Managing Software Debt - Quality Debt Focus for QASIG Seattle

Managing So)ware Debt WorkshopTuesday, May 8, 2012

First Things First... @csterwa #swdebt 2Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Chris Sterling Co-‐founder & CTO of Agile Advantage www.AgileAdvantage.com Author of Book “Managing SoBware Debt: Building for Inevitable Change” Consults on soBware technology, Agile technical pracKces, Scrum, and eﬀecKve management techniques InnovaKon Games® Trained Facilitator Email: chris@agileadvantage.com Web: h<p://www.agileadvantage.com CerKﬁed Scrum Trainer Follow me on TwiTer: @csterwa Blog: h<p://www.ge?ngagile.com Open Source Developer Hashtag for presentaKon: #swdebt 3Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Agenda Managing So)ware Debt • The “3 Amigos” PaHern Overview • Test-‐Driven Design So)ware Debt Types Monitoring Quality • Technical • The Power of 2 Scripts • Quality • Con=nuous Integra=on • Conﬁgura=on Management • Automated Promo=on • Design • Advanced Quality Metrics • Pla@orm Experience Trending and Analysis Asser=ng Quality Wrap Up • Deﬁni=on of Done • So)ware Debt Management Strategy • Test Automa=on • The “No Defect” Mindset 4Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Managing So)ware Debt Overview Let me tell you a potenKally familiar story…Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Lack of emphasis on soware quality a2ributes contributes to decayTuesday, May 8, 2012

Principle: No maTer what, the cost of addressing soBware debt increases with Kme.Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Types of So)ware Debt Technical, Quality, ConﬁguraKon Management, Design, and Plaorm ExperienceTuesday, May 8, 2012

Why not just call it all “ Technical Debt” Technical debt tended to focus more on programming aspects of soBware delivery and leB out full soBware development life cycle Each type of soBware debt can be managed and monitored using diﬀerent tools and approaches Focusing on managing each type of soBware debt simpliﬁes creaKon of an overall strategy that promotes holisKc perspecKve 10Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Types of SoBware Debt Technical Debt: These are the ac=vi=es that a team or team members take shortcuts on now that will impede future development if le) as is. Quality Debt: There is a diminishing ability to verify the func=onal and technical quality of so)ware: the “Break/Fix” mentality. Conﬁgura5on Management Debt: Integra=on and release management become more risky, complex, and error-‐prone. Design Debt: The cost of adding features is increasing toward the point where it is more than the cost of wri=ng from scratch. Pla:orm Experience Debt: The availability and alignment of people to business objec=ves that involve so)ware changes is becoming more limited or cost-‐prohibi=ve. 8Tuesday, May 8, 2012

AsserGng Quality Teams must focus on asserKng sustainable quality to support future customer needs in a Kmely mannerTuesday, May 8, 2012

DeﬁniGon of Done SoBware developments assert what ﬁnished, working soBware entails to support predictable delivery into the futureTuesday, May 8, 2012

DefiniKon of Done -‐ Assert Quality Acceptance defined criteria for each Code checked in with reference to user story US#/Task# Unit tests written and passed Tested on FE Code compiles with no errors and no Integration test written & passes warnings Test code reviewed New code doesn’t break existing code Environment requirements documented Test case review (Dev to review test Interface document updated/added case written) and checked in to SVN Architectural impact assessed and Acceptance criteria verified complete artifacts updated if necessary All P1-P3 bugs for the story are Comments in code closed Error codes added Test approves user story Code reviewed by peer Story demonstrated to product owner and accepted on Target Platform 14Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Release DefiniKon of Done Every release should have clear quality criteria With a “Release DefiniKon of Done” you can understand targets beTer Measure the gap between the teams’ DefiniKon of Done and a Release DefiniKon of Done. • This gap is a source of quality issues and represents significant risk to scheduleTuesday, May 8, 2012

Case Study: Test AutomaKon Reduces Cost of ChangeTuesday, May 8, 2012

Manual Regression TesKng TesKng was taking 75 person hours during 2 full test runs consisKng of: • Comprehensive manual regression tesKng • Data conversion and validaKon Cost for tesKng was $17,000 each iteraKon 17Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Introducing Fit into TesKng Process ABer 8 iteraKons team had introduced healthy amount of Fit ﬁxtures and automated tests Reduced 70+ hour test runKme down to 6 hours which now included: • Fit automated regression tesKng • Data conversion and validaKon automated with Fit ﬁxtures Reduced cost of tesKng each iteraKon from $17,000 to $7,000 18Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The Agile Regression TesKng Triangle* * The Agile Triangle has been modiﬁed from Mike Cohn’s original version 19Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The Agile Regression TesKng Triangle* Automated Unit Tests Make up largest por.on of regression tests and are developed by programmers * The Agile Triangle has been modiﬁed from Mike Cohn’s original version 19Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The Agile Regression TesKng Triangle* Integra5on Tests Automated & Exploratory Automated Unit Tests Make up largest por.on of regression tests and are developed by programmers * The Agile Triangle has been modiﬁed from Mike Cohn’s original version 19Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The Agile Regression TesKng Triangle* Smoke++ Tests Risk-‐based UI & API Automated Integra5on Tests Tests Automated & Exploratory Automated Unit Tests Make up largest por.on of regression tests and are developed by programmers * The Agile Triangle has been modiﬁed from Mike Cohn’s original version 19Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The “3 Amigos” Pa<ern* Quickly get testers, coders, and business on the same page before building based on a requirement * The Three Amigos paHern originally coined by George Dinwiddie hHp://www.s=ckyminds.com/s.asp?F=S17232_COL_2 Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The Three Amigos PaTern As a Shopper I want to receive updates on incredible deals that are located near my home so that I can save money on my purchases Acceptance Criteria: •Save Shopper’s location •Ask Shopper if they want to receive localized deals daily •Send notification of incredible deals to Shoppers located within 10 miles each morning •Allow Shopper to stop receiving localized deals 21Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The Three Amigos PaTern As a Shopper I want to receive updates on incredible deals that are located near my home so that I can save money on my purchases •What areas of the applica=on will this aﬀect? •What is the overall design? (UI, API, UX, etc…) •What are the details test cases for this user story and it’s acceptance criteria? •What about nega=ve test condi=ons? •What about boundary condi=ons? •How might we put exis=ng func=onality at risk? 22Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The Three Amigos PaTern At minimum include tester, coder & business rep in discussion Should only take 30 minutes to 1 hour for user stories Focus on clariﬁcaKon and design through testable inputs/ 23Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Acceptance Test-‐Driven Development 24Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Release Management “If releases are like giving birth, then you must be doing something wrong.” -‐ Robert BeneﬁeldTuesday, May 8, 2012

