I wanted to share an important lesson I learned from my colleague Ramon de la Fuente. I was explaining to him how I made a big effort to preserve some existing behavior, when he said something along the lines of: the people who wrote this code, may or may not have known what they were doing. So don’t worry too much about preserving old stuff.

These wise words eventually connected to other things I’ve learned about programming, and I wanted to combine them under the umbrella of a blog post titled “Deliberate coding”. Doing something “deliberately” means to do it consciously and intentionally. It turns out that not everyone writes code deliberately, and at the very least, not everyone does it all the time.

This is a question that always pops up during my workshops: when and where to determine the ID of an entity? There are different answers, no best answer. Well, there are two best answers, but they apply to two different situations.

Auto-incrementing IDs, by the database

Traditionally, all you need for an entity to have an ID is to designate one integer column in the database as the primary key, and mark it as “auto-incrementing”. So, once a new entity gets persisted as a record in the database (using your favorite ORM), it will get an ID. That is, the entity has no identity until it has been persisted. Even though this happens everywhere, and almost always; it’s a bit weird, because:

This article is part 2 of my review of the book “Fifty quick ideas to improve your tests”. I’ll continue to share some of my personal highlights with you.

Replace multiple steps with a higher-level step

If a test executes multiple tasks in sequence that form a higher-level action, often the language and the concepts used in the test explain the mechanics of test execution rather than the purpose of the test, and in this case the entire block can often be replaced with a single higher-level concept.

Review

After reading “Discovery - Explore behaviour using examples” by Gáspár Nagy and Seb Rose, I picked up another book, which I bought a long time ago: “Fifty Quick Ideas to Improve Your Tests” by Gojko Adzic, David Evans, Tom Roden and Nikola Korac. Like with so many books, I find there’s often a “right” time for them. When I tried to read this book for the first time, I was totally not interested and soon stopped trying to read it. But ever since Julien Janvier asked me if I knew any good resources on how to write good acceptance test scenarios, I kept looking around for more valuable pointers, and so I revisited this book too. After all, one of the author’s of this book - Gojko Adzic - also wrote “Bridging the communication gap - Specification by example and agile acceptance testing”, which made a lasting impression on me. If I remember correctly, the latter doesn’t have too much practical advice on writing goods tests (or scenarios), and it was my hope that “Fifty quick ideas” would.

I’ve just finished reading “Discovery - Explore behaviour using examples” by Gáspár Nagy and Seb Rose. It’s the first in a series of books about BDD (Behavior-Driven Development). The next parts are yet to be written/published. Part of the reason to pick up this book was that I’d seen it on Twitter (that alone would not be a sufficient reason of course). The biggest reason was that after delivering a testing and aggregate design workshop, I noticed that my acceptance test skills aren’t what they should be. After several years of not working as a developer on a project for a client, I realized again that (a quote from the book):

Recently I read Ouarzy’s review of Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson’s “Remote - Office Not Required”. I’d read their previous books, “Getting Real” and “Rework”. They’re all a joy to read. Short chapters, nice little cartoons. Just a lot of fun, and inspiring too. Not many authors make as much of an effort as they do to condense their message and reward the reader for taking the time to read an actual book. It’s insulting how much work some authors expect you to put in before they will reveal their secrets!

I’m working on another “multi-tenant” PHP web application project and I noticed an interesting series of events. It felt like a natural progression and by means of a bit of dangerous induction, I’m posing the hypothesis that this is how things are just bound to happen in such projects.

In the beginning we start out with a framework that has some authentication functionality built-in. We can get the “current user” from the session, or from some other session-based object. We’ll also need the “current company” (or the “current organization”) of which the current user is a member.

I find it very curious that legacy (PHP) code often has the following characteristics:

1. Classes with the name of a central domain concept have grown too large.
2. Methods in these classes have become very generic.

Classes grow too large

I think the following happened:

The original developers tried to capture the domain logic in these classes. They implemented it based on what they knew at the time. Other developers, who worked on the code later, had to implement new features, or modify domain logic, because, well, things change. Also, because we need more things.

Exceptions - for exceptional situations?

From the Domain-Driven Design movement we’ve learned to go somewhat back to the roots of object-oriented design. Designing domain objects is all about offering meaningful behavior and insights through a carefully designed API. We know now that domain objects with setters for every attribute will allow for the objects to be in an inconsistent state. By removing setters and replacing them with methods which only modify the object’s state in valid ways, we can protect an object from violating domain invariants.

In this series, we’ve discussed several topics already. We talked about persistence and time, the filesystem and randomness. The conclusion for all these areas: whenever you want to “mock” these things, you may look for a solution at the level of programming tools used (use database or filesystem abstraction library, replace built-in PHP functions, etc.). But the better solution is always: add your own abstraction. Start by introducing your own interface (including custom return types), which describes exactly what you need. Then mock this interface freely in your application. But also provide an implementation for it, which uses “the real thing”, and write an integration test for just this class.