Posts Tagged ‘conference’

Would it be useful to unroll all parameterized Spock tests automatically?

I’ve been always frustrated with the need to add @Unroll annotation to every parameterized test/feature (or at least at the class/specification level) to make unrolling works in Spock. It was even worse to deal with the code with already missing @Unroll annotations and cryptic test results. For backward compatibility unrolling will rather not be enabled by default in the foreseeable future, but luckily there is a quick solution.

Unroll

Photo: Christopher Michel, CC BY 2.0

Unroll for all and for free

To enable global unrolling it is only required to add spock-global-unroll.jar to your classpath:

testCompile 'info.solidsoft.spock:spock-global-unroll:0.5.0'

To make it easier to use spock-global-unroll with different Spock versions (like 1.0-groovy-2.0 and 1.0-groovy-2.3) the plugin does not have the compile dependency on Spock and a proper spock-core jar has to be explicitly defined in a build configuration. E.g.:

testCompile 'info.solidsoft.spock:spock-global-unroll:0.5.0'
testCompile 'org.spockframework:spock-core:1.0-groovy-2.4'

That’s all. spock-global-unroll is a global extension which is activated automatically by Spock. All parameterized Spock tests are unrolled without the need to use @Unroll annotation.

Disabling automatic unrolling for a class

Automatic unrolling can be disabled for a particular class by putting @DisableGlobalUnroll on it.

The nice thing is that the @Unroll annotations manually placed at the test (feature) level can be used to unroll particular tests anyway (even if automatic unrolling has been disabled for given class).

@DisableGlobalUnroll
class PeselValidatorSpec extends Specification {

    //one big test for multiple input parameters
    def "should not be unrolled for some reasons PESEL #number"() { ... }

    (...)
}

Overriding default test name

To override default test name expanding (with #placeHolders in a test name) @Unroll annotation with a custom text can be used on the top of feature method or at the specification level.

@DisableGlobalUnroll
class PeselValidatorSpec extends Specification {

    //one big test for multiple input parameters
    def "should not be unrolled for some reasons PESEL #number"() { ... }

    //unrolled anyway
    @Unroll("PESEL '#pesel' should be #description")
    def "should validate PESEL correctness"() { ... }

    (...)
}

Summary

Being able to implement automatic tests unrolling within 15 minutes I decided to share it with the community – maybe there are others who don’t like to write boilerplate code :). The code written to achieve it has just a few lines of production code (of course there are also 3 test classes to verify if the extension works as expected :) ). This shows the power of Spock extensibility.

The complete source code is available from GitHub: https://github.com/szpak/spock-global-unroll

Update 20160521. I added automatic migration scripts in the project README to make a migration easier.

Btw, if you would like to find out more about “Interesting nooks and crannies of Spock” I will be speaking about them in May and June at GeeCON 2016 in Kraków, Gr8Conf 2016 in Copenhagen and Devoxx Poland again in Kraków.

Geecon big paw logo
GR8 Conf 2016 Europe
Devoxx Poland 2016 Speaker Badge

Self promotion. Would you like to improve your and your team testing skills and knowledge of Spock quickly and efficiently? I conduct condensed (unit) testing training which you may find useful.

Mockito-Java8 is a set of Mockito add-ons leveraging Java 8 and lambda expressions to make mocking with Mockito even more compact.

At the beginning of 2015 I gave my flash talk Java 8 brings power to testing! at GeeCON TDD 2015 and DevConf.cz 2015. In my speech using 4 examples I showed how Java 8 – namely lambda expressions – can simplify testing tools and testing in general. One of those tools was Mokcito. To not let my PoC code die on slides and to make it simply available for others I have released a small project with two, useful in specified case, Java 8 add-ons for Mockito.

