As my last fall semester comes to a close, I wanted to write about an article on something pretty interesting I learned about in my software construction and design course.
On Stackify, Thorben Janssen wrote Design Patterns Explained–Adapter Pattern (with code examples). Overall, this article re-instilled how design patterns make it easier to write more well-structured and maintainable code.
I found it useful to see how Janssen discussed the two different versions of the class adapter; the class adapter pattern (which implements the adapter using inheritance) and the object adapter pattern (which uses composition to reference an instance of the wrapped class within it).
Similar to how we learned the concept in class, something I appreciated is the “real-life” example or comparison used to describe the physical adapters we use when traveling. When we are traveling and do not have compatible power sockets, we must find a way to be able to charge our use our devices without having to change the whole make of it. A way of doing so is by using adapters; which does not change the overall product or device, it just allows you to be able to plug it in.
An situational example that I can think of when explaining adapters is if you have ever been zip-lining or done a ropes course (like Go Ape) where you are attached to a harness. When you are transferring from one line to another, you can use a metal contraption which helps guide you while connecting and disconnecting from paths. That metal contraption serves as an adapter, not changing what you are but allowing you to use something.
I agree with what message Janssen is trying to express about how great design patterns are (the adapter pattern specifically) when it comes to writing code. His content allowed me to think about real life situations in code form when he introduced the basic and premium coffee machines to brew coffee using the adapter pattern. One of the best ways of learning concepts, in my opinion, is to compare it to a real-life situation and then show people visualizations to help them better understand what you are trying to explain and the article did both.
Testing, testing. I may need your approval on this article I read by Software Testing Magazine on Approval Testing. Approval testing, as defined by this article, is a way of software testing that results in presenting the before and after of an application for a user (ex: software development team) to review it and potentially approve it. It’s more of a visual representation of testing and one of the major cons is how the results have to be checked manually.
Some testing tools mentioned include: Approval Tests, TextTest, Jest, Recheck, Automated Screenshot Diff, Depicted (dpxdt), and etc.
The main purpose of the software testing tool, using TextTest for example, is checking that the text output after running program from the command line in different ways.
What I found interesting is how a user can see that a test technically could have “passed” or “failed” but still decide to mark it as the other because they choose what feature they are looking for in the end. This makes it a little more flexible to use approval testing as it is more of a guide or guideline for a user instead of only seeing one word and then a short description of what could have gone wrong. I think this process is much more transparent or descriptive with a user about what could have gone wrong or what went right.
One way the content has changed how I will think about the testing is how there are so many more types of software or programs out there than we can imagine which help us better code or create our own software and programs. This one is especially good for visual coders and testers who like to see their results firsthand to compare what they are expecting with what they actually got.
Overall, I found this article was useful because it introduced me to thinking about a better way of logging the differences between what the reference result is versus the actual result. I did not disagree with any of it since it showed us how we can use approval testing to our advantage while still being honest about its limitations.
There are lots of “rules” we must follow in object-oriented software development and the article The Genius of the Law of Demeter by Javadevguy summarizes how they are useful. From what I put together, it seems like the Law of Demeter took abstract concepts and basically put them into a universal set of rules for Object-Oriented code.
I thought that the law of demeter must be a big deal if someone decided to sit down and write a lengthy blog post about it. This content ended up being interesting as it tried to convince readers why they should obey this “law.” The Law of Demeter basically paves the way for what users can do to a given method. It is kind of like considering the restrictions or possibilities based on the method. One of the takeaways I got from this is how there is a lot of focus on communication between two objects.
The rules listed in the article are as follows–noting that it says “For all classes C, and for all methods M attached to C, all objects to which M sends a message must be”:
this in Java)
- M’s argument objects
- Instance variable objects of C
- Objects created by M, or by functions or methods which M calls
- Objects in global variables (
static fields in Java)
Another useful takeaway I got from this article came from observing the code examples Javadevguy included; how Rule #1 covers that any method can be called on the current object. I also noted when there would be an instance where the law would prohibit something is not “sending a message” to any already existing object that is held in instance variables of other classes.
This will affect the way I continue to do work as an Object-Oriented developer. I mean, in life when you learn there is a more useful or structured way to help you achieve more effective results, you would want to try or follow it, right? For my future use, I will acknowledge (like other blogs and articles) that the Law of Demeter is less of a law and only a suggestion or a guideline.
Overall, I would say that the content has helped further solidified my understanding of some Object-Oriented coding concepts. I agree with the content as it is trying to help people become better developers or better understand the Law of Demeter in general.
If you happen to be reading this page translated from English to another language, hello there, you are one of the main characters of this blog post. Without linguistics, the study of language and its structure, we probably would not be able to figure out how to communicate everything we need to globally while being able to understand it at the same time while testing. There are so many online resources that cover what a specific country or region in a country uses in terms of data formats for their computer systems.
