In addition to our 'Code Review Challenge' that I discussed recently, we have been using another retrospective game - 'Name That Standard'.

The idea is fairly simple. At the beginning of any retrospective, we go around the room and ask each team member to list out a standard that we are using in our project. This can be any standard that anyone feels the team is using or needs to be using, including coding conventions, architectural patterns, business and project management processes, communication means, etc. The intention is similar to the intent of 'The Code Review Challenge' - socialization of the the system. Only in this case, we are applying the term 'the system' at a much higher level - our organizational and project management / implementation system as a whole.

Some thoughts on running 'Name That Standard':

• Require not only naming of the standard, but accurate description of the standard and an example of where it is used. Alternatively, you may want to list a brief description out on a projector or whiteboard and see who can name the standard being described.
  
• Encourage the team to think about the team as a whole, not just their area of responsibility.
  
• Encourage the team to list standards that they don't understand, so that the rest of the team can chime in with assistance and help the team member in question grow
  
• Don't just let people yell out standards. go around the room, one person at a time. we got a little chaotic at first, and it was hard to know who said what.
  
• Encourage people to ask questions like 'i thought we were using this standard, but i saw someone else doing that standard'
  
• Encourage the standards to become more and more low level and detailed, over time (over multiple iterations)
  
• Encourage the standards to evolve and change for the better, over time (over multiple iterations)

In our implementations of this game, we've managed to get a fairly good list of standards written down and also resolved some questions on what standards we actually are using. For example, we had 3 dynamic mocking frameworks in our code base - Rhino Mocks, Moq, and a home grown one that we lovingly called 'BrandoMocks' (named for our team member, Brandon, who wrote it for fun one night). The end result of that discussion was to throw out Moq and BrandoMocks, adopting Rhino Mocks as our standard for this project.

Having done 'Name That Standard' in two consecutive iteration retrospectives, I think I can say that it has been very successful. The team as a whole is becoming more and more aware of the standards that we are using, and the individual members are beginning to contribute more and more to the standards.

With each passing iteration, and each new technique for creating collective ownership and socializing the system, I see the team coming together and really forming a team vs. a bunch of individual developers working on the same system.

Test Driven Development Is To Unit Testing As Interaction Design (IxD) Is To Accidental Design

One of the major problems with writing unit tests after the code is that it is very natural to write tests that prove the code works the way it was written, instead of the way it should work. Writing code test-first (via whatever flavor of Test Driven Development) flips that scenario right side up. TDD helps to ensure that code is written to work according to specifications and not the other way around.

Similarly, designing and/or implementing a UI after a behavior or process has been coded is a likely to result in a UI that fits the code model and not a model that fits the needed interaction and workflow. This situation must also be flipped right side up - interaction design should be done before, or at least in parallel, with coding. It cannot be left to accidental or incidental happenstance - interaction design must occur with proper interaction patterns and practices in mind.

Overlapping IxD and TDD

To overlap interaction design and test driven development, there are a few key words that need to be borrowed from interaction design. Fortunately, they easily fit within TDD development techniques and philosophies.

Epistemic work is exploratory in nature, or a process of trial and error through research. TDD and interaction design sketching are both epistemic. TDD explores API possibilities and allows easy trial and error to find the simplest implementation for what you need at the time. UI design sketches also allow you to quickly explore interaction designs - whether it's a white board, pencil and paper, graphics design software, or even quick-hack forms layout in IDEs. You can quickly and easily throw away a bad API in TDD and you can quickly and easily throw away a bad UI/Interaction design when you have nothing more than pencil sketches or white board drawings.

Pragmatic work is very structured and step-by-step in it's nature, implementing patterns and practices to fulfill what is needed at the moment. Implementing Code after writing unit test and implementing UI after designing around constraints are both pragmatic. TDD is pragmatic in that you only implement what is needed to properly pass the tests that have already been written. Similarly, with previously designed interactions and UI elements, implementation can be easily limited to what is needed for the UI.

With epistemic and pragmatic work covering both interaction design and test driven development, it seems that they are a natural pair. An analysis of a user story and it's acceptance criteria will create the unit tests that we need. At the same time, the same analysis can be applied to interaction designs. Additionally, a strong understanding of how a UI will look can have a profound impact on the code that is written, and vice-versa. Therefore, it is natural that interaction design and test driven development are done at just-in-time intervals - before the real work is implemented in the real code and UI platform.

