Skip to main content

Minimal Working Examples: How to, Why, and Who cares

When you have a problem and you rush to colleagues, or strangers on IRC and mailing lists, you've got to present a problem they'll want to help you fix, and with all the information they need to fix it. You can't give them information they dont need, because any extra work filing through your unrelated code is going to reduce the chances anyone will put in the time to help you.

We can state a few rules about seeking help with code.
  1. Ask the question clearly and don't be ambiguous about your intentions and requirements.
  2. If you need to include code, it needs to include all important context.
  3. Present the problem without reference to out-of-context issues.
Don't come in with a link to your entire body of code telling us it doesn't work. What doesn't work is asking for help like that. Besides telling us exactly how things don't work, and what they are doing compared to what you are expecting, you need to give us code that specifically and only demonstrates the problem directly at hand. This is our golden "Minimal Working Example", where "working" means that it works just enough to show us how its broken. You need to reproduce the situation causing your code to break, without showing us the environment your code is in when it breaks. That means taking code segments out of their modules and even out of the insides of functions, and surrounding them with just enough jumpstart to fail the same way it did in the original code.

Before you even get around to asking your question, you might solve it simply by isolating the problem into your example. When you remove the problem code from everything else, you can remove the distractions of everything else going on around it. You might remove another part of the code to reduce things to the minimal example, and suddenly find the problem gone, identifying the removed code as the source of your problems. If you think isolating test cases sounds familiar, then you know enough that I shouldn't have to tell you these minimal working examples should already exist in the form of your unit test suites. When something goes wrong, you should have already had a test to catch it, and added one if you didn't. If the problem can be isolated now, keep it isolated for later.

Remember what is important to your problem. If you can't figure out some particular pysqlite2 issue, and you're working with data your extracted from XML files grabbed from a remote server, you can bet the XML, HTTP, and all the logic to process it is not worth your time to show anyone. Your example only needs to show the data you have to push through SQL, and no one should need to see where its come from. If your components are more tightly woven, and separating them isn't possible or is even moderately difficult, then you have a serious design flaw and extracting the problem example has revealed away to clear up your code and likely solve many latent problems, all at once.

Once proper testing, documentation, and isolation have let you up the creek without a paddle, thats where community support comes in. Come to us with the example that tells us right away what the problem is, what its doing, and the obvious thing you think it should have done, instead. We can all run this code and approach it from the same direction as yourself, so we know exactly what your problem is and where to approach the solution.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

Announcing Feet, a Python Runner

I've been working on a problem that's bugged me for about as long as I've used Python and I want to announce my stab at a solution, finally!

I've been working on the problem of "How do i get this little thing I made to my friend so they can try it out?" Python is great. Python is especially a great language to get started in, when you
don't know a lot about software development, and probably don't even know a lot about computers in general.

Yes, Python has a lot of options for tackling some of these distribution problems for games and apps. Py2EXE was an early option, PyInstaller is very popular now, and PyOxide is an interesting recent entry. These can be great options, but they didn't fit the kind of use case and experience that made sense to me. I'd never really been about to put my finger on it, until earlier this year:

Python needs LÖVE.

LÖVE, also known as "Love 2D", is a game engine that makes it super easy to build small Lua…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…