Mockito logo

Quick introduction

As a prerequisite, let’s assume we have the following data structure:

@Immutable
class ShipSearchCriteria {
    int minimumRange;
    int numberOfPhasers;
}

The library provides two add-ons:

Lambda matcher – allows to define matcher logic within a lambda expression.

given(ts.findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(
    argLambda(sc -> sc.getMinimumRange() > 1000))).willReturn(4);

Argument Captor – Java 8 edition – allows to use ArgumentCaptor in a one line (here with AssertJ):

verify(ts).findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(
    assertArg(sc -> assertThat(sc.getMinimumRange()).isLessThan(2000)));

Lambda matcher

With a help of the static method argLambda a lambda matcher instance is created which can be used to define matcher logic within a lambda expression (here for stubbing). It could be especially useful when working with complex classes pass as an argument.

@Test
public void shouldAllowToUseLambdaInStubbing() {
    //given
    given(ts.findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(
        argLambda(sc -> sc.getMinimumRange() > 1000))).willReturn(4);
    //expect
    assertThat(ts.findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(
        new ShipSearchCriteria(1500, 2))).isEqualTo(4);
    //expect
    assertThat(ts.findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(
        new ShipSearchCriteria(700, 2))).isEqualTo(0);
}

In comparison the same logic implemented with a custom Answer in Java 7:

@Test
public void stubbingWithCustomAsnwerShouldBeLonger() {  //old way
    //given
    given(ts.findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(any())).willAnswer(new Answer<Integer>() {
        @Override
        public Integer answer(InvocationOnMock invocation) throws Throwable {
            Object[] args = invocation.getArguments();
            ShipSearchCriteria criteria = (ShipSearchCriteria) args[0];
            if (criteria.getMinimumRange() > 1000) {
                return 4;
            } else {
                return 0;
            }
        }
    });
    //expect
    assertThat(ts.findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(
        new ShipSearchCriteria(1500, 2))).isEqualTo(4);
    //expect
    assertThat(ts.findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(
        new ShipSearchCriteria(700, 2))).isEqualTo(0);
}

Even Java 8 and less readable constructions don’t help too much:

@Test
public void stubbingWithCustomAsnwerShouldBeLongerEvenAsLambda() {  //old way
    //given
    given(ts.findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(any())).willAnswer(invocation -> {
        ShipSearchCriteria criteria = (ShipSearchCriteria) invocation.getArguments()[0];
        return criteria.getMinimumRange() > 1000 ? 4 : 0;
    });
    //expect
    assertThat(ts.findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(
        new ShipSearchCriteria(1500, 2))).isEqualTo(4);
    //expect
    assertThat(ts.findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(
        new ShipSearchCriteria(700, 2))).isEqualTo(0);
}

Argument Captor – Java 8 edition

A static method assertArg creates an argument matcher which implementation internally uses ArgumentMatcher with an assertion provided in a lambda expression. The example below uses AssertJ to provide meaningful error message, but any assertions (like native from TestNG or JUnit) could be used (if really needed). This allows to have inlined ArgumentCaptor:

@Test
public void shouldAllowToUseAssertionInLambda() {
    //when
    ts.findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(searchCriteria);
    //then
    verify(ts).findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(
        assertArg(sc -> assertThat(sc.getMinimumRange()).isLessThan(2000)));
}

In comparison to 3 lines in the classic way:

@Test
public void shouldAllowToUseArgumentCaptorInClassicWay() {  //old way
    //when
    ts.findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(searchCriteria);
    //then
    ArgumentCaptor<ShipSearchCriteria> captor = 
        ArgumentCaptor.forClass(ShipSearchCriteria.class);
    verify(ts).findNumberOfShipsInRangeByCriteria(captor.capture());
    assertThat(captor.getValue().getMinimumRange()).isLessThan(2000);
}

Summary

The presented add-ons were created as PoC for my conference speech, but should be fully functional and potentially useful in the specific cases. To use it in your project it is enough to use Mockito 1.10.x or 2.0.x-beta, add mockito-java8 as a dependency and of course compile your project with Java 8+.

