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

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

On Pruning Your Passions

We live in a hobby-rich world. There is no shortage of pastimes to grow a passion for. There is a shortage of one thing: time to indulge those passions. If you're someone who pours your heart into that one thing that makes your life worthwhile, that's a great deal. But, what if you've got no shortage of interests that draw your attention and you realize you will never have the time for all of them?

If I look at all the things I'd love to do with my life as a rose bush I'm tending, I realize that careful pruning is essential for the best outcome. This is a hard lesson to learn, because it can mean cutting beautiful flowers and watching the petals fall to the ground to wither. It has to be done.

I have a full time job that takes a lot of my mental energy. I have a wife and a son and family time is very important in my house. I try to read more, and I want to keep up with new developments in my career, and I'm trying to make time for simple, intentional relaxing t…

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…