IxD As Part of "Done"

Despite interaction design being a required part of UI development, not all user stories require a UI. Interaction design may not fit into a swim lane board or be part of every story's "done" criteria. However, interaction design will always be done for any story that does have a UI - it may simply be an accidental or incidental part of the software development process for a team, though. If it's safe to assume that the work will be done, then it is the team's responsibility to ensure that it is done correctly. Don't let interaction design happen accidentally or incidentally in the development process. Set a standard of always including interaction design in the development process, the same way Model View Presenter/Controller is a part of development.

Earlier this week, I was doing a training session with my current team, building a sample Org Chart application. One of the user stories we were working with, talked about assigning managers to department and had the following acceptance criteria:

• When assigning a manager to a department, ensure that they are an employee of that department, and remove them from their old department

The basic code that we came up with worked well and was encapsulated into a service object in the domain.

public class AssignmentService

{

    private IDepartmentRepository _repository;

    public AssignmentService(IDepartmentRepository repository)

    {

        _repository = repository;

    }

    public void AssignManagerToDepartment(Employee manager, Department assignedDepartment)

    {

        Department previouslyAssignedDepartment = _repository.GetDepartmentForEmployee(employee);

        if (previouslyAssignedDepartment != assignedDepartment)

        {

            previouslyAssignedDepartment.RemoveEmployee(manager);

            _repository.Save(previouslyAssignedDepartment);

        }

        assignedDepartment.AssignEmployee(manager);

        assignedDepartment.AssignManager(manager);

        _repository.Save(assignedDepartment);

    }

}

Problems

At first glance, this code seems simple enough, but we quickly ran into a problem when we started coding for another story and acceptance criteria.

• When creating a department, allow a manager to be assigned

Off-hand, this seems like a very simple situation. We'll just call the AssignmentService object after we create the Department. However, there's a large potential problem with this - the AssignmentService handles the entity persistence for both of the departments that were changed, when the manager is assigned. With that in mind, the developer working on the new requirement would have to ensure that the department is created with all of it's required fields and information before calling this service object. If the developer allows the manager to be assigned before the department's info has been completely filled in, we may accidentally allow an invalid state for a department object when calling the AssignmentService. Since the AssignmentService tries to save the department being assigned, we may also have created an semantic coupling between the department creation process and the AssignmentService - the developer needs to know that the AssignmentService will save the department. If they don't know this, they may try to save the same entities more than once, may try to save an invalid state, etc, etc, etc.

Unfortunately, we didn't have time to fix the problem during the training session - we had to stop the training almost immediately after we discovered this issue. I've got a few ideas running around in my head, on how to fix this, but I'm not 100% sure that I like any of them.

Possible Solutions

First and foremost, though, it's becoming rather apparent to me that we want to avoid entity persistence calls from within the domain service objects. This essentially means that the AssignmentService object would have to return the assigned department, and the 'previously assigned department' objects, so that the coordinating presenter could save them both. That seems a little odd, if you ask me.

One of my coworkers suggested that we allow the service to save the previously assigned department, since that is an self-contained operation in the method (the method loads the department, modifies it, and saves it) and then return the assigned department so that the presenter can save it. This option seems a bit better off-hand, but I'm still worried about the possible side effects of the AssignmentService saving the previously assigned department.

Questions

What are your thoughts on this situation... How would you solve the dilemmas that I'm pointing out? Is there a better design for the model that would eliminate this problem and make the department persistence more obvious, without having to 'know' when it is persisted?

Is the idea of not allowing entity persistence from a domain service object valid? Should we go with allowing the self-contained operations to persist the entity in that operation?

Or ???

Over the weekend, I spent some time refactoring some business rules in my current project, to use the ISpecification<t> framework that I previously created.

One of my coworkers had asked about logical groupings - making sure that we can handle complex logic such as, "(this and this) or this". Since my project actually made use of logical groupings I wanted to share with the world and show how easy it is.

In this example, I have a Date Range that is being selected – a From date and a To date. The rules are as follows for validating the range:

• If a From date and a To date are provided, the From date must be equal to, or before, the To date
• Or, you can specify a From date without To date
• Or, you can specify a To date without From date

The following is the actual code that I’m using to define these business rules, via the ISpecification<t> framework. 