More details are available on the project webpage: https://github.com/szpak/mockito-java8

Update 20151217. You may be also interested in my new blog post about using Mockito wihtout static imports.

Quick tutorial how to configure Spock 1.0 with Groovy 2.4 using Maven and Gradle.

Spock 1.0 has been finally released. About new features and enhancements I already wrote two blog posts. One of the recent changes was a separation on artifacts designed for specific Groovy versions: 2.0, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 to minimize a chance to come across a binary incompatibility in runtime (in the past there were only versions for Groovy 1.8 and 2.0+). That was done suddenly and based on the messages on the mailing list it confused some people. After being twice asked to help properly configure two projects I decided to write a short post presenting how to configure Spock 1.0 with Groovy 2.4 in Maven and Gradle. It is also a great place to compare how much work is required to do it in those two very popular build systems.

Maven

Maven does not natively support other JVM languages (like Groovy or Scala). To use it in the Maven project it is required to use a third party plugin. For Groovy the best option seems to be GMavenPlus (a rewrite of no longer maintained GMaven plugin). An alternative is a plugin which allows to use Groovy-Eclipse compiler with Maven, but it is not using official groovyc and in the past there were problems with being up-to-date with the new releases/features of Groovy.

Sample configuration of GMavenPlus plugin could look like:

<plugin>
    <groupId>org.codehaus.gmavenplus</groupId>
    <artifactId>gmavenplus-plugin</artifactId>
    <version>1.4</version>
    <executions>
        <execution>
            <goals>
                <goal>compile</goal>
                <goal>testCompile</goal>
            </goals>
        </execution>
    </executions>
</plugin>

As we want to write tests in Spock which recommends to name files with Spec suffix (from specification) in addition it is required to tell Surefire to look for tests also in those files:

<plugin>
    <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId>
    <version>${surefire.version}</version>
    <configuration>
        <includes>
            <include>**/*Spec.java</include> <!-- Yes, .java extension -->
            <include>**/*Test.java</include> <!-- Just in case of having also "normal" JUnit tests -->
        </includes>
    </configuration>
</plugin>

Please notice that it is needed to include **/*Spec.java not **/*Spec.groovy to make it work.

Also dependencies have to be added:

    <dependencies>
        <dependency>
            <groupId>org.codehaus.groovy</groupId>
            <artifactId>groovy-all</artifactId>
            <version>2.4.1</version>
        </dependency>
        <dependency>
            <groupId>org.spockframework</groupId>
            <artifactId>spock-core</artifactId>
            <version>1.0-groovy-2.4</version>
            <scope>test</scope>
        </dependency>
    </dependencies>

It is very important to take a proper version of Spock. For Groovy 2.4 version 1.0-groovy-2.4 is required. For Groovy 2.3 version 1.0-groovy-2.3. In case of mistake Spock protests with a clear error message:

Could not instantiate global transform class
org.spockframework.compiler.SpockTransform specified at
jar:file:/home/foo/.../spock-core-1.0-groovy-2.3.jar!/META-INF/services/org.codehaus.groovy.transform.ASTTransformation
because of exception
org.spockframework.util.IncompatibleGroovyVersionException:
The Spock compiler plugin cannot execute because Spock 1.0.0-groovy-2.3 is
not compatible with Groovy 2.4.0. For more information, see
http://versioninfo.spockframework.org

Together with other mandatory pom.xml elements the file size increased to over 50 lines of XML. Quite much just for Groovy and Spock. Let’s see how complicated it is in Gradle.

Gradle

Gradle has built-in support for Groovy and Scala. Without further ado Groovy plugin just has to be applied.

apply plugin: 'groovy'

Next the dependencies has to be added:

compile 'org.codehaus.groovy:groovy-all:2.4.1'
testCompile 'org.spockframework:spock-core:1.0-groovy-2.4'

and the information where Gradle should look for them:

repositories {
    mavenCentral()
}

Together with defining package group and version it took 15 lines of code in Groovy-based DSL.