Case Study: Enterprise Agile AdopKon 180+ person “Web 2.0” product organiza=on Waterfall SDLC that development uses to deliver in 6 month release cycles Want to use Agile methods to be more responsive to users and keep up with other “Web 2.0” companies Transi=oned to Agile methods on 15 teams in 3 months Changed release management strategy, added XP technical prac=ces, and implemented Scrum product development framework for scaled coordina=on Able to release every week to users within 4 months Used streamlined deployment environment process to validate product changes daily using Con=nuous Integra=on and automated promo=ons 26Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The Power of 2 Scripts: Deploy & Rollback 27Tuesday, May 8, 2012

TradiKonal Source Control Management 28Tuesday, May 8, 2012

TradiKonal Source Control Management Main Branch 28Tuesday, May 8, 2012

TradiKonal Source Control Management Code Complete Version 1 Integrate for Branch Version 2 Main Branch 28Tuesday, May 8, 2012

TradiKonal Source Control Management Code Complete Version 1 Integrate for Branch Version 2 Debt Main Branch Death March 28Tuesday, May 8, 2012

TradiKonal Source Control Management Code Complete Version 1 Integrate for Branch Version 2 Debt Main Branch Death March { Debt accrues quickly within stabiliza5on periods 28Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Flexible Source Control Management 29Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Flexible Source Control Management Main Branch 29Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Flexible Source Control Management Version 1 Main Branch 29Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Flexible Source Control Management Version 1 Version 2 Main Branch 29Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Flexible Source Control Management Version 1 Version 2 Main Branch { Not Easy! Must have proper infrastructure to do this. 29Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Scaling ConKnuous IntegraKon End-‐to-‐End & Load/Stress Integrated Component Valida5on Component Valida5on 30Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Automated PromoKon to Environments 31Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Advanced Quality AsserGons Using Automated Tools and DashboardsTuesday, May 8, 2012

ConKnuous IntegraKon 33Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Quality Dashboard -‐ Sonar 34Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Early Warning Signs Early Warnings: •Broken Builds •Broken Automated Tests •Broken Custom Thresholds 38Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Early Warning on Quality Dashboard Early Warnings: •Design Debt in Duplica=on (DRY) •Technical Debt in Code Complexity •Quality Debt in Bug DB (Break/Fix) •Other Custom Thresholds 39Tuesday, May 8, 2012

The “No Defect” Mindset “What he needs is some way to pay back. Not some way to borrow more.” -‐-‐ Will Rogers 39Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Ken Schwaber “For every [dollar] of compe==ve advantage gained by cuung quality, it costs $4 to restore it; and so)ware is an organiza=onal asset and decisions to cut quality must be made by execu=ve management and reﬂected in the ﬁnancial statements.” hHp://www.infoq.com/presenta=ons/agile-‐quality-‐canary-‐coalmineTuesday, May 8, 2012

Case Study: Field Support ApplicaKon 2000+ users access applica=on each day Applica=on supports mul=ple perspec=ves and workﬂows from Field Support Opera=ons to Customer Service Team of 5 people delivering features on exis=ng Cold Fusion pla@orm implementa=on Migra=ng Architecture to Spring/Hibernate in slices while s=ll delivering valuable features 36 2-‐week Sprints, 33 produc=on releases, and only 1 defect found in produc=on So, what was the defect you say? Let me tell you… 40Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Can We Afford a “No Defect” Policy? This team worked on legacy codebase inherited from another vendor Other vendor had been slowing down month aBer month and cost of development was increasing In first iteraKon this team was able to deliver more than other vendor was able to in previous 2 months ABer 24 iteraKons this team was 10 Kmes faster delivery than1st iteraKon Acceptance Test-‐Driven Development and ConKnuous IntegraKon were greatest technical factors to support team in these results Can you afford not to have a “No Defect” policy? 41Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Thank you! QuesKons and Answers [Time permiong]Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Chris Sterling Co-‐founder & CTO of Agile Advantage www.AgileAdvantage.com Author of Book “Managing SoBware Debt: Building for Inevitable Change” Consults on soBware technology, Agile technical pracKces, Scrum, and eﬀecKve management techniques InnovaKon Games® Trained Facilitator Email: chris@agileadvantage.com Web: h<p://www.agileadvantage.com CerKﬁed Scrum Trainer Follow me on TwiTer: @csterwa Blog: h<p://www.ge?ngagile.com Open Source Developer Hashtag for presentaKon: #swdebt 45Tuesday, May 8, 2012

http://www.gettingagile.com	1580
http://abtasty.com	16

Managing Software Debt - Quality Debt Focus for QASIG Seattle

by Chris Sterling

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

2 Embeds 1,596

Statistics