PredicateSpec<ExtractSearchCriteria> fromDateProvided = new PredicateSpec<ExtractSearchCriteria>(crit => crit.FromDate > DateTime.MinValue);

PredicateSpec<ExtractSearchCriteria> toDateProvided = new PredicateSpec<ExtractSearchCriteria>(crit => crit.ToDate > DateTime.MinValue);

PredicateSpec<ExtractSearchCriteria> fromDateBeforeToDate = new PredicateSpec<ExtractSearchCriteria>(crit => crit.FromDate <= crit.ToDate);  

ISpecification<ExtractSearchCriteria> validDateRangeSpec =

    (

        (fromDateProvided.And(toDateProvided))

        .And(fromDateBeforeToDate)

    )

    .Or(

        fromDateProvided.Not(toDateProvided)

    )

    .Or(

        toDateProvided.Not(fromDateProvided)

    );

Here, I am defining the core of the business rules – to check if the From date was provided, to check if the To date was provided, and to check if the From date is before or equal to the To date. From these core specifications, I can build the aggregate spec that handles all of the stated rules for validating the date range.

There are three logical groupings using parenthesis to represent each of the business rules that can comprise a valid date range. The first logical grouping checks to see if both a From and To date are provided, and checks if the From date is before or equal to the To date, if both are provided.

(

    (fromDateProvided.And(toDateProvided))

    .And(fromDateBeforeToDate)

) 

The second group is specified with an Or, and checks to see if we provided a From date but not a To date.

.Or(

    fromDateProvided.Not(toDateProvided)

)

And the third group also uses an Or, and checks to see if we provided a To date but not a From date.

.Or(

    toDateProvided.Not(fromDateProvided)

)

The end result is that we have one of three possible ways for this date range to be valid – all logically grouped and relatively easy to read (compared to a bunch of if-then statements, at least). Even better – we re-used two out of three simple ISpecification<t> objects to create all of the rules for this validation check. This helps to create a validation that is not only easier to read, but easier to maintain and enhance in the future.

My Previous Post talked about a sample Specification pattern implementation. Today, during a discussion with some team members, I had the revelation of how fluent interfaces are really built and how they operate under Closure of Operations. So I decided to expand my previous sample code with a more operators on the spec class, and I came up with a very powerful fluent interface for creating specifications.

Here is the example I coded into my spike, to illustrate a fluent interface. Note that I changed nothing in my implementation of the ISpecification<t> or base Specification<t> from yesterday - other than to add the "Or" and "Not" specifications. The fluent interface was already there and available!

//show the real power of Closure Of Operations, in creating a fluent interface!

ISpecification<Foo> chainedSpec = equalSpec

    .And(passingSpec.And(trueSpec))

    .Or(passingNotSpec)

    .Not(failingSpec.Or(falseSpec))

    .And

    (

        passingSpec.Or

        (

            failingSpec.Not(falseSpec)

        )

    );

I'll leave it to you, the reader, to implement the "Or" and "Not" specification classes. It should be pretty simple, based on the code I posted yesterday.

I can see how we could easily use an a "Closed" interface like this, to create a more fluent implementation of business rules and logic. I've often implemented multiple if-then statements in order to evaluate equality and equivalence, via multiple methods and a lot of ugly code. This specification implementation may be the answer to that ugliness.

And suddenly, Ayende's UnitOfWork and NHibernate's ICriteria make a lot more sense to me... I love those "AHA!" moments.

Inspired by my recent readings in Domain Driven Design - specifically Chapter 10, "Supple Design" - and recent posts by David Laribee and Nigel Sampson, in combination with the recent pains I've been putting myself through, trying to test query generation code in a search screen, I decided to spike out a quick example of a reusable Specification implementation.

Rather than repeat what's already been said, I'm just going to get straight to the code.

using System;

namespace Spec_Spike

{

    class Program

    {

        static void Main()

        {

            Foo foo1 = new Foo();

            foo1.Bar = "Test";

            ISpecification<Foo> equalSpec = new Specification<Foo>(foo => foo.Bar == "Test");

            ISpecification<Foo> notEqualSpec = new Specification<Foo>(foo => foo.Bar != "Not Equal To This Text");

            ISpecification<Foo> falseSpec = new Specification<Foo>(foo => false);

            ISpecification<Foo> passingSpec = equalSpec.And(notEqualSpec);

            ISpecification<Foo> failingSpec = passingSpec.And(falseSpec);

            Console.WriteLine(equalSpec.IsSatisfiedBy(foo1));

            Console.WriteLine(notEqualSpec.IsSatisfiedBy(foo1));