Btw, in case of Gradle it is also very important to match Spock and Groovy version, e.g. Groovy 2.4.1 and Spock 1.0-groovy-2.4.

Summary

Thanks to embedded support for Groovy and compact DSL Gradle is preferred solution to start playing with Spock (and Groovy in general). Nevertheless if you prefer Apache Maven with a help of GMavenPlus (and XML) it is also possible to build project tested with Spock.

The minimal working project with Spock 1.0 and Groovy 2.4 configured in Maven and Gradle can be cloned from my GitHub.

Graphical comparison of Spock and Groovy configuration in Maven and Gradle

Bonus: Graphical comparison of Spock and Groovy configuration in Maven and Gradle

Note. I haven’t been using Maven in my project for over 2 years (I prefer Gradle), so if there is a better/easier way to configure Groovy and Spock with Maven just let me know in the comments.

Note 2. The configuration examples assume that Groovy is used only for tests and the production code is written in Java. It is possible to mix Groovy and Java code together, but then the configuration is a little more complicated.

Note 3. If you are interested in get know useful tips and tricks about using Spock Framework to test your Java and Groovy code I will have a presentation about that at 4Developers conference, April 20th, 2015.

Update 20150310. Redesigned summary.

Leonard Nimoy 1931-2015

AssertJ and Awaitility are two of my favorites tools using in automatic code testing. Unfortunately until recently it was not possible to use it together. But then Java 8 entered the game and several dozens lines of code was enough to make it happen in Awaility 1.6.0.

Awaitility logo

AssertJ provides a rich set of assertions with very helpful error messages, all available though the fluent type aware API. Awaitility allows to express expectations of asynchronous calls in a concise and easy to read way leveraging an active wait pattern which shortens the duration of tests (no more sleep(5000)!).

The idea to use it together came into my mind a year ago when I was working on an algo trading project using Complex event processing (CEP) and I didn’t like to learn Hamcrest assertion just for asynchronous tests with Awaitility. I was able to do a working PoC, but it required to make some significant duplication in AssertJ (then FEST Assert) code and I shelved the idea. A month ago I was preparing my presentation about asynchronous code testing for the 4Developers conference and asked myself a question: How Java 8 could simplify the usage of Awaitility?

For the few examples I will use asynchronousMessageQueue which can be used to send ping request and return number of received packets. One of the ways to test it with Awaitility in Java 7 (besides proxy based condition) is to create a Callable class instance:

    @Test
    public void shouldReceivePacketAfterWhileJava7Edition() {
        //when
        asynchronousMessageQueue.sendPing();
        //then
        await().until(receivedPackageCount(), equalTo(1));
    }

    private Callable<Integer> receivedPackageCount() {
        return new Callable<Integer>() {
            @Override
            public Integer call() throws Exception {
                return asynchronousMessageQueue.getNumberOfReceivedPackets();
            }
        };
    }

where equalTo() is a standard Hamcrest matcher.

The first idea to reduce verbosity is to replace Callable with a lambda expression and inline the private method:

    @Test
    public void shouldReceivePacketAfterWhile() {
        //when
        asynchronousMessageQueue.sendPing();
        //then
        await().until(() -> asynchronousMessageQueue.getNumberOfReceivedPackets(), equalTo(1));
    }

Much better. Going forward lambda expression can be replaced with a method reference:

    @Test
    public void shouldReceivePacketAfterWhile() {
        //when
        asynchronousMessageQueue.sendPing();
        //then
        await().until(asynchronousMessageQueue::getNumberOfReceivedPackets, equalTo(1));
    }

Someone could go even further and remove Hamcrest matcher:

    @Test
    public void shouldReceivePacketAfterWhile() {
        //when
        asynchronousMessageQueue.sendPing();
        //then
        await().until(() -> asynchronousMessageQueue.getNumberOfReceivedPackets() == 1);  //poor error message
    }

but while it still works the error message becomes much less meaningful:

