One field of expertise our company provides is the continuation of existing software projects. While this sounds very easy to accomplish, in reality, there are a few prerequisites that a software project has to provide to be continuable. The most important one is the source code of the system, obviously. If the source code is accessible (this is a problem more often than you might think!), the biggest hurdle is now the mindset and initial approach of the developers that inherit it.
The mindset
Most developers have a healthy “greenfield” project mindset. There is a list of requirements, so start coding and fulfill them. If the code obstructs the way to your goal, you reshape it in a meaningful manner. The more experience you have with developing software, the better the resulting design and architecture of the code will be. Whether you apply automatic tests to your software (and when) is entirely your decision. In short: You are the master of the code and forge it after your vision. This is a great mindset for projects in the early phases of development. But it will actively hinder you in later phases of your project or in case you inherit foreign code.
For your own late-phase projects and source code written by another team, another mindset provides more value. The “brownfield” metaphor doesn’t describe the mindset exactly. I have three metaphors that describe parts of it for me: You’ll need to be an archeologist, a forensicist (as in “securer of criminal evidence”) and a minefield clearer. If you hear the word archeologist, don’t think of Indiana Jones, but of somebody sitting in the scorching desert, clearing a whole football field from sand with only a shaving brush and his breath. If you think about being a forensicist, don’t think of your typical hero criminalist who rearranges the photos of the crime scene to reveal a hidden hint, but the guy in a white overall who has to take all the photos without disturbing the surrounding (and being disturbed by it). If you think about the minefield clearer: Yes, you are spot on. He has to rely on his work and shouldn’t move too fast in any direction.
The initial approach
This sets the scene for your initial journey inside foreign source code: Don’t touch anything or at least be extra careful, only dust it off in the slightest possible manner. Watch where you step in and don’t get lost. Take a snapshot, mental or written, of anything suspicious you’ll encounter. There will be plenty of temptation to lose focus and instantly improve the code. Don’t fall for it. Remember the forensicist: what would the detective in charge of this case say if you “improved the scenery a bit” to get better photos? This process reminds me so much of a common approach to the game “Minesweeper” that I included the minefield clearer in the analogy. You start somewhere on the field and mark every mine you indirectly identify without ever really revealing them.
Most likely, you don’t find any tests or an issue tracker where you can learn about the development history. With some luck, you’ll have a commit history with meaningful comments. Use the blame view as often as you can. This is your archeological skills at work: Separating layers and layers of code all mingled in one place. A good SCM system can clear up a total mess for you and reveal the author’s intent for it. Without tests, issues and versioning, you cannot distinguish between a problem and a solution, accidental and deliberate complexity or a bug and a feature. Everything could mean something and even be crucial for the whole system or just be useless excess code (so-called “live weight” because the code will be executed, but with no effect in terms of features). To name an example, if you encounter a strange sleep() call (or multiple calls in a row), don’t eliminate or change them! The original author probably “fixed” a nasty bug with it that will come back sooner than you know it.
Walking on broken glass
And this is what you should do: Leave everything in its place, broken, awkward and clumsy, and try to separate your code from “their” code as much as possible. The rationale is to be able to differentiate between “their” mess and “your” mess and make progress on your part without breaking the already existing features. If you cannot wait any longer to clean up some of the existing code, make sure to release into production often and in a timely manner, so you still know what changed if something goes wrong. If possible, try to release two different kinds of new versions:
- One kind of new version only incorporates refactorings to the existing code. If anything goes wrong or seems suspicious, you can easily bail out and revert to the previous version without losing functionality.
- The other kind only contains new features, added with as little change to existing code as possible. Hopefully, this release will not break existing behaviour. If it does, you should double-check your assumptions about the code. If reasonably achievable, do not assume anything or at least write an automatic test to validate your assumption.
Personally, I call this approach the “tick-tock” release cycle, modelled after the release cycle of Intel for its CPUs.
Changing gears
A very important aspect of software development is to know when to “change gears” and switch from greenfield to brownfield or from development to maintainance mode. The text above describes the approach with inherited code, where the gear change is externally triggered by transferring the source code to a new team. But in reality, you need to apply most of the practices on your own source code, too. As soon as your system is in “production”, used in the wild and being filled with precious user data, it changes into maintainance mode. You cannot change existing aspects as easily as before.
In his book “Implementation Patterns” (2008), Kent Beck describes the development of frameworks among other topics. One statement is:
While in conventional development reducing complexity to a minimum is a valuable strategy for making the code easy to understand, in framework development it is often more cost-effective to add complexity in order to enhance the framework developer’s ability to improve the framework without breaking client code.
(Chapter 10, page 118)
I not only agree with this statement but think that it partly applies to “conventional development” in maintainance mode, too. Sometimes, the code needs additional complexity to cope with existing structures and data. This is the moment when you’ve inherited your own code.
Schneide Blog 