Stickyminds featured an article from Mukesh Sharma on Linguistic Testing: Setting Up Your Software for Global Quality. Sharma dives in by explaining what exactly linguistic testing is–which is testing not only localization but also internationalization. These words basically mean everything we are testing on the software either is or would be fully functioning across the globe.
I found this content thought-provoking as I never specifically thought about how developers and testers would have to consider culturally-aware attributes like the formatting for texts, dates, and currencies. As more and more people are gaining access to the internet across the world, that means there are even more and more platforms to test for gauging market readiness.
An example of a situation that could happen in real life I can think of when testing functionality on websites is for international shipping addresses. If a user, we’ll call him Zayn, from London, England is ordering something from a company based in Boston, Massachusetts (USA) and puts in his shipping address, it should not require him to select a “State” under one of the fields after he selects “United Kingdom / England” as his country option. If that field still requires Zayn to select a state when his country location does not have states, there is a problem.
This will change the way I think when I work as when developing code to solve problems or create something new, I will have to think about if the market or target audience goes beyond the USA. When testing the code, of course every possible scenario must be tested already but there will have to be more details to make sure it all goes smoothly–especially since international errors or problems usually take up more effort to fix as communication plays a big factor.
Over the weekend, I had the chance to sit down and listen to another podcast episode by Developer Things. The title, Women in Technology (with Megan Horton), caught my eye as I am always on the lookout to learn about other women’s experiences in technology.
The podcast series’ goal is for people to learn new developer things each time they listen so here’s what I learned on the career side related to software construction, design, and architecture:
- The stigma of “nerds” begins in elementary school so girls start to stray away from STEM even in the limited amount of programs there already are for computer science in earlier education years. This eventually results in the number of females in CS in universities–like mine–is so low along with the numbers of those who move onto the software development workforce.
- There are jobs out there like writing software for watering fields based on whether the sun is up or down or varying weather conditions. It reminded me a bit about how we used duck stimulator as an example to learn UML diagrams and had different actions performed for each duck.
- Career advancement is not always a straight path. People tend to switch into computer science as a major or switch into technology when they want a career change. I’d like to point out how the host of this episode took the opportunity to say Horton came from the funeral business to killing software bugs.
- You won’t always have to write code: there’s so much out there–you could have a passion for anything and do something tech-related in that setting.
The content has caused me to think more deeply about what I will do in technology, I mean of course I’m going with software development or software engineering but what is the overall goal throughout my career timeline going to be? What kinds of companies will I end up working for? What projects or passions will I follow along the way? Overall, I enjoyed the podcast with Horton as she discussed the ups and downs of being a female in technology and her experiences in the industry so far.
I don’t think I was there for the time when people would be kicked off the internet because someone needs to use the phone as discussed in the episode but I do experience times when my connection isn’t consistent. It really makes me sit back and think about how technology relies on constant power and a steady internet connection.
A major takeaway that I continue finding myself writing about is how we will always be learning something new in technology as things are always changing–as long as the power is on.
Imagine being several years into your role as a developer; you’ve had a long week, a big project to push tomorrow and suddenly… you’re stuck on something. And you’ve double-triple-quadruple checked to make sure everything is working by code review but you cannot put your finger on how it is not quite perfect. What’s wrong? Let’s find out.
This is the first course-related podcast I’ve listened to for a blog post and if this is one of the only podcasts you will listen to, I recommend this one.
Jonathan Cutrell started off the podcast by saying “If there’s one thing that makes developers self-conscious it’s probably their googling history–more specifically things that they google that they forgot how to do.”
People can talk about code for days but they do not talk about the toll of what a developer thinks of themself when they are stuck on a part of their code or need to rely on the internet for something. This honesty makes it easier for university students and entry-level developers to understand the pace they are learning at is their own and that not everyone is perfect at coding even after years of experience.
Something that changed the way I thought about this is how important it is to know the pattern or routine of a concept. Things Cutrell says great developers care about is how understanding patterns and principles transfers but not necessarily the actual code itself. “Great developers” focus on the overall concept instead of wasting time on the small details of a language.
Due to this thinking, I realized I never considered how a developer can be the best of the best in one language but if they had to convert it into another language, the translation would be a little different. The real life comparison to this would be if someone were speaking with broken English. This does not mean they are not smart in any way, it’s saying that they are focusing on the main idea instead of a small detail they are trying to get through. They use their time more efficiently by moving on to a big concept instead of worrying about the syntax that they can easily google.
Overall, I appreciate what this article brought up as I was expecting it to be about just googling things but it dug a little deeper and mentioned what a good developer should focus on.
Podcast Episode: https://spec.fm/podcasts/developer-tea/204292
A few weeks ago, I was introduced to JUnit testing in my Software Quality Assurance & Testing course. The blog post tutorial linked below is one I would recommend to those interested in learning about assertion. Reading this post has helped me review the concepts I have learned and I will share what helped me better understand the topic of writing basic assertions with AssertJ.
I found this content useful as it started off by covering whether a user had Maven or Gradle for declaring the dependency and then we get to dive into scenarios when a certain feature would be used. Some examples of what you can test with assertions includes: boolean values (true/false), whether or not something is NULL, comparing the result with a number or string (EqualTo()), object references, and arrays that are equal.
