Tag Archive

Most teams are a bunch of individual silos that have become good at passing work between each other. This exercise is designed to show how real collaboration is different from the way we normally work.

Demonstrates the problems that occur when we don’t integrate frequently enough.

Demonstrates the kind of debt we accumulate if we don’t refactor as we go. This exercise will let the attendees experience the pain of dealing with technical debt, rather than just understanding it intellectually.

Demonstrates the value of keeping the code clean.

Demonstrates the concepts behind TDD. How we write the test before we write code and how that forces our design to emerge.

This exercise demonstrates the value of keeping the design simple and the code small. We’ll generally do this exercise before starting into any of the others as it’s really foundational for all Agile technical practices.

Next we’ll look at the API to get information about a board. Boards are fundamentally broken, in my opinion, because they aren’t a real thing in Jira. They’re a view into issues at a point in time, which means that they don’t show up anywhere in the history. You can’t tell what board an issue was on when a status change happened, and you can’t assign an issue to a board.

The issue history gives us both the name and id of any statuses that the ticket has moved through. Sometimes that’s enough but often we then need to know more about that status, such as what status category it belongs to and for that, we need to call a different API.

If you want metrics out of Jira, the single most important thing you need to access is the issue history and it’s not obvious how to get that. Just about all the metrics you’ll want to collect will need data from the history - you might need to know when an item started or when it entered a certain priority or when the flag was set or cleared.

I’m the primary author of the jirametrics tool that extracts data from Jira and generates reports. This tool evolved to satisfy my own pain of not being able to get useful data out of Jira with the built-in reports and along the way, I’ve learned more about Jira internals than I ever wanted to know.

This article will show how to “test drive” the prime factors kata in Elixir with ESpec, a spec style unit testing framework.

In the last article, we showed how pattern matching could solve FizzBuzz. It’s a deliberately simple example so let’s look at something a little bit more complex.

I’ve long advised people to learn multiple programming languages, as each new language you learn will make you better at all the ones you already know. Not just languages with different syntax, but languages that challenge how you look at problems.

This article will show how to “test drive” the prime factors kata in Elixir with ESpec, a spec style unit testing framework.

This article will show how to “test drive” the prime factors kata in Ruby with RSpec, a spec style unit testing framework.

This article will show how to “test drive” the prime factors kata in Elixir with ESpec, a spec style unit testing framework.

This article will show how to “test drive” the prime factors kata in Ruby with RSpec, a spec style unit testing framework.

This article will show how to “test drive” the prime factors kata in Elixir with ESpec, a spec style unit testing framework.

This article will show how to “test drive” the prime factors kata in Ruby with RSpec, a spec style unit testing framework.

Technical debt is made up of all those things in our system (architecture, code, documentation, etc) that are working but are of sufficiently poor quality that they cause us to move slower when implementing new functionality. Perhaps we need to do additional testing before we can add something new or we need to refactor the code to make it cleaner or more extensible. Perhaps it’s just hard to read or understand and therefore difficult to know how to add the new functionality.

I was first introduced to the idea of splitting technical debt into two distinct parts during a conference talk given by Rebecca Wirfs-Brock. She talked about there being a real difference between simple cleanup such as renaming or adding clarity and architectural restructuring.

This article will show how to “test drive” the prime factors kata in Ruby with RSpec, a spec style unit testing framework.

Technical debt is made up of all those things in our system (architecture, code, documentation, etc) that are working but are of sufficiently poor quality that they cause us to move slower when implementing new functionality. Perhaps we need to do additional testing before we can add something new or we need to refactor the code to make it cleaner or more extensible. Perhaps it’s just hard to read or understand and therefore difficult to know how to add the new functionality.