f3yourmind

For those of you that attended the Modeling out Loud deep dive at the S.Africa Scrum Gathering today, here are some things that I discussed.  It’s in no particular order, and it only makes sense if you attended the session.

• BDD Stories that are authored outside the team contributes to a hand-off which influences design decisions.
• Because we understand something does not mean that we know how to design it.
• Be aware of when you are analysing and when you are designing.
• Be concrete and abstract late.
• Use the scenarios to close the loop with product owners, stake holders, etc.
• Developers should write BDD stories and scenarios.
• We are less ignorant at the end of the sprint than at the beginning.
• Use code to close the feedback loop for your story.
• A story and it’s scenarios can be a representation of your model, just like a picture, UML, test code, production code.
• Seek out the behavior and express intentions.
• Use the value statement to explore alternative needs.
• Product owners should not write BDD stories
• Recycle stories if there are scenarios that you cannot commit to.
• Keep out the technical jargon.  The moment you get technical, then the story shifts to an implementation.
• Evolve and accept that it is ok to change … your story, your scenario, code, anything.
• Login is not a story

There was a lot more which we all discussed, so feel free to add what you got out of it as a comment for others to grab.

The slide deck which contained the code example is available at http://bit.ly/bhNkvQ.

And lastly, thanks for joining in.  I sincerely appreciate you making the time.

Remember that writing stories is a really difficult thing to learn, because is design is hard.  Persevere.

I will be running a 6 hour long session at the Scrum Gathering in Cape Town in September titled Modeling Out Loud.  I’m now convinced that the Scrum tribe are weird.  They call these sessions Deep Dives.  Presumably, you need to carry enough oxygen to survive the session.

I think I’m going out on limb here because I will be challenging the value of Product Owners writing stories.  I’m also suggesting that when Product Owners write stories riddled with behavior then developers are disconnected from domain experts and you regress into a waterfall mode of execution fronted by a Scrum Board.  So be prepared to experiment with me and turn up your self-reflection to maximum level because we will challenge many assumptions.

No collaboration, no heroes!

I thoroughly enjoyed Karen Greave’s talk on Agile Testing.  She had just about 100% coverage (pun intended, groan).  Yet, testing is really a pain in the rear.  Testing is execution, and Karen was dead-on right, that automation is the path to follow.  Computers are very good at testing.  A computer does what it is programmed to do, and it can test the way it was programmed to test.  It’s simple: if testing is your constraint, move that constraint away from testing by automating.

Now, you have to deal with the constraint that shifted to the next point: test authoring.  While testing (i.e. execution) is just a passive, laborious effort, test authoring is a very creative, active exercise.  It is actually an exercise in confirming a shared, common understanding.  Kristin Nygard said “To program is to understand” and test authoring is a programming exercise.  That’s why outside-in, behavior driven development style scenarios are actually tests, coded in a human language.  The act of authoring a scenario proves your understanding and the expected working of the software.

This is why I separate test execution (passive) from test authoring (active).  And Karen said that early feedback is good (right again), which is why I author my tests very early.  I’m extreme about this.  I test first.

Automation creates time for collaboration

I just had a quick Google Wave experience with Willem Odendaal and the experience of seeing the other person type was a bit weird for both of us.

Lesson to both of us: Think before you wave!

Also, I have to remind myself to not think about waves as email, or tweets or instant messages. It’s just something else! And it has a different spin on the time dimension of communication.

I suspect that Google Wave will force us to be better at the way we communicate, how we express ourselves and the relevance of the content to the conversation.  I can imagine a wave growing over time that describes a story started by a domain expert with feedback from a developer and a nice cadence emerging between them.  It all is in one nice wave, with playback that tells you how you got there in the first place.  I wonder if this will have an influence on effectiveness of remote pairing?

I also have a feeling that if you’re a waterfall type of person, then waves will not have an impact on you.  It’s all about feedback and dealing with the changes, which is at the heart of agility.

Now I just need someone to wave with to try out a slightly modified development flow.

A team that I am coaching has settled on using BDD stories and scenarios for describing their requirements and specifications.  They’ve also chosen cucumber as their acceptance testing tool.  All well and good, but they are making very slow progress and seem to be really struggling with the change in workstyle.  I think I’ve spotted the reason for this.

The feedback loop is missing.  They view the stories as a spec that has been handed down.  And they have not made the connection that spec writing is design work that is intended to clearly illustrates concepts in a domain.  It is a form of writing code.  But it’s just that this code is, maybe, non-executable.

Here’s my workflow and how I close the loop.

• write story and scenario
• Sketch a design if needed – helps when pairing to be on the same page.
• Start writing test for scenario
• ooops … test is getting complicated? stuck?
• maybe the domain is not understood enough? Dig deeper, improve scenario, design (as needed) and continue writing test
• or maybe the scenario was badly written? Ignore scenario structure, continue writing test.  Refactor scenario later.  We’re in deep discovery mode here.
• get test to pass
• refactor code
• refactor scenario
• … cycle the red-green-refactor until happy.

Acknowledging when you’re in discovery mode and knowing that you are allowed to refactor requirements is the trick.  Nothing is cast in concrete.  That’s why I like frequent feedback loops with tight turning circles.

No feedback loop, no progress.

BTW, I really don’t like explaining such things as flow-charts and sequences.  You got to find your own style.  It’s not a recipe or rules thing.  The above is something that is about as close to what I do but it changes when the need arises.  That’s also another key feature of being agile – adapt or die in the waterfall.