            Console.WriteLine(passingSpec.IsSatisfiedBy(foo1));

            Console.WriteLine(failingSpec.IsSatisfiedBy(foo1));

        }

    }

    public class Foo

    {

        public string Bar;

    }

    public interface ISpecification<t>

    {

        bool IsSatisfiedBy(t obj);

        ISpecification<t> And(ISpecification<t> lhs);

    }

    public class Specification<t>: ISpecification<t>

    {

        private readonly Predicate<t> _pred;

        public Specification(Predicate<t> pred)

        {

            _pred = pred;

        }

        protected Specification(){}

        public virtual bool IsSatisfiedBy(t obj)

        {

            return _pred(obj);

        }

        public ISpecification<t> And(ISpecification<t> andSpec)

        {

            return new AndSpecification<t>(this, andSpec);

        }

    }

    public class AndSpecification<t>: Specification<t>

    {

        private readonly ISpecification<t> _spec1;

        private readonly ISpecification<t> _spec;

        public AndSpecification(ISpecification<t> spec1, ISpecification<t> spec)

        {

            _spec1 = spec1;

            _spec = spec;

        }

        public override bool IsSatisfiedBy(t obj)

        {

            return (_spec.IsSatisfiedBy(obj) && _spec1.IsSatisfiedBy(obj));

        }

    }

}

Drop this code into a console app in C# 3.5 and watch the magic happen. Here's the output:

These are the results that I expected - the first 2 individual specs passed, the first combined spec passed, and the last combined spec failed.

Overall, I'm fairly excited about the possibilities here. I'm thinking that I may actually be able to properly unit test the query generating code in my search screen with this basic technique. I'm still not 100% sure on that, but I plan on trying, anyway.

For more information on the Specification pattern, I highly recommend you read the previously linked posts by David Laribee and Nigel Sampson, in addition to reading all of the Domain Driven Design Book. This is one of those books that should fundamentally change the way you think about software development.

A coworker asked this question about our automated integration test suite, recently:

"with the RowTest feature of NUnit, does the test data being used need to be hard coded into my code or can it be a variable that gets defined based on some rule?"

Here is my response, outlining the need to know the state of the database (know every value of every field, in every table) before and after the test suite is run:

The short answer is that the tests will have data hard coded into them.

This may be a change from how you have looked at integration testing, previously – where the data is changed on each run, so as not to duplicate the data in the system. Rather than changing the data that is used during each test, we need to ensure that the data is exactly what we expect, before and after each test. If the data is not what we expect before the test is run, the test cannot produce the data that we expect to have after it is run. If the data is not what we expect after a test is run, the test fails.

At a very high level, automated tests against the database require three things:

1. A known, state of ALL data in the database
2. A known, suite of unit tests that manipulate said data in predictable ways
3. An expected, verifiable suite of data returned by the software and manipulated in the database

The data is not necessarily "perfect" in that it has no flaws in it – rather, every last character in every last field of every last table is known, and all of the ramifications of that data is known with the explicit purpose of that data being there to support the automated tests. The automated tests expect this "perfect" data to produce the desired results and verify that the system works as expected. Any data that is manipulated in the system is expected to be in a predictable state, so the tests can verify that the system manipulated the data correctly.

When it comes to implementation of this, there are some fairly strict requirements for it to work:

1. Before the first test is run from the test suite, the data must be exactly what the tests expect
2. After the tests have run, the data must be exactly what the tests expect
3. Repeat for each run of the test suite

What this really means is that we cannot add or modify data between two test runs, without changing the tests that work with the data. In order for the tests to run multiple times throughout the day and/or on-demand, we have to ensure that the data being manipulated is what we expect it to be. Therefore, the first step of any run of the test suite is to revert the database to the known state, through sql scripts or code that are automatically run before the tests are run.

I've been toying around with various ideas in code, and I've come to the conclusion that the following formula is true:

Lambda Expressions + Func<> and Action<> = Easy Command Patterns

As a very contrived, quick example:

public class DoStuff

{

    private Func<CommandResult> Step1 { get; set; }

    private Func<CommandResult> Step2 { get; set; }

    public DoStuff(Func<CommandResult> step1, Func<CommandResult> step2)

    {

        Step1 = step1;

        Step2 = step2;

    }

    public void DoTheStuffProcessing()

    {

        CommandResult result = step1();

        if (result.Succeeded)

        {

            step2();

        }

    }

}

It's ... so ... beautiful ...

There are a few examples in