Writing code should be made more difficult so that Verification &Validation can be made easier.
I first heard this notion years ago at a workshop in which several folks from industry who build high assurance software (think flight controls) stood up and said that V&V is what matters. You might expect that from flight control folks, but their reasoning applies to pretty much every embedded project. That's because it is a matter of economics.
I first heard this notion years ago at a workshop in which several folks from industry who build high assurance software (think flight controls) stood up and said that V&V is what matters. You might expect that from flight control folks, but their reasoning applies to pretty much every embedded project. That's because it is a matter of economics.
Multiple speakers at that workshop said that aviation software can require 4 or 5 hours of V&V for every 1 hour of creating software. It makes no economic sense to make life easy for the 1 hour side of the ratio at the expense of making life painful for the 5 hour side of the ratio.
Good, but non-life-critical, embedded software requires about 2 hours of V&V for every 1 hour of code creation. So the economic argument still holds, with a still-compelling multiplier of 2:1. I don't care if you're Vee, Agile, hybrid model or whatever. You're spending time on V&V, including at least some activities such as peer review, unit test, created automated tests, performing testing, chasing down bugs, and so on. For embedded products that aren't flaky, probably you spend more time on V&V than you do on creating the code. If you're doing TDD you're taking an approach that has the idea of starting with a testing viewpoint built in already, by starting from testing and working outward from there. But that's not the only way to benefit from this observation.
The good news is that making code writing "difficult" does not involve gratuitous pain. Rather, it involves being smart and a bit disciplined so that the code you produce is easier for others to perform V&V on. A bit of up front thought and organization can save a lot on downstream effort. Some examples include:
- Writing concise but helpful code comments so that reviewers can understand what you meant.
- Writing code to be obvious rather than clever, again to help reviewers.
- Follow a style guide to make your code consistent, and thus easier to understand.
- Writing code that compiles clean for static analysis, avoiding time wasted finding defects in test that a tool could have found, and avoiding a person having to puzzle out which warnings matter, and which don't.
- Spending some time to make your unit interfaces easier to test, even if it requires a bit more work designing and coding the unit.
- Spending time making it easy to trace between your design and the code. For example, if you have a statechart, make sure the statechart uses names that map directly to enum names rather than using arbitrary state variables such as "magic number" integers between 1 and 7. This makes it easier to ensure that the code and design match. (For that matter, just using statecharts to provide a guide to what the code does also helps.)
- Spending time up front documenting module interaction so that integration testers don't have to puzzle out how things are supposed to work together. Sequence diagrams can help a lot.
- Making the requirements both testable and easy to trace. Make every requirement idea a stand-alone sentence or paragraph and give it a number so it's easy to trace to a specific test primarily designed to test that particular requirement. Avoid having requirements in huge paragraphs of free-form text that mix lots of different concepts together.
Sure, these sound like a good idea, but many developers skip or skimp on them because they don't think they can afford the time. They don't have time to make their code clean because they're too busy writing bugs to meet a deadline. Then they, and everyone else, pay for this during the test cycle. (I'm not saying the programmers are necessarily the main culprits here, especially if they didn't get a vote on their deadline. But that doesn't change the outcome.)
I'm here to say you can't afford not to follow these basic code quality practices. That's because every hour you're saving by cutting corners up front is probably costing you double (or more) downstream by making V&V more painful than it should be. It's always hard to invest in downstream benefits when the pressure is on, but doing so is costing you dearly when you skimp on code quality.
Do you have any tricks to make code easier to understand that I missed?
I'm loving the blog.
ReplyDeleteOne of the virtues I'm trying to learn is to make heavy use of interface classes, and to let those interface classes dictate how objects can interact and what they can interact with. And when the implemented objects are used, they should be handled with the interface-level commands whenever possible.
However, never have interfaces just for the sake of having them. If an interface will only ever be implemented by a single class, then the interface probably shouldn't exist.
A less common but equally useful challenge I am considering is something I'll call "plurality-agnostic code". This is useful whenever a program has a pair of functions like UpdateObject() and UpdateObjects(). The implementation of these two functions is usually identical (at first), or the plural one just calls the singular one in a loop. There are several ways to avoid this unnecessary near-duplication of functions by designing properly in the first place. Alternatively, the function parameter can be updated so it can accept either a collection or a single object (the single object can be turned into a collection with only 1 member). This way, all function calls will go to the same function, and there is only one implementation of the function.
i've see designs where a single int2string() evolved into a multitude of functions of *2string where * meant char, short, long, uint, double, ... - you get the clue. why i am "complaining" in such a case was just the fact that the whole set of functions was based in a source file that had a "cpp" ending. so a single name would have served everyone - paramter based function selection is a pretty valid c++ feature.
ReplyDeleteSometimes it's worth the hassle of going with a single name, especially if you're building a general-purpose library with lots of users.
ReplyDelete