justin․searls․co

Unrequired Love

This post presumes you're familiar with the concept of tools that introduce a module format (whether it's Require.js, Browserify, or something else) to JavaScript code that runs in the browser. I'll arbitrarily refer to the over-arching meme as capital-R "Require" for the rest of this post. Also, keep in mind that this post is only discussing "JavaScript that runs in browsers". It's not at all concerned with Node.js or npm or anything having to do with dependency management of JavaScript in that ecosystem.

But wait, there's more…

Jasmine Tactics

Today, I had the good fortune to visit my friends at Sparkbox, where they host a Dayton JavaScript user group called Gem City JS. Today, I showed up to share some perspective on how to test JavaScript with Jasmine. Folks have been asking me to share a screencast of how I write Jasmine tests for a few years, so I recorded the session and am providing it online, completely unedited:

To be continued…

An Includes Trap

Funny how just this week I felt compelled to blog about implicit knowlege, because a terrific example of the possible consequences of too much implicit knowledge came up yesterday. Please forgive me for the length of this post, because this is a surprisingly subtle problem. As with most subtle problems, the context and relevant background knowledge are necessary to arrive at a clear understanding of both the problem itself and the causes.

To be continued…

Explicit vs Implicit Knowledge

We lack much of a vocabulary to describe knowledge and how code can succeed to or fail at codifying it. The points made in this post are so popular as to be self-evident, but it seems I can always use more practice in articulating them. I'll start with an example that many of us are familiar with and then swivel into an issue I ran into today. code comments Inline comments in code are often maligned for two reasons: (1) well-factored code can be so expressive that additional comments shouldn't be too valuable, and (2) comments often fall out of sync with reality, as only the code must change to implement new behavior.

Keep reading…

Upgrading Hacked Dependencies

Today we set out to upgrade one of the third-party JavaScript dependencies on which our project relies and we inadvertently discovered that it had a number of custom hacks made against it. This blog post replays a similar experience and how we can reduce some of the risk in attempting to confidently upgrade the dependency with git diff and patch. introducing a new dependency It starts when we add a new 3rd party library to our project.

You'll never guess what happens next…

Say Hello to Lineman

We've been hard at work on a tool called Lineman that helps you create web applications in JavaScript (and CoffeeScript!), and we're really excited to share it with you! Tonight I recorded an 8-minute screencast to show you the ropes: As time goes on, I'll go into more detail on both our motivations in writing Lineman as well as more advanced usage like overriding configuration defaults. In the meantime, please give Lineman a spin and tell us what you think!

But wait, there's more…

API Design is Hard

[Note: this post covers unreleased features of gimme, which are unreleased because of the issues described in this post. They need more time in the oven. You can peruse the feature branch on github] Working on gimme with Mr. Karns made me realize I'd painted myself into a corner on gimme's API design. I thought I'd share here, for hope that either (a) someone will respond with an approach I like better, or (b) the topic might prove independently useful, and some good will come of this after all.

Keep reading…

Purpose-Oriented Tests

Lately I've been thinking a lot about how we can improve our code by reflecting on our mindsets and motivations with respect to software testing. A while ago, I wrote about the huge impact that prompts have on how we grow code (even the parts of speech we use to name objects). Later, I sat down to illustrate a taxonomy of the types of tests I tend to see in the wild.

Okay, I'm interested…

Blame the Code not the Test

"This test is too coupled to the implementation." This complaint is commonly levied when—on account of test double setup—you have spec code that looks a lot like the subject's ("SUT's") implementation code. I hear this complaint most often in cases where the subject has little responsibility beyond passing a value from dependency A to dependency B and returning it. Because isolation tests specify not only the externally observable behavior of the subject, but also the subject's contracts with its collaborators, it should be obvious that isolation testing is going to bring complex interactions with collaborators to the forefront in a way that an integrated test would not.

Keep reading…

On Organizational Transformation

I have a lot of empathy for people that work at big companies. No one should be required to use a crappy ThinkPad loaded with sluggish, productivity-monitoring software. No one should be forced to communicate through a regimented, politicized hierarchy to do their job. No one should have their actions decided for them by someone else, especially because no one else has a better chance of determining necessary actions than the person who is closest to the work.

To be continued…

Language-Based User Groups Considered Boring

Has anyone else wondered whether our habit of organizing user groups around a programming language (Java, Ruby) or a technical stack (.NET, iOS) has outlived its usefulness? Lately, a group's language preference seems to be an unhelpful way to subdivide our community's interests. JavaScript frameworks are all the rage at Ruby user groups. RubyMotion talks are about to inundate iOS user groups. And I've seen "mock objects rock" and "mock objects suck" talks at numerous groups of different languages (noting that mock confusion differs only in dialect from group to group).

