[squeak-dev] Development methodology

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Tue Sep 29 16:05:31 UTC 2020


Hi Herbert,

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:44 AM Herbert <herbertkoenig at gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
> let me just throw in the cost curve (Barry Boehm I think). A bug gets
> exponentially more expensive, the later it's found. And the fact that for x
> bugs found during testing you can be sure to deliver n*x bugs to the
> customer. n maybe <<1 but still. Don't know the source of this any more.
>

Thanks, this accords with my experience.  Thank you.  It also is a strong
argument for continuous integration and tests, *BUT* (and it's a big BUT)
only if the test signals can be seen.

So lumping lots of tests together so that the one persistently failing test
marks the whole suite as having failed isn't helpful.  For example, if our
SUnit tests were grouped by package then we could see much sooner when a
commit of a package broke something.  Right now, with everything lumped
together the fact that we have some failing tests (an inevitability in
complex projects with lots going on, and long term issues that need long
term actions to solve) obscures the test results, and means we're not able
to use them as we should. If we broke out the test results in sub groups,
and didn't report the overall signal, but emphasised the deltas between
successive runs of individual groups, we would see when things break.

Right now the CI for VM builds aggregates in exactly this way so when I
look in my email I see that the tests have failed (so what's new").  Well,
yesterday I had time to look (I don't always) and found that the builds are
OK up until a run of a build of a newspeak VM, and the VM build is OK, it
is the Newspeak bootstrap that fals, and since Newspeak (I think I'm right
in thinking) is no longer maintained, this is not a surprise.

But instead of simply discarding the Newspeak build to get green tests
again, better would be to
a) not chain the builds so that an early failure prevents potentially
successful subsequent builds, i.e. attempt to build everything
b) report to the mailing list a message that specifies which builds have
failed, so the subject line would be something like "Travis CI: M builds
out of N have failed", not the depressing "the build has failed"

I'm bitten by a workflow of quick commits (we are also using Git) as a QA
> person in my day job where they also add hasty reviews to the quick
> commits. So I kind of cringed when I read Christoph's  post :-).
>
>
> Still a complex or tedious workflow is also bad for quality and
> productivity so that's the point of the post I fully agree with.
>
>
> I'm too far away from Squeak but would it be a possibility to have small
> commits in Git (or elsewhere) and consolidated bigger ones for a proper
> ancestry? At least we need to be very careful when changing the community
> process.
>

We have all the infrastructure we need in Monticello (it supports branching
and merging, and multiple repositories).  We even have something close to
what you suggest in production, with release repositories that allow people
to stay with e.g. squeak53, and we can push improvements and bug fixes
there.  But I agree, we want something like a high-frequency trunk and a
low-frequency trunk.  So we could implement e.g. treatedtrunk, and, say,
automate pushing the 3 day, or 7 day old, trunk to treatedtrunk.  It would
be easy for those wanting a stable trunk process to stay with the
treatedtrunk update stream, and to load from trunk the latest greatest that
they really want, since the delta between treatedtrunk and trunk would be
small, and the delta would be no more than a few days worth of commits.

> Best regards,
>
>
> Herbert
>
>
>
> Am 29.09.20 um 01:38 schrieb Thiede, Christoph:
>
> > Maybe for git-based projects, a commit-first, fix-later strategy is
> what that culture likes and that system can support, but it's not a good
> fit for Squeak's trunk.
>
>
> And that's why - sorry for rolling out my old chestnut again - I still
> do believe that a git-based workflow could make us as a community more
> efficient.
>
> I don't question that manual testing is great, and I don't question that
> quality can increase if you give your patches time for maturing, but when I
> compare the resulting workflow to the "mainstream" workflow that I can use
> anywhere on GitHub, I repeatedly have the dissatisfying feeling that the
> inbox/trunk workflow is so slow that it ruins all the efficiency from the
> Smalltalkish development workflow (which, however, unquestionably
> outperforms the "mainstream" workflow in a dead, non-live UI without
> first-class objects for code and tools!).
>
> This might apply most significantly to small changes that would form a PR
> of two or three commits in a git project because our inbox workflow does
> not scale so well for changes of such extent. I do not know how many
> hours I already have spent on fixing the ancestry of my versions, comparing
> them to their ancestors, or re-uploading them, but it has definitively
> been too many hours ...
>
>
> Did someone ever investigate this question seriously by doing a study or
> so? I would really find the results interesting.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Christoph
>
> ------------------------------
> *Von:* Squeak-dev <squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> <squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org> im Auftrag von Chris
> Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> <asqueaker at gmail.com>
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 29. September 2020 01:00 Uhr
> *An:* The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> *Betreff:* Re: [squeak-dev] tedious programming-in-the-debugger error
> needs fixing
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:07 AM Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Christoph,
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 7:58 AM Thiede, Christoph <
>> Christoph.Thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Eliot,
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm very sorry for this bug, which was so unnecessary because my image
>>> has still a gigantic working copy ...! Tools-ct.988 should fix the
>>> issue, I tested it in a fresh trunk image. But it would be probably better
>>> if you could test it yourself, too. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> No need to apologise.  It's an easy mistake, and you fixed it.  As long
>> as we're all patient with each other and take responsibility (Andreas said
>> "if you break it, you fix it") we're going to get along fine and be
>> collectively productive.
>>
>
> The following is not addressed to Christoph or his commit, but to Eliots
> comment, above:  Patience should begin within our development methodology.
> The words above are correct and sweet, and I agree with them, but I feel
> the need to caution against the implication that "everything's great as
> long as you fix it *afterward*."  Maybe for git-based projects, a *commit-first,
> fix-later* strategy is what that culture likes and that system can
> support, but it's not a good fit for Squeak's trunk.  I believe Andreas
> understood this, and he indicated that "breaking the trunk is generally
> frowned upon."
>
> When it comes to code less than 24 hours old, no matter how simple it
> seems, chances are about 80% that a subsequent "oops, sorry" commit will
> need to follow.  With "older," (e.g., even only just 48 hours!) *tested*
> code, that chance drops significantly.  Patience.  Restraint.  Please.  :)
> Let our methodology put time to work *for* us, by living with our changes
> for a bit (as, it sounds like, Christoph did!) and witness them work in
> context.  Maybe not this time, but *generally, *you'll have a gist enough
> to know whether it should be loaded and tested separately in a clean trunk
> first.
>
> Cheers,
>   Chris
>
>
>

-- 
_,,,^..^,,,_
best, Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20200929/6758bbf9/attachment.html>


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list