From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

Technical foundations introduction software reliability and system reliability the operational profile software reliability modelling survey model evaluation and recalibration techniques practices and experiences best current practice of SRE software reliability measurement experience measurement-based analysis of software reliability software fault and failure classification techniques trend analysis in validation and maintenance software reliability and field data analysis software reliability process assessment emerging techniques software reliability prediction metrics software reliability and testing fault-tolerant SRE software reliability using fault trees software reliability process simulation neural networks and software reliability. Appendices: software reliability tools software failure data set repository.

/pdf/handbook-of-software-reliability-engineering-32dwvaljmm.pdf

Handbook of software reliability engineering

The change of very first chart on page 91 was quite impressive and made me interest of the concept of maximizing data ink ratio. Today, unlike the period of 1980s, we have great quad processing computer that can do all the graphical designs using its own GPU which results in realistic visual on 3Ds. Even though I agree this theory of maximizing data ink ratio, I think some decoration is quite necessary to emphasize the data you are retrieving.

The Visual Display of Quantitative Information

Background--By leveraging cloud services, organizations can deploy their software systems over a pool of resources. However, organizations heavily depend on their business-critical systems, which have been developed over long periods. These legacy applications are usually deployed on-premise. In recent years, research in cloud migration has been carried out. However, there is no secondary study to consolidate this research. Objective--This paper aims to identify, taxonomically classify, and systematically compare existing research on cloud migration. Method--We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of 23 selected studies, published from 2010 to 2013. We classified and compared the selected studies based on a characterization framework that we also introduce in this paper. Results--The research synthesis results in a knowledge base of current solutions for legacy-to-cloud migration. This review also identifies research gaps and directions for future research. Conclusion--This review reveals that cloud migration research is still in early stages of maturity, but is advancing. It identifies the needs for a migration framework to help improving the maturity level and consequently trust into cloud migration. This review shows a lack of tool support to automate migration tasks. This study also identifies needs for architectural adaptation and self-adaptive cloud-enabled systems.

/pdf/cloud-migration-research-a-systematic-review-2fhe9gfc5x.pdf

Cloud Migration Research: A Systematic Review

Containers as a lightweight technology to virtualise applications have recently been successful, particularly to manage applications in the cloud. Often, the management of clusters of containers becomes essential and the orchestration of the construction and deployment becomes a central problem. This emerging topic has been taken up by researchers, but there is currently no secondary study to consolidate this research. We aim to identify, taxonomically classify and systematically compare the existing research body on containers and their orchestration and specifically the application of this technology in the cloud. We have conducted a systematic mapping study of 46 selected studies. We classified and compared the selected studies based on a characterisation framework. This results in a discussion of agreed and emerging concerns in the container orchestration space, positioning it within the cloud context, but also moving it closer to current concerns in cloud platforms, microservices and continuous development.

Cloud Container Technologies: A State-of-the-Art Review

Gamification of software engineering tasks improve developer engagement, but has been limited to mechanisms such as points and badges. We believe that a tool that provides developers an interface analogous to computer games can represent the gamification of software engineering tasks more effectively via software visualization. We introduce CityVR – an interactive software visualization tool that implements the city metaphor technique using virtual reality in an immersive 3D environment medium to boost developer engagement in software comprehension tasks. We evaluated our tool with a case study based on ArgoUML. We measured engagement in terms of feelings, interaction, and time perception. We report on how our design choices relate to developer engagement. We found that developers i) felt curious, immersed, in control, excited, and challenged, ii) spent considerable interaction time navigating and selecting elements, and iii) perceived that time passed faster than in reality, and therefore were willing to spend more time using the tool to solve software engineering tasks.https://youtu.be/R0C-HMAtgnk

CityVR: Gameful Software Visualization

A systematic literature review of software visualization evaluation

Context: Software systems are increasingly required to operate in an open world, characterized by continuous changes in the environment and in the prescribed requirements. Architecture-centric software evolution (ACSE) is considered as an approach to support software adaptation at a controllable level of abstraction in order to survive in the uncertain environment. This requires evolution in system structure and behavior that can be modeled, analyzed and evolved in a formal fashion. Existing research and practices comprise a wide spectrum of evolution-centric approaches in terms of formalisms, methods, processes and frameworks to tackle ACSE as well as empirical studies to consolidate existing research. However, there is no unified framework providing systematic insight into classification and comparison of state-of-the-art in ACSE research. Objective: We present a taxonomic scheme for a classification and comparison of existing ACSE research approaches, leading to a reflection on areas of future research. Method: We performed a systematic literature review (SLR), resulting in 4138 papers searched and 60 peer-reviewed papers considered for data collection. We populated the taxonomic scheme based on a quantitative and qualitative extraction of data items from the included studies. Results: We identified five main classification categories: (i) type of evolution, (ii) type of specification, (iii) type of architectural reasoning, (iv) runtime issues, and (v) tool support. The selected studies are compared based on their claims and supporting evidences through the scheme. Conclusion: The classification scheme provides a critical view of different aspects to be considered when addressing specific ACSE problems. Besides, the consolidation of the ACSE evidences reflects current trends and the needs for future research directions.

/pdf/a-framework-for-classifying-and-comparing-architecture-2d0zn8163c.pdf

A Framework for Classifying and Comparing Architecture-centric Software Evolution Research

The ubiquity of smartphones, and their very broad capabilities and usage, make the security of these devices tremendously important. Unfortunately, despite all progress in security and privacy mechanisms, vulnerabilities continue to proliferate. Research has shown that many vulnerabilities are due to insecure programming practices. However, each study has often dealt with a specific issue, making the results less actionable for practitioners. To promote secure programming practices, we have reviewed related research, and identified avoidable vulnerabilities in Android-run devices and the "security code smells" that indicate their presence. In particular, we explain the vulnerabilities, their corresponding smells, and we discuss how they could be eliminated or mitigated during development. Moreover, we develop a lightweight static analysis tool and discuss the extent to which it successfully detects several vulnerabilities in about 46,000 apps hosted by the official Android market.

Security Smells in Android

Modern iterative and incremental software development relies on continuous testing. The knowledge of test-to-code traceability links facilitates test-driven development and improves software evolution. Previous research identified traceability links between test cases and classes under test. Though this information is helpful, a finer granularity technique can provide more useful information beyond the knowledge of the class under test. In this paper, we focus on Java classes that instantiate stateful objects and propose an automated technique for precise detection of the focal methods under test in unit test cases. Focal methods represent the core of a test scenario inside a unit test case. Their main purpose is to affect an object's state that is then checked by other inspector methods whose purpose is ancillary and needs to be identified as such. Distinguishing focal from other (non-focal) methods is hard to accomplish manually. We propose an approach to detect focal methods under test automatically. An experimental assessment with real-world software shows that our approach identifies focal methods under test in more than 85% of cases, providing a ground for precise automatic recovery of test-to-code traceability links.

Automatically identifying focal methods under test in unit test cases

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Mohammad Ghafari

Author Tools

Chat about Author