ConditionTimeoutException: Condition with lambda expression in
AwaitilityAsynchronousShowCaseTest was not fulfilled within 2 seconds.

instead of very clear:

ConditionTimeoutException: Lambda expression in AwaitilityAsynchronousShowCaseTest
that uses AbstractMessageQueueFacade: expected <1> but was <0> within 2 seconds.>

The solution would be to use AssertJ assertion inside lambda expression:

    @Test
    public void shouldReceivePacketAfterWhileAssertJEdition() {
        //when
        asynchronousMessageQueue.sendPing();
        //then
        await().until(() -> assertThat(asynchronousMessageQueue.getNumberOfReceivedPackets()).isEqualTo(1));
    }

and thanks to the new AssertionCondition initially hacked within a few minutes it became a reality in Awaitility 1.6.0. Of course AssertJ fluent API and meaningful failure messages for different data types are preserved.

As a bonus all assertions that throw AssertionError (so particularly TestNG and JUnit standard assertions) can be used in the lambda expression as well (but I don’t know anyone who came back to “standard” assertion knowing the power of AssertJ).

The nice thing is that the changes itself leverage Runnable class to implement lambdas and AssertJ support and Awaitility 1.6.0 is still Java 5 compatible. Nevertheless for the sake of readability it is only sensible to use the new constructions in Java 8 based projects.

Btw, here are the “slides” from my presentation at 4Developers.

4developers logo

Mutation testing allows to check the quality (effectiveness) of automatic tests. PIT (aka pitest) is a leading mutation testing tool for Java environment. In my last blog post about PIT in January 2013 I have covered version 0.29. Since then the PIT development team has been busy and the 4 releases introduced various new features (besides fixed bugs). In this post I will cover the most important (in my opinion) changes in the project (up to recently released version 0.33).

PIT mutation testing tool logo

New features

– preliminary support for Java 8 bytecode – PIT can be used with code which contains Java 8 syntax and constructions (including lamdas)
– internal refactoring resulted in much faster “standard” line coverage calculation
– support for parametrized JUnit tests written with Spock (in Groovy) and JUnitParams
– ability to define a coverage threshold (both line and mutation) below which the build will fail
– ability to use PIT with Robolectric
– new Remove Conditionals Mutator (a conditional statement will always be true – not enabled by default as of 0.33)
– new Remove Increments Mutator (an increment operation will be removed – not enabled by default as of 0.33)
– ability to choose JVM to be used for mutation testing
– ability to run PIT only for locally changed files for Maven build with configured SCM plugin
– demanding users can define their own strategies for: test selection, output format and test prioritization – PIT provides extension points which allow to write custom implementations
– partial support for JUnit categories
– support for mutating static initializers in TestNG

In the meantime there were also releases of plugins/tools based on PIT. My plugin for Gradle was enhanced with the dynamic task dependencies resolution (just “gradle pitest” takes care about all the requisites in the Gradle build lifecycle) and support for the additional main and test source sets. Plugin for Eclipse has got (inter alia) a new mutation view and an ability to run PIT against all the projects in a workspace.

Not only releases

Besides new releases PIT has got brand new Bootstrap based webpage, the logo (see above) and the source code was migrated from Mercurial on Google Code to GitHub. The nice thing is that the move resulted in a few contributions withing the first weeks.

Henry Coles the author of PIT also started the new commercial project FaultSeed – “better mutation testing tools for the JVM” which will be based on PIT and has a goal to be 50% faster than PIT and support also Groovy and Scala. Very promising.

PIT (and mutation testing in general) becomes more and more popular and recently there were given a number of talks about it (including my talk at Developer Conference 2014slides). The number of questions on the project’s mailing list also significantly increased. And you, have you tried PIT in your project yet?

DevConf.cz 2014 logo

The Happiness Door is a great method of collecting instant feedback. I have used it successfully on my training sessions and recently had a first try to use it after my conference speech. In this post I present my case study and the reasons why I will definitely use it on upcoming events.

