Why Branching still has a Place in the Agile World

I’m sure every developer out there would love to have a single code base with builds which are automatically tested and pushed out to customers. However, let’s assume for a moment that you’ve not got a full CI system with triggered builds, automated testing, and thousands of automated deployments a day.

For the sake argument let’s say you’ve got some of these pieces in place. Perhaps you have nightly builds? Maybe even some unit tests! But if you’re like most of the companies I’ve worked with you still run manual signoff scripts and have a couple of guys who do the deployments, know every config setting by heart and can get your application to run in all kinds of new and innovative ways.

Despite what The Phoenix Project tells us deployments to customers are still a big deal and version management (finding a way to release bug fixes but not new features) is a fact of life.

If your customers are anything like mine they’ll be incredibly nervous about taking new features. They want lengthy UAT phases and opportunities to train their staff on new functionality. This may seem like Waterfall to us, but remember many of our clients have stakeholders in some very big business. In my industry (Health and Leisure) for example we have code freezes over the January period while New Years Resolutioners and marketing campaigns are at their peak. Very few businesses would open themselves up to the risk of IT failures during these critical times.

And yet support contracts and maintenance doesn’t stop. The busy times are when the software is really put to the test and we must be able to respond to any issue which may arise.

This is why we use maintenance branches.

Our job as developers and IT professionals is to deliver a good service to our customers. We need tools and processes to do this. Agile and Continuous Integration are two of those tools but if they don’t help us meet business needs then we should seek others which do.

My customers tell me that they want to be able to take patches quickly if required. That they want to be able to access fixes without the need to test and learn new functionality.

Techniques such as feature toggles help but in my view the only way to truly meet this need is to cut a release branch after each feature (or for convenience block of features) is completed. We usually use a minor version to represent this. Using this model we can support customers without surprising them with new functionality and continue to develop knowing that we can put out maintenance releases of older version at any time.

Controversial? Perhaps, practically over purity… I hope so. What are your views or release branches and support customers with on premise installations?

April Agile Yorkshire

I managed to get a seat at Agile Yorkshire this month, I’ve missed a few of these recently partly due to other commitments but also the sheer popularity of these events.

Royd (from NewRedo) organises and coordinates these evenings, this week he’d arranged for Chris Cheadle and Sean Craig from NHS Digital and John Le Drew who runs The Agile Path to speak to us.

Chris and Sean went first, they spoke to us about an event they’d run a little before Christmas. They’d called it Firebreak, during a two week period almost the entire organisation downed tools and worked on “whatever they wanted”.

They’d started with almost a kickstarter approach, people posted ideas on postit notes and their colleagues pledged their time – once a project was fully resourced it was banked and it would go ahead.

I love the idea of this sort of thing, really opening the doors to let teams work on what they want – what they feel wild make a difference. Anything from process improvement to a proof of concept or a piece of server maintenance. It certainly seemed to be a positive experience for the NHS team, some of the projects saved thousands of pounds on licence fees!

The second talk of the night was about Safety and how important it is to effective teams.  John explained that he considered safety to be “free to make suggestions, give feedback, and make mistakes without fear of punishment or humiliation.”

For me this feeds into the fundamental requirement of trust which Patrick Lenconi described in his book Five Dysfunctions of a Team. He postulated that without trust (or in John’s words safety) teams would not challenge each other and discuss ideas.

John had a few examples of this, my favourite was a role play exercise where three characters were so determined to avoid taking the blame for pressing The Big Red button which would overload the nuclear reactor they refused to cooperate to press the three buttons which would save them. Contrived? Perhaps… but it makes the point that if you are scared to look foolish then you’ll naturally be less confident to make suggestions.

Something which did niggle me was the idea of accountability, as managers we need to hold our directs responsible for their performance but this is challenging without undermining that feeling of security. In Lenconi’s book he encourages the team to hold each other accountable, finding the balance between a blame culture and safe, self motivating team is a difficult balance to find!

I’d certainly recommend listening to John if he’s speaking in your area. At the very least I’d say every manager should hear his views about engagement and workplace stress! I for one will be listening to his podcast.

It was a great night, as I’ve said before I’d always suggest Agile Yorkshire if you’re a Leeds based  geek!

Why Technical Tests are both a Wonderful and Terrible Idea

When hiring for a new developer its extremely common to ask them to demonstrate their technical ability. Often this is a practical test to be done at home and then sent into the hiring manager.

It’s a nice idea, you get to see the candidate’s unhurried work, get a feel for their skills and potentially ask about them in a face to face interview later. It’s far harder for a bad developer to write good code than it is for them to learn a few answers about relational databases or solid principles.

However, I believe this approach is flawed!

To explain why I want to describe the recent experience of a friend of mine, an outstanding developer who recently applied for a development role. The technical test was presented to him and he completed it, he’d had a rather manic week and so determined not to miss his deadline so he worked late I tot he night. He confessed to me later that he probably spent somewhere between ten and twelve hours on that piece of work!

What happened?

The company rejected him with a series of bullet points over design choices without ever giving him the chance to explain why he’d made those decisions.

So let me ask you this, do you think friend is ever going to waste his time with one of their roles in the future? Do you think I, knowing his experience would apply for one of their jobs? What about the rest of our friendship group?

My point is this – any hiring manager will tell you how scarce good development resource is. By demanding eight, ten, maybe even twelve hours of our candidates’ time and then throwing it away, that’s (in my view) arrogance.

What’s more it doesn’t actually tell you very much! Sat at home what’s to stop someone googling the question, posting something on Stack Overflow, or asking a friend to complete the test for them? How do you know that the candidate’s work is their own?

So what do I recommend instead?

I’m hoping to start recruiting over the next week months and I intend to send code review tasks out to my candidates. Why?

  • Asking someone to review your code gives them a chance to suggest improvements and identify where you’ve not used best practices
  • Code reviews ask candidates to explain and articulate their views, something a straightforward programming challenge doesn’t
  • You still get the same feel of a candidate’s focus (do they focus on code clarity, performance or UI aspects?)
  • You are demanding far less of a candidate’s time and therefore aren’t putting off people applying for the role

Will my approach work? I don’t know, we’ll find out! What are your experiences with practical coding challenges? Do they work?

Microsoft HoloLens

I was lucky enough to get tickets to see Mike Taulty talk about Microsoft HoloLens at Leeds Sharp last week. I didn’t really know anything about augmentated reality or virtual reality but in the interests of Staying Technical I was definitely interested to find out a little more.

Wow!

It turns out that the HoloLens is a Windows 10 PC designed to be worn rather than sat at. It runs apps from the windows store without modification (although Mike did stress that typing furiously in midair is somewhat less precise than using a keyboard). Instead of sitting on a screen the windows floats in front of you, hovers on a wall, or rests on a table.

3D apps can be build using Unity 3D (in fact Mike showed us how). I was really impressed how easy it was to work out what the user was looking out and listen to what they were saying (although I imagine Microsoft Cognitive Services could be used very effectively here).

Can I imagine us all walking around with these things strapped our head? Probably not… at nearly £3000 for the developer version these are likely to be out of the consumer budget (although Microsoft are working with partners at the moment to develop other models). But in a commercial environment? For architects, engineers, surgeons or even as a stepping stone onto the next generation devices which may weigh little more than regular sunglasses? I could see that!

Am I rushing out to buy a HoloLens? Probably not,  it would I seriously consider an Acer or Asus model for a couple of hundred pounds… that’s a much harder question to answer! I can imagine little spaceships flying around my living room or a huge troll sat on my sofa playing chess with me – the sky really could be the limit with these devices!