when the system gets to UAT. This leads to frantic re-work and slippages.
The truth is not many customers are good at the sort of abstract thinking required to envisage a working software software system. And too many IT professionals lack the experience necessary to understand business logic. Waterfall refuses to accept these truth.
The only honest requirement specification is "I'll know it when I see it". So it is crucial to get working software in front of real users as soon as possible. Any methodology which focuses on delivering working software incrementally in short iterations will "alleviate the disadvantages of waterfall model".
Originally that was RAD or DSDM. Then XP tok up the banner. Now there is Agile and related things like Scrum and Kanban.
So why do people persist with the Waterfall method?
There is a common perception that Agile is just a cover for cowboy hackers to ditch all the boring process stuff and get on with what they enjoy most: writing code. The branding of "Extreme Programming" certainly encourage this thought, and, let's be honest, it is not an unfounded allegation. That is, some coders pretend to be agile as an excuse not to plan, design or document. This does not reflect the actual practice of Agile, which require just as much rigour as any other methodolgy.
Also Agile requires a much greater commitment of time from the customer's staff, which many organizations are loath to accept. Also the people footing the bill may be unwilling to empower their junior staff to make decisions. There is an important distinction between Customer and User.
When it comes to outsourcing the waterfall model provides an easy framework for matching deliverables to staged payments. Indeed the contractual aspect maybe stronger than that: in the EU Waterfall is mandated for all projects valued at EUR 100m or more.
Finally, there are projects where Waterfall works well. These projects have knowledge domains which are stable and well-understood by both the customers and the developers.
last word
Despite its failings Waterfall has delivered many projects successfully. This is because hard work, aptitude and integrity are more important than methodology.
The waterfall model was documented in 1970 by a Dr Winston Royce in a paper titled 'Managing the development of large Software Systems'. Basically outlining his ideas on sequential development. His idea was that software could be produced in a similar fashion to an automobile, where the vehicle is pieced together in sequential/linear phases.
This linear approach doesn't really allow for changes in a piece of software once it begins. There is no tight relationship with the end user/client so its harder to outline possible problem areas.
Its worth noting some phases of the waterfall model allow for 'splashback' whereby there is enough time in the development period to go back and make small changes. Time constraints and the amount of work involved and budgets don't really allow for much change if any to be made using this model.
The waterfall model is old, as time goes by software paradigms themselves change. Object Oriented programming is popular, back then it was barely alive. Through the use of the waterfall model its obvious that the flaws have been spotted and this has lead to the alternative development methodologies.
Ok, so now for alternatives. Incremental model is described by Alistair Cockburn(2008) as a staging and scheduling strategy in which various parts are developed at different times or rates and integrated upon completion of that specific part.
Basically incremental looks a lot like this:
Analysis->Design->Code->Test
Analysis->Design->Code->Test
Analysis->Design->Code->Test
Number of benefits include lifecycle being flexible and allowing for change from the get go.
Working software or rather parts are generated quickly and early on. Code produced is earlier to test and manage due to the small iterations of progress. Not all of the requirements of the system are gathered up front, just an outline. This allows for a quick start, however it might be a disadvantage in some systems as things like the system architecture being supported might be missed.
Iterative on the other hand allows parts of the system to be reworked and revised to improve the system. Time is set aside to allow for this. Iterative does not start with a full specification of requirements. Development is done by specifying and implementing just part of the software. Software is reviewed in order to identify further requirements.This is more of a top down approach. Disadvantages with this methodology are making sure all the iterations are compatible. As each new iteration is approved, developers may employ a technique known as backwards engineering, which is a systematic review and check procedure to make sure each new iteration is compatible with previous ones.A major benefit with the constant iterations is that the client is kept in the loop and the final product should meet the requirements.
Iterative approach diagram.
Other methodologies include Prototyping. Evolutionary and Throwaway. These are also deemed as more of a top down approach. Both process are borrowed from engineering.In engineering it is common to construct scale models of objects to be built. Building models allows the engineer to test certain aspects of the design. The software development prototyping methodology provides the same ideology. Prototyping is not seen as a standalone, complete development methodology but rather an approach to handling selected portions of a larger, more traditional development methodology.
Throwaway Prototyping - Throwaway prototyping does not preserve the prototype that has been developed. In throwaway prototyping there is never any intention to convert the prototype into a working system. Instead the prototype is developed quickly to demonstrate some aspect of a system design that is unclear. It can also be developed to help users or clients decide between different features or interface characteristics. Once any problems or uncertainty has been addressed the prototype can be ‘thrown away’ and the principles learned used in the design and documentation of the actual product.
Evolutionary Prototyping - In Evolutionary prototyping you begin by modeling parts of the target system and if the prototyping process is successful you evolve the rest of the system from those parts. One key aspect of this approach is that the prototype becomes the actual production system. This process allows for difficult parts of the system to be modeled successfully in prototypes and dealt with early on in a project.
