From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

This book, written by two major figures in adaptive control, provides a wealth of material for researchers, practitioners, and students. While some researchers in adaptive control may note the absence of a particular topic, the book‘s scope represents a high-gain instrument. It can be used by designers of control systems to enhance their work through the information on many new theoretical developments, and can be used by mathematical control theory specialists to adapt their research to practical needs. The book is strongly recommended to anyone interested in adaptive control.

Adaptive Control

[서평]「The Unified Modeling Language User Guide」

C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning (書評)

Technical foundations introduction software reliability and system reliability the operational profile software reliability modelling survey model evaluation and recalibration techniques practices and experiences best current practice of SRE software reliability measurement experience measurement-based analysis of software reliability software fault and failure classification techniques trend analysis in validation and maintenance software reliability and field data analysis software reliability process assessment emerging techniques software reliability prediction metrics software reliability and testing fault-tolerant SRE software reliability using fault trees software reliability process simulation neural networks and software reliability. Appendices: software reliability tools software failure data set repository.

/pdf/handbook-of-software-reliability-engineering-32dwvaljmm.pdf

Handbook of software reliability engineering

Cloud computing allows users to use only a Web browser to receive computing services via the Internet. Users only need to pay for the services they actually use. It appears that a wide adoption of cloud computing in the foreseeable future is inevitable, and its adoption will bring about a sea change in the pricing and distribution practices for both software and hardware. There are, however, various issues that will impede adoption of cloud computing. Most of them can be solved. We discuss the status of cloud computing today and various adoption issues. We also provide a market prognosis.

/pdf/adoption-issues-for-cloud-computing-5ebqtqiz8b.pdf

Adoption issues for cloud computing

Context Several issues or defects in released software during the maintenance phase are reported to the development team. It is costly and time-consuming for developers to precisely localize bugs. Bug reports and the code change history are frequently used and provide information for identifying fault locations during the software maintenance phase. Objective It is difficult to standardize the style of bug reports written in natural languages to improve the accuracy of bug localization. The objective of this paper is to propose an effective information retrieval-based bug localization method to find suspicious files and methods for resolving bugs. Method In this paper, we propose a novel information retrieval-based bug localization approach, termed Bug Localization using Integrated Analysis (BLIA). Our proposed BLIA integrates analyzed data by utilizing texts, stack traces and comments in bug reports, structured information of source files, and the source code change history. We improved the granularity of bug localization from the file level to the method level by extending previous bug repository data. Results We evaluated the effectiveness of our approach based on experiments using three open-source projects, namely AspectJ, SWT, and ZXing. In terms of the mean average precision, on average our approach improves the metric of BugLocator, BLUiR, BRTracer, AmaLgam and the preliminary version of BLIA by 54%, 42%, 30%, 25% and 15%, respectively, at the file level of bug localization. Conclusion Compared with prior tools, the results showed that BLIA outperforms these other methods. We analyzed the influence of each score of BLIA from various combinations based on the analyzed information. Our proposed enhancement significantly improved the accuracy. To improve the granularity level of bug localization, a new approach at the method level is proposed and its potential is evaluated.

Improved bug localization based on code change histories and bug reports

A bug report is mainly used to find a fault location in software maintenance. It contains several fields such as summary, description, status and version. The description field includes detail scenario and stack traces if exceptional messages are presented. Recently researchers have proposed several approaches for automatic bug localization by using information retrieval and data mining. We propose BLIA, a statically integrated analysis approach of IR-based bug localization by utilizing texts and stack traces in bug reports, structured information of source files, and source code change histories. We performed experiments on three open source projects, namely AspectJ, SWT and ZXing. Compared with prior tools, our experiment results showed that BLIA outperforms the existing tools in terms of mean average precision. Our approach on average improved the metric of BugLocator, BLUiR, BRTracer and AmaLgam by 34%, 23%, 17% and 8%, respectively.

Bug Localization Based on Code Change Histories and Bug Reports

/pdf/adoption-issues-for-cloud-computing-1wqxv9ctxm.pdf

This paper proposes a self-adaptive interactive navigation tool (SAINT), which is tailored for cloud-based vehicular traffic optimization in road networks. The legacy navigation systems make vehicles navigate toward their destination less effectively with individually optimal navigation paths rather than network-wide optimal navigation paths, particularly during rush hours. To the best of our knowledge, SAINT is the first attempt to investigate a self-adaptive interactive navigation approach through the interaction between vehicles and vehicular cloud. The vehicles report their navigation experiences and travel paths to the vehicular cloud so that the vehicular cloud can know real-time road traffic conditions and vehicle trajectories for better navigation guidance for other vehicles. With these traffic conditions and vehicle trajectories, the vehicular cloud uses a mathematical model to calculate road segment congestion estimation for global traffic optimization. This model provides each vehicle with a navigation path that has minimum traffic congestion in the target road network. Using the simulation with a realistic road network, it is shown that our SAINT outperforms the legacy navigation scheme, which is based on Dijkstra's algorithm with a real-time road traffic snapshot. On a road map of Manhattan in New York City, our SAINT can significantly reduce the travel delay during rush hours by 19%.

Eunseok Lee

Papers

Adoption issues for cloud computing

Improved bug localization based on code change histories and bug reports

Bug Localization Based on Code Change Histories and Bug Reports

Adoption issues for cloud computing

SAINT: Self-Adaptive Interactive Navigation Tool for Cloud-Based Vehicular Traffic Optimization