By following a few simple design principles, you can make code safe to use without making it difficult to examine nor adapt to new purposes. Give me guard rails, not prison bars!
If you’re thinking about starting to use Contract Tests, don’t look for tools, because they don’t help you with the most important aspect of Contract Tests, and they might even distract you from it.
Years ago, I learned a simple heuristic to discover when subclasses are ready to die. In functional programming, it appears that we can use that same heuristic to surprisingly good effect!
I’ve been teaching programmers about the value of isolated tests for a long time, and recently I’ve seen increasing resistance to the idea. I worry that this comes partly from having presented motivations and reasons that tends towards the overly-abstract, ironically enough. Perhaps I can improve matters by returning to the concrete issues and constraints that led me to being exploring this idea in the first place.
It took a day, but I managed to learn how to deploy a Jekyll blog to Heroku using GitLab CI, even though I’d never used GitLab CI before. This not only provides a tutorial, but also an example of applying a Learning Tests approach to something other than code running in a single process.
We have standard workflows in our systems that programmers copy and paste from module to module in order to achieve some kind of standard behavior. Programmers call this boilerplate. If they extract the standard workflow from the boilerplate, then the copy/paste risk goes away, it becomes easier to gain confidence in the code, and everyone wins.
Many programmers believe that tests have special permission to repeat themselves, arguing that this repetition makes those tests “simpler” or “easier to read”. I challenge that claim in this free preview article at The jbrains Experience, where members get personalized consulting and answers to their questions.
I recently encountered a code base in which someone had applied the Golden Master technique, but done so in a way I find risky, so I wanted to warn you against letting this happen in your code. This code exhibits a bad idea that probably started out as a good idea or seemed like a good idea at the time. This makes it plausible-but-risky, and this is where a lot of legacy code comes from.
Today I’d like to share an example of a tiny cohesion risk. I leave it to you to evaluate the severity of the risk and the appropriateness of the refactoring. I like to deal with risks when they are small enough that their impact, while painful, probably won’t kill.