Skip to main content

Examples and Objects

The most successful and fun project I have been part of developed a network simulator for operator training. We had a great team and freedom to work how we wanted, but another key to success was the domain model. The analyst drew object diagrams to explain to the programmers and testers how a network topology could be, for instance like this:






This may look simple, but these diagrams explained a lot to us. We used them to discuss what should happen in different scenarios, such as what should happen when a Trunk is connected to another Port. Then we implemented these scenarios as unit tests. This resulted in a robust implementation with few bugs.

But in most projects, we don't have anything like this. In one project I spent several days trying to understand how a trading system worked. I had the domain model and database schema, but it was not clear when these objects were created, updated and deleted in the database. I read thousands of lines of code and run the program in a debugger, but this didn't tell me when the behavior was executed. Finally, I found out, and I drew some diagrams. When I presented this to the project manager, analyst, testers and other developers, it was a revelation to people that had worked on that system for years. They finally understood the internal behavior of their application. This behavior was certainly clear to the original designers of the application, but it was not documented anywhere. The result was that new programmers like myself struggled to understand the application logic. This happens all the time in our industry. It is frustrating for developers and costly for companies.

Developers need some documentation; the code is not enough. But what is the best format for this documentation? We don't need thick Word documents. A few examples of domain objects can take us very far. And the great thing about domain objects is that they can be discussed with users, analysts and testers, so that the whole team get a shared understanding of the behavior of the application.

We can take a few key examples of the system behavior and show which domain objects are needed in those examples and which objects are created, deleted and updated. This gives a high-level view of the internal behavior of the application.

The example below shows one way to do this.

Given the following objects:


When the user enters the following:


Then the application should give the following output:
  • Total hours: 39

And the following objects should be created:



Examples connected to domain objects give a high-level view of what the application is doing. It is suitable for discussions with users, analysts, developers and testers, and it is great documentation for future developers.

The example is ready to test and the format is well suited for test automation. By using this specification as input to a test automation tool, you get high-quality tests that focus on the domain logic instead of brittle user interface testing. This kind of tests are great input to programmers, because they are directly connected to the specification and they contain the details that the programmers need. (I have written about specification by example here.)

In the example above, I used the terms Given, When and Then to show how this method can be compared to Behavior Driven Development (BDD). The difference is that BDD uses 3 steps (Given, When and Then), while this method uses 4: Initial objects, Input, Output and Result objects. More importantly, the present method uses domain objects more explicitly than BDD. This gives a strong connection between the specification (examples) and the object model. When this is combined with automatic tests, the specification, code and tests will be tightly integrated and kept consistent with each other. The domain objects become the glue that binds everything together. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The problem with use cases

The greatest benefit I get from use cases is that they focus on the user. Use cases help me to think about what the user wants to do instead of only focusing on implementation details. The biggest problem I have with use cases is that they are not structured. They are basically free text. For instance, if we have a use case Withdraw money from ATM, we may define that it has a precondition that Open account is performed, but we don't get any help from the method to see that. What happens if someone later changes the Open account use case or defines a Close account use case? How do we find which other uses cases that need to be modified? We can look through the old use case diagrams and find dependencies, but I can almost guarrantee that these dependencies have not been maintained after they were initially created. The solution to this is to connect the use cases to an object model. I don't mean a use-case realization with view and controller objects like ATM_Screen and ATM

Use examples to make your code easier to understand

Programmers are used to abstract thinking. To program is to generalize: A method is a general specification of what to do during execution. A class is a general specification of objects. A superclass is a generalization of several classes. Altough our minds are capable of abstract thinking, concrete thinking is much easier, and concrete examples are the foundation for abstractions. For instance, when we were children, our parents didn't try to teach us about cars by explaining to us cars are and what they can do. Instead, they just pointed at a car that was driving by and said ”Look, a car!” When they had done that a number of times, we knew what a car was. Another example is prejudice. We all have prejudices, because this is the way our minds work. If we have met a few people from Denmark in our lives, and those people were friendly, we ”know” that Danes are friendly. And this works even stronger for negative prejudices. My point is that we learn by examples. Einstein said t

The Pessimistic Programmer

I decided to change the title of this blog to "The Pessimistic Programmer". Why? Am I a depressed person that thinks nothing will work? No, I am an optimist in life. Something good is going to happen today :-) But in programming, something will surely go wrong. I don't actually view this as pessimism, but as realism. I want to be prepared for the worst that can possibly happen. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. But my wife explained to me that pessimists always say that they are just being realistic. So, I might as well face it: I am a pessimist. I think a good programmer needs to be pessimistic; always thinking about what can go wrong and how to prevent it. I don't say that I am a good programmer myself. No, I make far too many mistakes for that. But I have learnt how to manage my mistakes with testing and double checking. Über-programmers can manage well without being pessimistic. They have total overview of the code and all consequences of changes. But I