Rob Smyth

Wednesday, 30 July 2008

Open Source Project Hosting

I've been oscillating the last year between my loyalty to SourceForge and Google Code. A couple of times I have created a Google Code project to move a SourceForge project across but each time I've stayed with SourceForge. But then, I now have a few new Google Code projects. So far, I do not see a clear winner, each has its advantages.

The pros and cons are:
  • Registering A Project

  • A Google Code project registration is instant. Although I have had some trouble with full use of the SubVersion repository until a few hours after the project registration. Except for that the Google Code project is available immediately.

    SourceForge however requires the project to be approved. For me, this has taken anything from a couple of days to months. Usually three days although once I needed to escalate it through support and it took a couple of months.

  • Wiki

  • SourceForge has out sourced their Wiki support to Wikispaces and the result is clearly superior. Good WYSIWYG and default layout creates a good looking site.

    Google Code however provides much more flexibility. It seems that every page is editable as a wiki. Significantly Google Code allows you to edit the project page as it is a wiki page. But ... Google Code formatting is very ordinary and generally speaking Google Code pages just do not look good.

  • Release Upload

  • SourceForge's release upload has long been somewhat 'Unix'. Other words, 'difficult'. Google release uploads are a breeze. Just browse to the uploads page, click the link and browse to the file to upload. SourceForge has created an equivalent but you do need to go looking for it and it does feel 'tacked on'.
So, I'm using Google Code for API/developer utility projects as it very easy to use. I'm using SourceForge for non-developer/UI projects as the presentation is so much better. If your going to the trouble of making an open source project you want an audience. So, I'm choosing by audience.

Sunday, 27 July 2008

Last Time I Give Myself A Haircut?

Well, I thought I would cut my own hair. Thing is I made a mistake and one thing lead to another. Um, no hair now and it is winter.

Sue is not happy with me.

Betsy Gets A Chrome Fuel Cap

Sue has had her Mini Cooper (Betsy) for a few months now and she still adores her. Lovely machine she is, and now she is a little bit more lovely with the proud addition of a chrome fuel cap.

I'm surprised, it does look good with the chrome side mirror, door handle, and now ... the cap.

Yea, I had to get the dogs in one of the photos. That is Violet at the back, and Golly's head & tail at the front. :-)

Thursday, 24 July 2008

Resharper Plugin Test Fixture

I've been writing a Resharper plugin, and although it does seem much easier than a Visual Studio add-in, writing any Visual Studio plugin/add-in is just plain awkward. The cost of testing is so much higher when the target product is the same as your development tool. So it seemed that the best thing to do first was to automate the basic Resharper plugin validation so that the manual testing cost is avoided/minimised. It also has the advantage of documenting my understanding of the Resharper plug-in API.

To manually test I must shutdown VS copy the DLL to a deployment folder, possibly update a registry key, and then start-up VS again. If things fail Resharper/VS are not happy and all may need to be shutodown, dlls deleted, VS started again, and maybe even a little configuration recovery. Nothing too bad but it is definitely a high cost manual test scenario.

The full tests are part of the 'SharpProbe' project. Code fragment is shown below.

public void HasActionsRootElement()

public void AllInsertElementsHaveValidGroupIDs()
Dictionary<string, int> validGroupIds = new Dictionary<string, int>();
validGroupIds.Add("ReSharper", 0);
validGroupIds.Add("VS#Code Window", 0);
validGroupIds.Add("VS#Solution", 0);
validGroupIds.Add("VS#Item", 0);
validGroupIds.Add("VS#Project", 0);

XmlNodeList nodes = xmlDocument.SelectNodes("actions/insert");
foreach (XmlNode node in nodes)
string groupID = node.Attributes["group-id"].Value;
string.Format("XML insert element has unknown group-id '{0}'.", groupID));

public void AllInsertElementsOtherThanResharperElementHaveValidActionRefIDs()
XmlNodeList nodes = xmlDocument.SelectNodes("actions/insert[@group-id!='ReSharper']");
foreach (XmlNode node in nodes)
NodeHasValidActionId(node, "action-ref");

public void HasAtLeastOneInsertElement()
Assert.IsTrue(xmlDocument.SelectNodes("actions/insert").Count > 0);

[Test] public void HasResharperInsertElementsTahtHasValidActionIDsAndMenuText()
XmlNodeList nodes = xmlDocument.SelectNodes("actions/insert[@group-id='ReSharper']");
Assert.AreEqual(1, nodes.Count);
NodeHasValidActionId(nodes[0], "action");

XmlNode actionNode = nodes[0].SelectSingleNode("action");
string text = actionNode.Attributes["text"].Value;
Assert.IsTrue(text.Length > 0);

Monday, 21 July 2008

Developing Resharper Plugins

I've been having a go at writing a Resharper plugin. As there does not seem to be much in the way of documentation I've created a page on my wiki to keep notes. You can find the page here.

Thursday, 17 July 2008

The Project With Multiple Teams Conundrum

Several years ago I worked for Citect on its shrink wrapped product (also called Citect). The company had several software development teams working on Citect and thinking back on it I saw the teams as separate, each team was independent and had a clear team identity, even though we all worked on the one product. It demonstrates that 'team' is not necessarily tied to 'product' but to 'project', and a product can have multiple projects. In fact, I now think that the concept of a team is inherently linked to an individual project. One team, one project.

It seems that having multiple teams on the one project is a conundrum. If the teams lack identity they become one large team. The advantage of a team is lost. A shared project a team inhibitor.

I feel that what the project manager sees as a single project must be broken down into separate projects that each team can own. A team needs something to own, it needs boundaries so it can celebrate success. The issue of collaboration between teams is another matter for the the "team of teams" team.

Agile developers will collaborate. Other will always find a way ...

NXmlSerializer Rev 3 Released

Uploaded the latest NXmlSerializer release to SourceForge tonight. This release reduces the size of the XML produced, supports serialized objects referencing objects that need to be replaced when deserializing. Project documentation is here.

Wednesday, 9 July 2008

Agile - A Word To Empower Our Decisions

Words are powerful, they effect our perceptions and decisions. In 2001 seventeen leaders people got together in Utah and emerged with the Agile Manifesto which gave us the word/vocabulary of 'Agile' software development. A powerful concept given and now owned by the software development community. With the high profile that eXtreme Programming enjoys will 'Agile' become a byword for XP? XP stands in it own right, I hope that its popularity does not overshadow the concept that 'Agile' give us.

It is difficult to implement the XP methodology and not be Agile, but is Agile just XP? If we use 'Agile' as a byword for XP are we loosing the opportunities of the language of the manifesto offered us. Will the seed of other methodology/processes be lost in the XP disco strobe lights?

Men suppose their reason has command over their words; still it happens that words in return exercise authority on reason. —Francis Bacon.

XP may be Agile, but Agile is not XP. To confuse the two is to limit the possibilities of XP evolving or of using other agile approaches like Crystal Clear. Is XP's popularity now a danger to blocking our ability to adapt and improve? Interesting considering XP's retrospective process.

How To Fail With Agile

This URL to "How To Fail With Agile" came to me from a post to the Melbourne XP Enthusiasts group. I feel the pain of recognition :-).

I'll ignore the blurring of the difference between agile and XP implied in the article.