There is a walk-through of what we want to test with a basic scenario of when we would want to use it and this information makes me appreciate how much this kind of testing helps simplify things. It adds more structure to what we would like to do and by being able to import it, saves us so much more time in the end.
Honestly, in class I tend to spend more of my time trying to follow steps instead of absorbing what the material is and this article really helped me realize things like “oh, so this is why we use this line of code” or “so that’s why this is always there.” As a visual person, I appreciate the articles which actual include code examples for us to see what’s being used or added to explain a concept which was very helpful in this case. I do not disagree with any of the content provided as it is much more technical and there is reasoning behind each part of the process.
Overall, I would keep this article bookmarked and may come back to use it as a reference whether it be for a future testing assignment or just for trying to refresh this in my memory. As a side note, installing gradle on our laptops in class enabled us to run our tests through the terminal which was a pretty cool experience.
In my software design course, I recently learned about how using design patterns helps you code better. I thought it would be a good review to go over the concepts this article introduces and potentially link it to things from class and maybe even add some things we did not get through during class.
The three categories Frederico Haag, a computer science engineering student at PoliMi, wrote about are creational patterns, structural patterns, and behavioral patterns.
Based on the design pattern I chose to work on for my individual assignment, I wanted to focus on the facade section–which is a structural pattern. The main take-away of the facade is how it “provides a simplified interface to a larger body of code.” I like how the name itself actually relates to the word facade’s definition: “an outward appearance that is maintained to conceal a less pleasant or creditable reality” (Dictionary.com). As a person who likes the aesthetic side of things, this seems like a convenient design pattern, especially if people who are not working on the code end up seeing it; it may be less overwhelming to some.
Another one of the options my class had for the same assignment above is for the decorator class–which is also a structural pattern. This “adds behavior to an object dynamically without affecting the behavior of other objects from the same class.” For some reason, when I imagine this concept, I think of a decorated cake. Since it is useful for adding the same behavior to many classes; it’s like when you add a spread-out layer of fondant or frosting to a cake, it could either cover the whole section(s) of cake or just some, but it doesn’t mess up the inside of the cake.
Overall, I found this content very useful to reiterate what I had learned and Haag incorporated visual UML diagram examples along with actual snippets of code to help us compare and contrast what he was showing. The content has not changed how I think about the subject because there is no arguing here, it just shows different ways people can structure their code overall. I do appreciate how Haag also listed “typical use cases” for some of them as it makes it easier to imagine.
“Forget about automating your regression tests” is some bold advice from Bas Dijkstra, who has experience as a test automation consultant. It made me wonder what exactly led him to making this kind of statement on regression test scripts and his article, On Ending the Regression Automation Fixation, covered various reasons why.
Two reasons why Dijkstra says starting with automating your regression tests is not ideal includes regression scripts being too long and how regression tests are written from an end user perspective. I find this interesting as a lot of software bloggers are saying automation is not always going to be the answer and their answers have yet to make me disagree.
The reason I chose this is because I am drawn to honesty; two examples above were explained with scenarios with failures Dijkstra has faced from creating inefficient or “plain worthless” cases.
This content will change the way I think about creating potential testing cases as there will be questions to ask myself before proceeding with the task(s) at hand. There will be a lot of reflecting on what could be consuming my test time, which parts are too repetitive, or what can just be done better. I mean of course I’ve already been considering these questions but now there will be a more conscious effort to think about them.
Dijkstra’s process especially considers the difference between how many scripts there could be when a computer is trying to translate what a human could have performed when testing. I realize how that would be an issue when trying to understand what could have went wrong or does not match up fully when there is less (specific) feedback when it comes to automation.
Thanks to this article, I will also try to predict how many layers of regression scripts would be too much of a hassle to develop ways for communication between what is being tested under the application. Overall, this information was useful as we should be reminded that “automation is meant to make your life and testing applications easier”; it should make sense and not be done at random, especially for regression testing.
As someone who will be graduating within the next year, I’m always interested in what software development is currently like. Ekaterina Novoseltseva uses some 2018 statistics and presents interesting facts about software development through Apiumhub—which is a software development company based in Barcelona. The data in this article comes from a collection of over 300 answers from different countries around the world; starting with the challenges in software development.
Although I knew of the current trend(s) for the most part, I was surprised to see what Apiumhub had to conclude on software outsourcing. It shows an infographic where of the people who did outsource software development fully or partially, only 10.06% of them were “absolutely satisfied” and 51.57% were “somewhat satisfied.” Based on what I’d been hearing of people being worried of getting all the tech jobs outsourced, maybe the scare isn’t as bad as people led it on to be. I mean of course, the total majority of responses from that fall under “satisfied” but it was not fully satisfying—this would probably be best for quick, short-term fixes or work. Which shows how there is still more to people-to-people communication in the company’s direct workforce and it puts my mind at ease a little more.