Part 1. From the beginning. It becomes a tradition to end Warszawa JUG’s meeting seasons at the edge of June and July in a great style – with Confitura – the largest free conference about Java and JVM in Poland. This year the seventh edition was planned for about 1000 people and it took less than 2 days to sold out all the tickets (including overbooking). 5 parallel tracks with 35 presentations on various topics. From tuning JVM, different languages on JVM and a lot of frameworks though Java Script, Android, databases, architecture and testing to motivating people, Gordon Ramsay and company management in the 21th century. Too much to embrace during a day, but fortunately all presentations were recorded and will be available online.

My presentation was about mutation testing in Java environment with PIT. I wrote a few posts on that topic already. In a nutshell – a nice way to check how good your test really are. Writing testable code had wide representation at Confitura – I counted four more testing-related presentations.

Part 2. The Happiness Door method (if you new to this method read my previous post first). Before my presentation the sticky notes were distributed across the room and 5 smiley faces put on the door. At the begging I explained to the audience what was going on in this method and why their feedback was so important for me. Leaving the room about 50% attendees gave numerical feedback. Almost half of them had some comments (from “nice talk” to an essay placed on both sides of a sticky note :) ). Some of them were very interesting. Thanks!

I’m very happy I used this method on my speech. First time just minutes after a presentation I knew what people thought about it. In my case it was: “quite good, but there is still a field for improvement”.

The Happiness Door (one leaf) after my speech at Confitura 2013

The Happiness Door (one leaf) after my speech at Confitura 2013

Here is a good place to thank Małgorzata Majewska and Anna Zajączkowska who helped me polish many aspects of my speech.

The interesting thing is that when I have got an email from the organizers with the feedback collected using the online survey the average score was very similar, just got a month later, so why should I wait? With The Happiness Door method it is possible to get it know immediately (and even with the larger test sample).

Btw, it is not easy to prepare to the presentation (there were as always some problems with a projector) and put a sticky note on every place in the audience room (~150 seats) in 15 minutes. Thanks to Edmund Fliski and Dominika Biel for their help with a distribution.

Btw2, after the talk I had very interesting conversations with the people wanting to use mutation testing in their projects, the people already experimenting with PIT and Konrad Hałas – the guy from Warsaw who wrote MutPy – a mutation testing tool for Python.

Part 3. The slides from my speeches evolves over time. 2 years ago my slides were full of the bullet lists – the feedback – boring, to much text. Recently I had some internal presentation with less than 10 slides with no text, just images – the feedback – hard to follow, to little text. In the mean time I did an experimented with a presentation based on a mind map – mixed feedback. This time I combined images and text – some people liked it some not :). Be the judge. The slides (in Polish) are available for download.

Appendix. Thanks to Chris Rimmer for the idea of presenting IT topics using a metaphor to non IT events and people.

I hope I encouraged you to give The Happiness Door method a try. Please share your experience in comments.

P.S. Good news for all the people who missed my presentation at Confitura. My proposal was by accepted by The Program Committee and I will be speaking in Kraków at JDD 2013 (October 14-15th).

jdd13-speaker

The Happiness Door is a method of collecting immediate feedback I have read about some time ago on the Jurgen Appelo’s blog. I used it this year during my training sessions and it worked very well. I would like to popularize it a little bit.

This method requires to select a strategically located place (like the second leaf of the exit door) with marked scale (I use 5 smileys from a very sad to a very happy one) and ask people to put distributed sticky notes on a level corresponding to their satisfaction of the session. They are encouraged to add a concrete comment(s) explaining given score (like “boring” or “too less practical exercises”), but it is completely valid to just attach an empty card in the selected place. The mentioned issues could be discussed with the whole group to determine how the given thing could be improved best. I start getting feedback before a lunch break on the first training day and gently remind about it on every following break.

