Comments by "" (@JinnGuild) on "Continuous Delivery" channel.

This can become even better designed and more simplified if you lean into ISFC. (Imperative Shell Functional Core). If you're doing TDD, then your resulting methods and algorithms shouldn't be tied to dependencies at all. You shouldn't end up with things you need to Mock. But then the question arises, Well how do I use this purely functional bit of code with the database? The answer isn't to change that beautifully TDD-created functional code. The answer is to wrap the code in an Imperative Shell. You "Compose" your application together to consume your fully Unit-Tested algorithms and business logic/rules. TDD leads to ISFC - IMO
1
@k8s347 You think the "point of [this] approach" -- Do you mean the approach of GitFlow, or the approach that this video and the comments above espouse. Your contextual branching may have diverged. The point of [this] approach (the conversation against gitflow) is to NOT Do Pull Requests. PRs hinder CI, if not break it. But the point of GitFlow, at least one "benefit" is that there is a gatekeeper which, of course, makes it not continuous.
1
@Quenjii You are mis-defining async. Neither approach is async. Async means actions can happen irrespective of the other's schedule, including both "At the same time" as well as "at any separate time". Pull Requests are purely Serial, they happen in an order, definitely not async. Pair Programming happens only in parallel, never in serial. So PP isn't async, but most people agree that Parallel is closer to async than Serial is. So if anything, your definition is close to backward.
1
@scatterarrow The speaker absolutely does not pretend that. His stance is to do Pair Programming. While I'm a fan of PRs for some reasoning, I'm a fan of Pair Programming for others. Pairs working on something means it is not "un-reviewed". It absolutely is. Also, you CAN check in half-finished code, or even code with blatant errors in it, and have it delivered all the way to production. As long as part of your CICD process includes Feature Gating and your changes are behind such a gate.
1
@OrcusMaximus I had the same stance you did (and I still value that stance) for a long time. I even try to get clients to that point as an interim so I don't blow their minds with culture shock. But if you commit to Pair Programming and erase from your mind the thought that two people working on one thing is a waste, then it becomes your life, in a good way. It is so amazing.
1
@justusschwabedal5924 I agree with @arch126, but I also find this scenario silly. 8-hour workdays not overlapping means you only have 3 developers exactly perfectly distributed around the globe. Or, if you want at least half of your work day focused on pair programming, you have 6 developers EXACTLY Perfectly separated around the globe. Okay, maybe pair programming isn't right for that scenario. But also, c'mon, lol. Also also, like I said, it is agreed that Pair Programming isn't meant for 100% of projects. But the percent it would work for is higher than people imagine.
1
@Quenjii You're once again mis-quoting (selectively). The second half of the sentence you referenced said: including both "At the same time" as well as "at any separate time". But your method only works "at any separate time". And it requires your part to be complete first, then their part to be complete afterward. That's literally synchronous, the opposite of Asyncronous.
1
Hey Dave! Firstly, 100% on your list of common arguments. But I would propose that developers "hate TDD" almost exclusively because of bad management. Managers are the ones arguing the points you lay out, and they do so with rank authority. I am describing a complicated reality. Some management, frequently as high as executives, would rather hire a more compliant and quiet developer than listen to "some idealistic engineer" constantly pushing for TDD (or other engineering principles/processes like CICD). There are vastly varying personalities and backgrounds for each manager. But they do wax authoritarian and waterfall. ((( This doesn't mean engineers shouldn't use your tips to push for improvement. They Should!!! ))) In an upcoming speaking engagement, I am going to be reviewing how novice "workers" (devs) have certain personalities, and they either grow into a Managers, or into an Engineers. I would debate that your video is leaning too heavy in trying to convince those "workers" with engineering mindsets. I contend that they all already agree. The real target audience needs to be Managers, or (or novice workers with managerial/business personalities who will one day grow into managers). This video has value, but our whole industry (Software Engineering) needs a bigger initiative demanding that trust and respect be given to engineers with the expertise to make these decisions. It's a huge initiative that dwarfs the constant repetitively redundant echo of experienced engineers like yourself writing articles, books, blogs, vlogs, videos, and it never goes anywhere because we all already agree. In another (agile?) video, you said something about how managers make bad decisions because they don't trust their developers. The solution to that isn't to just blindly hire anybody on the street and trust them, but to be more diligent in your hiring, as well as be explicit with how you implement continuous education and training for developers toward a trustworthy engineering mindset. TLDR; You (we) should focus on that, building systems that demand (through proof and voice, not force) that management trusts their engineers. TLDR TLDR; We demand that managers trust their engineers.
1
Beyond other reasonable points that you need that extra code whether you do it before or after development... Your point about "Twice as much" is incorrect. There should be many times more test code than production code. At least as far as Unit Testing is concerned.
1
Answer this: How can you NOT do Waterfall when Compliance is so important in places like Government! In Government (and others), we require more compliance! Therefore, Waterfall! You can't have compliance checkpoints if you don't plan the whole thing carefully, and if you're just constantly delivering. COMPLIANCE!!! This is what I hear when I discuss the benefits of Continuous Delivery / Deployment. I have answers, I wonder what yours is.
1
I wondered if anybody would say TDD isn't a skill. I have seen that argument go awry because some people define skill differently. What are some of your examples of skill, or counter-examples of skill?
1
@5:50 Hey Dave! I found those code snippets interesting, and found them in your "Acceptance Testing for Continuous Delivery" slides for your conference talk. I'd classify what I see as a very Rich Domain Model (RDM) based development (Data and Behavior together). What are your thoughts on Service-Based development, using something closer to Anemic models, and passing them as data into Service classes/methods? Got any content on that?
1