Przejdź do głównej zawartości

Common NonSense

I am very upset when common sense is mentioned during discussions about Scrum and generally about software development. It is usually used in sentences like: "yes, we use Scrum, but we are not erthodox about it, we just use common sense".

Why would I be so angry about it? Isn't it good that people actually use common sense to make decisions? After all, Scrum is also said to be "based on common sense".

This is the question to everyone who claims that the use of common sense is a virtue: what brought you to where you are now? Wasn't that common sense?

  • Wasn't that common sense that told you to separate programmers from testers?
  • Wasn't that common sense that told you to separate analysts or architects from development team?
  • Wasn't that common sense that helped you invent "iteration zero" in which you are excused for not delivering anything useful?
  • Wasn't that common sense that helped you invent "hardening sprint" in which you execute all the tests you did not care about over the course of the project?
  • I also suspect you used common sense to determine that TDD makes projects too expensive and should be abandoned
  • It was probably common sense that whispered to your ear when you named numerous roles in your team, for every member of the team to feel special
  • And wasn't it nice when common sense provided you with so simple solution to the problem of an iteration falling into the holiday season? And you just made it one week longer...

Even if somebody else used common sense and made decisions quite opposite to those above, it was your common sense that told you to make these mistaken decisions. And therefore, don't trust your common sense. Talk to people who are wiser and more experienced. Search for options on the web. Learn what solutions people implemented in the industry. But don't trust your common sense.

This post wouldn't be here, if it were not for Michal Rosolowski, whose views on common sense blew my mind. There is a video available with Michal's lightening talk on this subject:


Popularne posty z tego bloga

Unit Testing code with IO file operations (in Python)

We may often come across a piece of code that was written without Unit Tests at all. In addition, the piece of code may be dealing with IO like file writing and reading, which makes it more difficult to Unit Test it when we are trying to refactor and modify. Let's suppose the code in question looks like this:

def writeInitialsToFile(filename, name, surname):
    initials = name[0] + '.' + surname[0] + '.'
    with open(filename, 'w') as file:

def readInitials(filename):
    initials = None
    with open(filename, 'r') as file:
        initials = file.readline()
    return initials

A straightforward and bad idea would be to write a couple of Unit Tests that make use of a real file and simply test the reading and writing. Is therea a better way to test this code?

First of all, we need a way to replace the real file with something else. For both reading and writing we will now have a couple of functions, one that expects a stream fo…

Piotr's Less Obvious Advice on Google Mock: State maintenance

Google Mock provides several ways to maintain state inside mock objects. One way of implementing state maintenance is with SaveArg. Consider the following example.

We have a class Configurator, which allows a caller to set and get values of a parameter:

class Configurator

    virtual ~Configurator() {}

    virtual void setParamX(int n) = 0;
    virtual int getParamX() = 0;

And we have a class Client that calls Configurator's methods and it also has a method incParamXBy, that can be used to increase the current value of paramX by a certain value.

class Client

    Client(Configurator & cfg);
    virtual ~Client() {}

    void setParamX(int n);
    void incParamXBy(int n);
    int getParamX();


    Configurator & _cfg;

incParamXBy internally calls setParamX and getParamX on Configurator:

void Client::incParamXBy(int n)
    _cfg.setParamX(_cfg.getParamX() + n);

Let's assume that the initial value of paramX is A and that we want to increase paramX by…

Piotr's Less Obvious Advice on Google Mock: Returning new objects from a mock

Google Mock provides a way to return newly created objects from a mock method. Suppose we have a  Generator class that is supposed to generate new objects when createNewRecord method is called:

class Generator
    virtual ~Generator() {}
    virtual Record * createNewRecord() = 0;

...and suppose we want to mock this class:

class MockGenerator : public Generator
    MOCK_METHOD0(createNewRecord, Record * ());

Suppose the caller class Client has run method defined as follows:

void Client::run()
    for(int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
        rec_tab[i] = gen.createNewRecord();

We want the mock to return a pointer to a new object each time createNewRecord is called. This is how we can express this in the test code:

TEST(ClientTest, CanRun)
    MockGenerator gen;
    Client c(gen);

    EXPECT_CALL(gen, createNewRecord())
                 //this is equivalent of returning new Record(1,2,3)