In the previous five articles I have test-driven a classic code kata, using only connascence to guide me during the factoring steps. Here I will summarise the steps I took, and review the final code.

# Connascence of Algorithm revisited

Last time I fixed two instances of Connascence of Algorithm. Then I realised that I had introduced some more, so I fixed that too. After I had put that post to bed I also noticed that I had missed some alternative solutions. This article puts that right.

# Connascence of Algorithm

This is the fourth post in a series in which I am test-driving a classic code kata, and using only the rules of connascence to tell me what to refactor.

If you have been following along, you’ll recall that my most recent refactor was to create a new domain object for MultiBuyDiscount, thereby alleviating a nasty case of Connascence of Position. The tests pass, so let’s review what connascence remains in this code:

# Connascence of Position

This is part three of a series in which I am test-driving a classic code kata, and using only the rules of connascence to tell me what to refactor. Last time I continued working on the checkout kata, and I fixed some Connascence of Meaning by introducing a new class to represent the domain concept of Money. Today I want to take that same code a little further to explore what happens when I continue simply responding to the connascence I see.

# Connascence of Meaning

This is part 2 of a short series of posts in which I explore TDD using only connascence as my guide. In the previous article I wrote a test, made it pass, and then refactored away the strongest coupling. That coupling took the form of some Connascence of Value between the test and the Checkout. Later, after the excitement of publishing the post had died away, I realised there was still some non-trivial connascence in the code. Today it’s time to fix that.

# Connascence of Value

Connascence is a way of describing the coupling between different parts of a codebase. And because it classifies the relative strength of that coupling, connascence can be used as a tool to help prioritise what should be refactored first. This is the first in a short series of posts in which I test-drive a well-known kata, attempting to use only connascence as my guide during refactoring.

# Date arithmetic

This morning I got up at eight minutes past six. So what, you ask? Well, that means I got out of bed at 06:08 10/12/14^{*}, which is a very nice arithmetic progression. That is, today’s date is a series of numbers with a constant difference (in this case, the constant difference is 2).

**Question:** Which dates (and times, if you wish) next year will form arithmetic progressions? And which, if any, will form a geometric progression (in which each term after the first is found by multiplying its predecessor by a fixed constant)?

^{*}Unless you live in the US — in which case, pretend today is October 12th.

# Priorities

A thought, in response to comments and discussion in various places, sparked by TDD for teams:

In a large software application that is worked on by many (> 2) people, which is more important: “good” design or consistency?

# TDD for teams

I strongly suspect that TDD for teams is different than TDD for individuals.

There’s a proverb in software development to the effect that:

“TDD is a

designtechnique, not a testing technique”

I agree. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only design technique we need. And it doesn’t also mean that everyone will use it equivalently or get the same results with it. For example, take a look at the approaches used by Seb Rose, Ron Jeffries and Alistair Cockburn to solving the Letter Diamond kata. (Click on their names to read their blog posts, then hop back here if you still have any energy left.) They each tackled the same set of requirements in completely different ways. Each used TDD, and yet their designs were completely different.

In fact, while I was drafting this post, George Dinwiddie had a go too, and Ron made a second attempt. So now we have 5 different design approaches to one toy kata from 4 developers, all in the space of one weekend. (And there are probably more that I haven’t heard about.) Of course, it would have been weird if they had all produced identical designs. We are all different, and that’s definitely a good thing. But I worry that this can cause problems for teams doing TDD.

A couple of years ago I remember doing a performance kata in which I paired with Mark Kirschstein to tackle the supermarket checkout kata. My role was to write the tests and Mark’s was to make them pass. At the beginning of the session I made the bold claim that I could get Mark to implement the checkout in a way he had never seen before, with a design that he had not conceived. The audience, and Mark, were skeptical. They were used to thinking of the problem as framed by the tests in Dave Thomas’ original problem statement. And so they were expecting the first test to be something like this:

public class CheckoutTests { @Test public void oneA() { Checkout checkout = new Checkout(); checkout.scan("A"); assertEquals(30, checkout.total()); } }

But in fact my first test was this:

public class CheckoutTests2 implements ScannerListener { int priceReported = 0; String productReported = null; @Test public void oneA() { Scanner scanner = new Scanner(this); scanner.scan(new SKU("A")); assertEquals(30, priceReported); assertEquals("A", productReported); } public void itemScanned(String product, int price) { productReported = product; priceReported = price; } }

(expressed using the SelfShunt pattern, as anyone who has attended any of my training courses will recognise immediately). Mark, to his surprise, was gradually led to creating a checkout implementation based on notifications and listeners, and with no getters or setters.

*[Supplementary challenge: implement the supermarket checkout kata without conditionals!]*

While this was (I hope) great theatre, there’s a deeper message in all of this when it comes to whole teams working on non-trivial problems: If a team is to produce software that exhibits internal consistency and is understandable by all of its developers, then somehow these individual differences must be surrendered or homogenized in some way. Somehow the team must create designs — and a design style — that everyone agrees on.

Does it make sense for teams to operate as isolated pairs, each programming away on their specific tasks, without regard for how their designs will integrate with those of their team-mates? I see too many teams doing just that; ditching design sessions on the basis of reading TDD books and blogs in which a *single* person or pair did all of the thinking. I see far too many codebases in which personal style is the major design force; where the same domain concept is implemented in two or more radically different ways; where duplication is thus very hard to spot, and even harder to remove.

Perhaps we need more published examples of team-based TDD, showing techniques for creating and sharing Just Enough Design Up Front^{TM}.

XP includes the key practices of Coding Standard and System Metaphor; are they enough to solve the problem? How can pairs Refactor Mercilessly if there is no team consensus as to what constitutes “good” and “consistent”?

What does your team do to balance the needs of “enough design” and “too much design up front”?

# Happy numbers again: spoilers

If you’ve tried the Happy numbers kata you may have noticed a couple of things about the algorithm. Firstly,

13 => 3^{2} + 1^{2} => 10 => 1

is the same as

31 => 1^{2} + 3^{2} => 10 => 1.

That is, happiness and unhappiness are preserved under all permutations of the digits. So if you have calculated the status of 134, you also know the status of 143, 314, 341, 413 and 431!

And secondly, zeroes have no effect on the outcome. So 103 is just as happy as 13; and similarly 1300, 1000300000 and 30010 are all happy.

In a sense, that means it is not meaningful to ask how many numbers can be examined in 5 seconds, say — because the answer is always infinite! So let’s redefine the kata:

Write a program to report the number of happy numbers in the range [1, n]. What is the largest n you can deal with in 5 seconds?

Some interesting questions now come to mind:

- Where does the time go? Is it faster to calculate the happiness of a number than it is to create all permutations of its digits?
- What is the best data structure for holding the results? Can a recursive or functional algorithm compete with a procedural approach?
- What is the best way to deal with numbers containing zeroes?
- Are the answers to these questions dependent on programming language?
- Is this really an algorithm on the integers, or is it an algorithm on lists of digits?

Finally, something quite bizarre. The observations above regarding zeroes and digit permutations mean that we can acquire the answer to the challenge while examining fewer integers. How many fewer?

My rough calculations suggest that we only need to examine 54 of the integers below 100 in order to have complete information about every number in the range 1-100. Thats 54%. But we only need to examine 229 of the first 1000, which is 22.9%. To cover 1-10000 we only need to examine 714 numbers, and for 1-100000 we only need to examine 2002 numbers — ie. 2% of them! It would appear that this algorithm gets significantly faster as we move to larger and larger data sets. How much difference does this make to what your implementation can achieve?