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

The production of new management approaches to evolution, leading to understanding of the relationships between technology and business. How can software be designed so that it can easily be evolved? More effective tools and methods for program comprehension for both code and data A better formalism and conceptualisation of 'maintainability'; how do we measure it? The development of a service-based model of software, to replace a product view. better

Software maintenance and evolution: a roadmap

The various contributions to this book record the remarkable progress that has been made in the understanding and management of pancreatic diseases over the last decade. The improvement in understanding has led in some cases to better management with improved outcome for the patient, whereas in other areas the way is now clear towards a better prospect for the future.

Progress and Prospects

Program comprehension is an important activity in software maintenance, as software must be sufficiently understood before it can be properly modified. The study of a program's execution, known as dynamic analysis, has become a common technique in this respect and has received substantial attention from the research community, particularly over the last decade. These efforts have resulted in a large research body of which currently there exists no comprehensive overview. This paper reports on a systematic literature survey aimed at the identification and structuring of research on program comprehension through dynamic analysis. From a research body consisting of 4,795 articles published in 14 relevant venues between July 1999 and June 2008 and the references therein, we have systematically selected 176 articles and characterized them in terms of four main facets: activity, target, method, and evaluation. The resulting overview offers insight in what constitutes the main contributions of the field, supports the task of identifying gaps and opportunities, and has motivated our discussion of several important research directions that merit additional consideration in the near future.

/pdf/a-systematic-survey-of-program-comprehension-through-dynamic-2kqi3h5pbi.pdf

A Systematic Survey of Program Comprehension through Dynamic Analysis

Preprint of paper published in: IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 35 (5), 2009; doi:10.1109/TSE.2009.28 Program comprehension is an important activity in software maintenance, as software must be sufficiently understood before it can be properly modified. The study of a program's execution, known as dynamic analysis, has become a common technique in this respect and has received substantial attention from the research community, particularly over the last decade. These efforts have resulted in a large research body of which currently there exists no comprehensive overview. This paper reports on a systematic literature survey aimed at the identification and structuring of research on program comprehension through dynamic analysis. From a research body consisting of 4,795 articles published in 14 relevant venues between July 1999 and June 2008 and the references therein, we have systematically selected 176 articles and characterized them in terms of four main facets: activity, target, method, and evaluation. The resulting overview offers insight in what constitutes the main contributions of the field, supports the task of identifying gaps and opportunities, and has motivated our discussion of several important research directions that merit additional consideration in the near future.

/pdf/a-systematic-survey-of-program-comprehension-through-dynamic-mkait6016b.pdf

Microservices are an architectural approach emerging out of service-oriented architecture, emphasizing self-management and lightweightness as the means to improve software agility, scalability, and autonomy. This article examines microservice evolution from the technological and architectural perspectives and discusses key challenges facing future microservice developments.

/pdf/microservices-the-journey-so-far-and-challenges-ahead-2omnw6yd42.pdf

Microservices: The Journey So Far and Challenges Ahead

In this article, the authors compare and illustrate the use of three static architecture-conformance techniques: dependency-structure matrices, source code query languages, and reflexion models. To highlight the similarities and differences between these three techniques, they describe how to apply some of the techniques' available supporting tools to specify and check architectural constraints for a simple personal information management system.

/pdf/static-architecture-conformance-checking-an-illustrative-4eeugwjzx5.pdf

Static Architecture-Conformance Checking: An Illustrative Overview

Microservices have recently emerged as a new architectural style in which distributed applications are broken up into small independently deployable services, each running in its own process and communicating via lightweight mechanisms. However, there is still a lack of repeatable empirical research on the design, development and evaluation of microservices applications. As a first step towards filling this gap, this paper proposes, discusses and illustrates the use of an initial set of requirements that may be useful in selecting a community-owned architecture benchmark to support repeatable microservices research.

Benchmark requirements for microservices architecture research

Cloud computing is an emerging computing paradigm whose benefits (such as high scalability, reduced IT costs, self-service on demand, and pay-as-you-go price models) have increasingly attracted the interest of the corporate world. Nevertheless, many organizations have found it difficult to adopt cloud-based solutions, particularly regarding the migration of their existing legacy applications to this new environment. One of the main obstacles faced by those organizations is the lack of a general process to help application developers not only in selecting the cloud models and services best suited for their application, but also in carefully assessing the various risks and benefits involved. To fill this gap, this paper presents Cloudstep, a step-by-step decision process aimed at supporting legacy application migration to the cloud. The process relies on the creation of template-based profiles characterizing the organization, the target legacy application and candidate cloud providers, which are then cross-analyzed to help identify and possibly resolve critical constraints (either technical or non technical) that may hinder migration to the cloud. The use of the process is illustrated through an analysis of key factors influencing the migration of a commercial medical application to different infrastructure-as-a-service cloud providers.

Cloudstep: A step-by-step decision process to support legacy application migration to the cloud

Elasticity allows a cloud system to maintain an optimal user experience by automatically acquiring and releasing resources. Autoscaling-adding or removing resources automatically on the fly-involves specifying threshold-based rules to implement elasticity policies. However, the elasticity rules must be specified through quantitative values, which requires cloud resource management knowledge and expertise. Furthermore, existing approaches don't explicitly deal with uncertainty in cloud-based software, where noise and unexpected events are common. The authors propose a control-theoretic approach that manages the behavior of a cloud environment as a dynamic system. They integrate a fuzzy cloud controller with an online learning mechanism, putting forward a framework that takes the human out of the dynamic adaptation loop and can cope with various sources of uncertainty in the cloud.

Nabor C. Mendonça

Papers

Microservices: The Journey So Far and Challenges Ahead

Static Architecture-Conformance Checking: An Illustrative Overview

Benchmark requirements for microservices architecture research

Cloudstep: A step-by-step decision process to support legacy application migration to the cloud

Managing Uncertainty in Autonomic Cloud Elasticity Controllers