You'll never guess what happens next…

A Note on Feedback

Many people who practice test-driven-development completely surrender the practice when they undertake writing code for user interfaces. It's something I observe often as I try to sell people on TDD for JavaScript. The arguments I hear most often go something like, "testing DOM/jQuery/view code isn't valuable", or, "testing a view is a waste of time—I can see that it's working as quickly as I can run a test!" After all, it might take no longer to hit Cmd-R (or F5) in a browser than it takes to run a unit test.

You'll never guess what happens next…

Types of Tests

I want to spend some time documenting the different types of automated tests I encounter most often, detailing each type's distinct characteristics, advantages, and challenges. This is not a novel concept, but since many developers I interact with continue to conflate, confuse, and generally stumble over this issue, I figured it couldn't hurt to share my perspective. I'll take a first swing at this post by using the terms I prefer, but I will gladly update it in response to your feedback—after all, any taxonomy is only useful if everyone in a given group can largely agree on it.

Okay, I'm interested…

The Mythical Team Month

I was honored to present this talk at Agile and Beyond 2012 today. Embedded below is a screencast of the talk (hosted on vimeo) as it was presented, with audio: Embedded below is my slide deck (hosted here by my gracious friends at SpeakerDeck): If you have any feedback—questions, comments, criticisms—I'd love it if you left a comment on this post!

jasmine-fixtures

Update 2/5/2012: replaced the jasmine-fixture description with examples using the current "affix()" API method. One of the questions I'm frequently asked about test-driven development with Jasmine is a variation of, "how do I get my specs to see my HTML?" It's a completely fair question: JavaScript very often inspects or manipulates the DOM, so having a way to arrange the DOM's state with HTML is critical to writing tests. My goal this morning is to explain why exactly I recommend against loading HTML fixtures from external files when writing unit tests.

To be continued…

iCloud is Anti-Family

My spouse and I share an Apple ID. But we also maintain separate Apple IDs. Paradox. Why? Because nearly a decade ago, it took us all of fifteen minutes to realize that we were purchasing the same songs multiple times from our separate computers. That realization—and the subsequent decision to share an Apple ID for purchases—has made each new Apple software upgrade increasingly complex over the years. So I made a chart!

Okay, I'm interested…

The Limits of Metaphors

All metaphors break down with sufficient mileage. [And they often break down quite quickly, like that car metaphor I just made.] Because metaphors break down, it's worth pondering the fact that most of humanity only comprehends software through the use of metaphors. The metaphors most users experience are graphical user interfaces (desktops, folders, round-rect app icons, back buttons, etc.) The metaphors our friends and family hear include our own attempts to describe how writing software is actually quite a lot like crafting sturdy Amish furniture The metaphors conveyed to business people—at least, the ones that pay to have software developed—are as boundless as they are inane (and they're usually quite inane) The metaphors that software developers themselves are steeped in are perhaps too complex to ever escape.

Okay, I'm interested…

What's Wrong With Ruby's Test Doubles

Prologue First things first: let’s square up terminology. For the sake of facilitating sane discussion on this topic, I’ve adopted the terms used in Gerard Meszaros’ XUnitPatterns book. He drew a complex table for this, but I’ll quickly summarize here: Test Double — a generic term to describe an artifical stand-in for code (usually an object) upon which the subject code you’re specifying depends. Mocks, spies, stubs, fakes, etc. are all specific subtypes of test doubles.

You'll never guess what happens next…

The Power of Prompts

This post is partly in response to to this tweet, and partly a follow-up to a teaser I tweeted earlier this week. We humans are suckers for suggestion. If you need evidence of this, consider something as seemingly innocuous as the order in which we ask people questions. If I were to ask you: 1. Does the following web site load properly in your browser? Make sure all the pictures load: cuteoverload.

Okay, I'm interested…

Open source interviewing

When someone applies to Pillar, we invite them to submit a code example that solves a particular problem. We review the code as an input early in the interview process. It’s a helpful component of getting acquainted with a candidate, but a few things aren’t ideal: For any toy project, the domain is going to be trivial enough that it isn’t likely to be very representative of a larger “real” project As I review more and more submissions which solve the same handful of problems, I’m finding it harder to evaluate each with a fresh set of eyes Ultimately, the code doesn’t have any utility—its lifecycle ends as soon as it has been reviewed and discussed.

To be continued…

1
2
3