Other areas to look into will include Agile-> SCRUM, Extreme programming, Paired programming etc.
Tried to keep it short but people write books on this sort of stuff and there is so much to discuss.
Might be worth having a look at:
Incremental and Iterative
The alternative to the waterfall method is "doing it the correct way".
Waterfall seems to make sense if you are on a factory floor assembly line. But I've never seen it work as part of the design process...and sofware development is ALL a design process. And so the waterfall method never really works in the sense that it doesn't help facilitate the creation of high quality product, but rather focuses on process. Process can be great, but what's the point if the product it produces is second rate?
Kanban and Scrum are two of the most commonly used alternatives to Waterfall. I tried to give a good overview and comparison of the different SDLC approaches.
Waterfall relies heavily on massive monolithic phases as mentioned by APC. This is a huge weak point because trying to determine the end product from the start is a fruitless endeavor.
Kanban is slightly cowboy, but I find if you couple it with standups it certainly still has it's place.
Scrum is great for putting pressure on the team and getting ownership on tickets. I've found most places have been going with this one but the downfall of it is some people go overboard with having meetings for everything. Sprint planning meetings, sprint kickoff meetings, daily standup meetings that last 1 hour with 20+ people present, demo meetings, and then finally the post-mortem.
Remember that agile is only as good as you make it and you can easily sink any methodology if you go wild with unrestrained meetings which aren't adding value. Keep it as lean as you can without it being chaotic.
From the top of my head, I can think of ways to palliate the shortcomings of the waterfall model:
Have the coder concentrate on automating the process itself. Automate the transitions between one step and another, so that changes will flow more or less automatically.
Make the process more bidirectional. One principal characteristic in the waterfall model is that changes flow from top to bottom. This is a unidirectional process, and that is part of the problem.
Another thing which would help is (as someone mentioned in an earlier answer) is for the developer to gain a better understanding of the business logic involved, and of what the customer wants, and for the customer to gain knowledge about the characteristics of the development process.
Here are some links about Waterfall model:
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~zeil/cs451/Lectures/01overview/process2/process2_htsu2.html
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-13-2005-67039.asp
I want to learn a framework that promotes good programming practices and is respected by the programming community.
However, I also want a framework that I can use for a day job.
Which one would you recommend?
This question comes from my experience of learning the basics of Django because it was highly acclaimed by developers on Stack Overflow and Hacker News. However.. there's hardly any jobs in my area (NYC) that are asking for Django developers.
As a long-time ASP.NET guy, I've recently gone through a similar decision process to figure out what other web frameworks I should try. Here's what I learned so far which may apply to your case too:
framework/platofrm choices (and hence job opportunities) are highly regional-- the Bay Area job market differs alot from what you'll find in NYC, Chicago, Montreal, or London. Look at local job listings (craigslist and indeed are good places to start) to get a good sense at what's in demand.
similarly, usage varies alot based on the size and type of company. if you want to get a job in a large company, Spring MVC and ASP.NET MVC may be your best bets. In small companies, DJango and (especially) Rails seem to be on the rise.
usage also sometimes varies by industry. for example, many HR apps seem be to .NET based, while financial/banking apps seem to favor Java. if you want to work in a particular industry, check out what up-and-coming companies in that industry are using.
when investing your scarce time in learning something new, favor technologies which are on the upswing of the adoption curve (e.g. Rails) rather than frameworks with wider adoption which may not be growing as fast. Also be wary of very early or niche frameworks which may not ever gain wide adoption.
the one common thread between most (or almost all) frameworks gaining in popularity is that they're MVC frameworks and rely heavily on a solid understanding of REST. Learning those concepts in depth is a good idea.
before deciding to invest a lot of time in one framework, gain a basic understanding of several of them, so you can get a reasonable sense of what you like and don't about each-- and so if you end up applying for a job using a framework you haven't learned, at least you'll be able to talk intelligently about it.
If you focus on what you enjoy, you'll be more motivated to learn it. For example, personally I found Rails (regarless of employment opportunities) more interesting than Spring or Django, so I decided to focus on Rails first. Others may have different impressions-- follow your programmer instincts. That said, there are often few jobs using technologies you find fascinating, so try to strike the right balance: technology you like that many companies are actually hiring people to use!
once you answer the basic "what framework" question, there are many more questions lurking, including picking a javascript framework, validation framework, an ORM, etc. Don't worry too much about those choices yet-- when starting, just pick the default implementation for your framework. But as you get more advanced, the same argument about frameworks also hold for those other things-- e.g. it's useful to know a few ORMs.
