After spending many hours attempting to accomplish what I thought would be a relatively simple task, I decided to change the theme of the the Massachusetts HOSA website. Although my post last week went into detail about the many reasons that I originally chose to use the Trusted theme, there was one problem that became obvious to me as I attempted to adjust the size of the image slider the displayed on the homepage of the theme. While I expected these kinds of edits to be as simple as adjusting the size of a div container, it turned out that the theme used more complex embedded functions and jQuery to make the theme responsive. This responsive nature made it difficult to edit the size of the image slider and set it to a smaller, constant size.
It was around this time that I began to question whether or not it was worth my time to continue debugging and teaching myself how the Trusted theme set up the slider. I decided to instead look for a similar theme that may be easier to edit. I found the Consulting theme and found the slider to be much easier to edit. I was able to set the maximum width for the slider at 700px while still allowing dynamic resizing for responsiveness and support for mobile devices. Unfortunately, this nullified all of the changes that I had made to the Trusted CSS files that brought the site into compliance with the HOSA style guidelines. I did, however, discover a far more efficient way to edit the Consulting theme that I kicked myself for not thinking of earlier. First, I used Chrome’s Developer Tools to find the color code that I wanted to change. I then used the “Replace All” tool in TextMate to change all occurrences of the that color code with the desired color. Overall, the second time around for customizing the theme was far smoother and more efficient than the first.
As I will soon be starting out in a new position at an unfamiliar company, I was more than happy to look to Apprenticeship Patterns for help in making the most of my apprenticeship. While the position may not be exactly what Hoover and Oshineye had in mind when they wrote the pattern, I found the Sweep the Floor pattern to be almost universally applicable to any entry-level position. When you are just starting out, you may not feel comfortable taking on some of the more complex tasks. You may be unsure of where you fit in as part of the team, and the team may be unsure of you. The Sweep the Floor pattern offers advice on how to contribute to and earn the team’s trust as well as growing professionally when you are just starting out as an apprentice.
I found the inclusion of the story from Paul Pagal to be comical and also informative. As mentioned, there are certain less glamorous tasks that simply need to get done in order for the team to be able to function. While they may not be glamorous, they provide an opportunity to make yourself useful and appear motivated. This most certainly will not go unnoticed, and should lead to progressively more interesting and complex tasks. As your skill level as well as comfort level increases, you will begin to take on riskier tasks.
Hoover and Oshineye follow the story by saying that having to do less glamorous work to get your foot in the door may be tough to swallow for some apprentices who feel they’ve already paid their dues. While I’m not trying to discount the value that I feel my formal education has, I’m not sure that I agree that this counts as paying your dues. Until you’re part of an actual team facing real-world problems, you haven’t paid your dues. This is part of the reason that I feel completely content starting off with more menial tasks. I am more than happy to begin proving my worth and showing my team that I am ready for bigger challenges by starting off with some of the less glamorous tasks. After all, somebody has to do it.
Automated testing is great, and it isn’t going anywhere. The ability to find bugs in a program with minimal human intervention saves both time and money, as well as helps to make the program more reliable. The problem with automated testing is that the automation can not think like a human. The automated tests simply follow the algorithm that they were programmed to follow. This may be great for finding simple bugs or obvious faults, but may be insufficient for revealing complex or hidden bugs.
On the September 10, 2017 episode of Test Talks, Jean Ann Harrison argues that what we need in order to find these complex, hidden bugs, is critical thinking. As an experienced tester who has worked in the industry for nearly 20 years as everything from a mobile tester to a quality assurance auditor, Harrison knows a fair deal about finding bugs in software. As a medical device tester, Jean Ann states that she often considered not was the product was designed to do, but what it was capable of. When it is a matter of life or death, there is no room for crippling bugs to make it into the final product.
I think that Harrison took many of her experiences as a medical device tester into her current position as a quality assurance auditor of airline entertainment software. In addition to the strict FAA requirements that she must adhere to, once again there are lives at risk if there are bugs that go unnoticed and unaddressed. When considering possible scenarios to test the product under, Harrison repeatedly states that she uses critical thinking skills to think outside of the box; she is always asking herself “what if…?” She states that asking these sorts of questions, along with imagining the possible scenarios in which the product would be used, will lead to the development of meaning tests and possibly reveal bugs.
Strictly following the testing methods that I’ve learned as a Software QA & Testing student so far seems to keep me inside a bubble. I am only able to test what the method states should be tested. This is sometimes difficult because my mind has a tendency to think of all of the possibilities, much like what Harrison is advocating for testers to do. I want to stray from the strictly defined values that the method demands I input and attempt to use my experience as an end-user and also my experience as a programmer to attempt to break the program. Of course, in the context of testing, breaking a program is a success. It means that you have found a bug and that the finished product will be that much better. I look forward to applying Harrison’s critical thinking strategy to my testing in the future. I am excited to investigate “what if…?” and hopefully make programs better by discovering bugs that would have otherwise gone unchecked.
Especially for new or inexperienced programmers, tools can be a great way to help get the ball rolling or learn how to create programs that work. Too often, however, programmers rely on their tools to think for them, a dangerous and often damaging decision. A post by Robert Martin on his Clean Coder Blog titled “Tools are not the Answer,” explains potential causes of the impending “software apocalypse” and also points out some common mistakes that developers should avoid. Martin acknowledges the value of tools and technologies such as Light Table, but feels that such tools are not going to solve the apocalypse. Tools only further complicate things rather than addressing the underlying cause, which Martin cites as software programmers being generally undisciplined.
Rather than trying to fix bad code with more code, Martin thinks that we should simply aim for more disciplined programming. The reasons he gives for the cause of the apocalypse are:
- Too many programmer take sloppy short-cuts under schedule pressure.
- Too many other programmers think it’s fine, and provide cover.
I feel that Martin’s first reason is more significant than the second. While often times deadlines are outside of the programmer’s control, the choice to take a short-cut that jeopardizes the integrity of the code is a conscious choice. Avoiding this dangerous mistake may require extending deadlines or missing them altogether. Weighing the risks of releasing an inferior product with delivering it past its original deadline may depend on the product’s application. Reputations would certainly be more severely impacted by the former, while the latter may cause only minor inconvenience to the end-user.
I don’t see the second reason Martin states as so much of a problem. I would argue that other, more experienced programmers should help to implement the feature properly rather than allowing an overwhelmed programmer to sloppily stumble through a buggy implementation. Martin seems to think that tattling on the sloppy programmer is the solution to making sure that he pays for his carelessness. I think that in any team-driven environment, colleagues should have one another’s backs and everyone should be accountable.
While I stand behind Martin’s opinion that the real reason behind the impending software apocalypse is a lack of general discipline among programmers, I only partly agree with the causes he proposes for this lack of discipline. I think that more importantly than anything else, the programmer must consider the risk he or she is taking by rushing through something without proper and rigorous testing. Some of the examples of software bugs that caused panic and chaos are found in “The Coming Software Apocalypse,” which is the article that Martin continuously refers to in his own blog post. While the code that I am presently writing does not have any real-world consequences (apart from a poor grade if it does not meet the requirements of the assignment), I am challenging myself to write code as if someone’s life depended on the reliability of what I write. Who knows, someday it just might.