The main advantage of using this method is to get both instant numerical feedback (how much people like it) and concrete comments (what exactly do they (dis)like). The feedback is gathered very fast when there is still a room for improvements (in contrast to the more formal survey at the end of the training). I have got numerous comments from attenders that they like this method as well and I plan to use it also in my further sessions.

On my courses I even introduced a small enhancement to the original method. Every day I give away sticky notes in a different color. It allows to easily distinguish feedback given on a particular day and identify a trend. On the photos bellow for example it is pretty visible that after a feedback I got on the first day (yellow cards) I was able to adapt my training to the group’s level and expectations (blue cards).

Feedback after my training - day 1 - The Happiness Door method

Day 1 – a moderate result

Feedback after my training - day 2 - The Happiness Door method

Day 2 – a visible uptrend



This spring was quite busy for me as a trainer. I was a mentor at Git Kata – a free Git workshop, gave a talk about asynchronous calls testing on “6 tastes of testing – flashtalks” and recently did a short workshop about Mockito at Test Kata. In the meantime I conducted two 3-day training sessions about writing “good code” and plan one more Test Driven Development session at the end of June. Everything together with my main occupation – writing good software and help team members to do the same. What is more recently I’ve got very pleasant information that my presentation proposal about Mutation Testing was accepted and at the beginning of July I will close this training season speaking at Confitura 2013 (which nota bene was sold out (1200 tickets!) in less than 2 days). See you at Confitura.

Confitura 2013 - Speaker

Confitura 2013 – Speaker

Gdyby istniała mapa obrazująca położenie osób interesujących się Javą oraz technologiami związanymi z JVM to w minioną sobotę w Warszawie na Dolnym Mokotowie można by było zaobserwować bardzo jasny punkt – uczestników konferencji Confitura 2011. Zgodnie z komunikatem organizatorów w tym roku na konferencji pojawiło się około 800 osób. Cieszy, iż tak duża rzesza ludzi chciała w sobotę przyjść (a czasem nawet przyjechać z daleka), aby przez cały dzień móc dowiedzieć się ciekawych rzeczy i pogłębić swoją wiedzę. Gratulacje i podziękowania dla ludzi zaangażowanych w przygotowanie wydarzenia.

Poniżej zamieszczam slajdy z mojej prezentacji o tworzeniu dobrego kodu. Dziękuję obecnym za liczne przybycie i ponawiam prośbę o przesyłanie uwag i sugestii, abym wiedział, które nad którymi elementami szczególnie powinienem jeszcze popracować (pozytywne mogą być w komentarzach, mocno negatywne proszę na priv ;) ).

Tworzenie dobrego kodu dla niewtajemniczonych Confitura 2011 – slajdy

Największa bezpłatna konferencja społecznościowa dotycząca technologii ze świata Java w Polsce odbędzie się 11 czerwca 2011 w Warszawie. W tym roku po raz pierwszy pod nową nazwą – Confitura (dawniej Javarsovia). Sądząc po pierwszych dniach rejestracji frekwencja ma szansę pobić tę z ubiegłego roku (ponad 650 osób).

Tyle żądnych dowiedzenia się czegoś nowego osób w jednym miejscu na pewno cieszy, ale we mnie budzi również trochę obawy, gdyż jedną z ponad dwudziestu zakwalifikowanych prezentacji będzie moja dotycząca fundamentów Software Craftsmanship i tworzenia dobrego kodu (szczęśliwie planowanych jest kilka ścieżek, więc nikt nie będzie na mnie skazany :) ). To wystąpienie (po prezentacjach w WIT i na Politechnice Warszawskiej) wpisuje się w podjętą przeze mnie w ostatnim czasie próbę propagowania (szczególnie wśród studentów i osób zaczynających przygodę z programowaniem) idei i technik pomagających tworzyć lepsze oprogramowanie w sprawiający więcej przyjemności sposób.

Więcej informacji (w tym możliwość zarejestrowania się) na stronach konferencji.

Confitura Logo