Personally, I decided on this approach:
continue building stuff in what I knew best (ASP.NET) but transition all work to ASP.NET MVC, where I can better understand MVC and REST concepts which apply cross-platform
learn JQuery (again, platform neutral)
blow off the ORM choice alltogether for now-- too many other things to worry about
build a few projects in Rails, which is the framework I see used most in the newer SF-Bay-Area startups I've been looking at
learn the basics (e.g. read a book or two, try a few samples) about Python/Django, Java/Spring, and Groovy/Grails.
I've encountered real projects at cool, small companies using Django, Ruby on Rails and (eiuw!) even Zope. .NET is for teletubbies - I've only ever heard of it being used by big corporations that don't know better.
I would say that knowing two or three is better than knowing one that is widely used because you will gain a better understanding of how it works as a concept. For instance if you've only used Java, there is something probably missing in your understanding of OOP, because you're pigeon-holed into thinking about it in one way. If you already know Django though you Spring would probably be a good compliment to that.
i'd probably say ASP.NET MVC. I always see lots of .NET jobs around and this seems to be a solid framework which i think in fact powers all the stackoverflow family. As a PHP developer i must also make a mention of Zend Framework which is used by a number of big sites including bbc.co.uk and is now frequently mentioned in advertisements for PHP jobs.
I want to learn a framework that promotes good programming practices and is respected by the programming community. However, I also want a framework that I can use for a day job.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news here, but those two desires tend to conflict. IMHO most business managers tend to go for (ugly) rapid development on top of CRMs or other higher-level 3rd party codebases. Building elegant websites from the ground up mostly happens in startups, or true web companies where the website is the sole product. There are not that many of those companies; and many of those that seem to fit are actually a mess on the inside, i.e. due to time pressure, messy legacy code and many other reasons you often don't get to write according to "good programming practices" anyway.
I agree with Kaleb Brasee that Java and .NET are the two main platforms when job availability is a priority.
Every job market is unique, so look at job openings in your area, or call a handful of recruiters and ask what they see a need for / could easily place you in a junior position for. What I'm seeing is that Microsoft Sharepoint is in demand, and a few other regional CMS'es are in demand (in Denmark I see Sitecore regularly).
I think ASP.NET MVC 2.0 together with MVC Areas and ASP.NET Dynamic Data will have a good story, a good solution, for many of those bosses who want rapid development. And I think the resulting code could be quite okay, or at least not bad compared to many of the "CMS beaten into something else" sites that exist. But this is a brand new thing for the .NET platform, and it will need to be sold to the decision makers first...
Bottom line: If you want job security first and foremost, then look at large CMS's like Sharepoint, and work on other technologies in your spare time. Optionally you could take a job at a startup / a web company later; but look before you leap.
Have you tried Spring MVC? Many companies do use Java for web-apps (or .NET) and web service based applications.
Since you mentioned Ruby on Rails, you might want to learn Ruby on Rails. It has got some good programming practices in it and a very well thought architecture. The Ruby community itself have also (in my personal opinion) created very innovative frameworks and highly favor testing and quality. You can see this by the innovative testing framework like Cucumber, webrat, shoulda, coulda, rspec, test/spec. Many startups also uses Rails as their platform, so it should be easier for you to get a job. You can start looking at Working With Rails and 37signals job board. So there is a good ecosystem inside Rails and Ruby community.
But the downside of Rails compare to Django is mainly there are too much magic (less explicit) and the docs is not as good as Django. If you want to get a Django job, try looking at several news site because Django grew up from a newspaper site so it is adopted alot in news based sites.
I would recommend ASP.NET MVC, Ruby on Rails, or Python/Django, they all seem to be popular and successful, and based on the MVC paradigm which is definitely the right tool for the job when it comes to the web.
.NET and Java are by far the 2 largest platforms used by employers, and hence the most in-demand when searching for a job. Java has a few popular frameworks, with JSF, Spring MVC and Struts all seeming to be about equal in demand. I don't use .NET, but from what I've seen, ASP.NET and ASP.NET MVC are the major ones.
I would say that most of the frameworks mentioned here promotes good practices. But that doesn't neccesarily mean that the companies using those frameworks are actually following those good practices! In fact most probably aren't. So don't expect too much.
You see, places like Stack Overflow, Hacker News etc. are a great way to connect with people who really care about their craft. Sadly this is a minority. There are millions of programmers in the world. Most of them suck. The code they write sucks. They don't care. They are not interested in improving their skills. They just want to learn the bare minimum required to collect their paycheck, go home, feed the dog, spend some time with the family, watch some TV, go too bed and do it all over again the next day.
Okay that was a bit harsh :) What I'm getting at is that you are probably better off asking this question to some of the managers at the companies where you would like to work. My guess is that most of them will answer .NET or Java. If you are up for a laugh ask them why they chose that particular technology over something else, and see how many buzzwords they throw at you ;)