Perhaps I've lost my mind... perhaps I'm a little too open minded... but why is there so much press out there on Resharper vs Refactor?

After investigating both CodeRush and Resharper I finally decided to purchase Resharper 3.0. I have been happily using Refactor Pro! 2.x for the past year or so, but I recently stretched it's capabilities.

I like Refactor; the simplicity of using Ctrl+~ is intoxicating. However, since embracing test driven development along with using a model view presenter pattern for my UI design I've found it lacking.

The main things that tipped me over the edge happened to fall into the refactoring and navigation categories:

Create a new class/interface declaration from an unknown initialization.

 

This is perhaps the single most productive feature anybody doing TDD could desire, just declare willy nilly and fix up the red bits as you go with Alt+Enter. Intellisense works with types you haven't implemented yet.

Create a new field/local/property/method from an unknown word.

Once again allowing you to code with the knowledge of what does and doesn't exist (yet) using red highlighting, and to instantiate as late as possible into the design of your test.

Force a type to implement the interface of the variable type it is being assigned to.

I don't have to worry about switching over to the class code file to slot in the interface - all taken care of inline.

Walking thru usages via Ctrl+Shift+F12.

When programming behind interfaces, getting around can get a little tedious with the standard VS2005 UI. F12 doesn't cut it, especially in mixed language solutions. The advanced usage tools make it easy to hop around implementations.

But perhaps the one feature that wins it, that sets up a whole lot of other cool features for Resharper, is background compilation for C#. As far as I'm concerned, the compilation tax for C# is a major productivity drain when in comparison to VB.

Perhaps I'm weird in that I can't stand CodeRush, but I love Refactor Pro for its insanely creative refactorings. There are plenty of refactorings that Resharper doesn't do. However, when it comes to a fully fledged productivity suite - I seem to fly with Resharper without thinking. CodeRush, despite its name, seems to slow me down more than anything.

Whats even weirder is that it feels like Resharper begins where Refactor finishes - they seem to co-exist in near perfect harmony. And yes it still feels like fitting Ford parts to my Holden.

I think I've just exploded in a fit of non-conformity.

I hate strings. I like strong typing. Its that simple. I guess that is why I have a slight aversion to web development. Too many string literals make me nervous. It's not paranoia if every string literal *is* out to get you, right?

Thankfully, the .NET framework comes to the rescue more often than not and I have often found myself using the System.Net.Mime namespace to alleviate my paranoia about string like "text/xml".

Or is it "text\xml"?  XD

In particular the MediaTypeNames class has a lovely declarative series of classes and string constants that define some of the most common mime types used today. Whilst not comprehensive by any stretch, it covers the standard cases. For example if you intend to use the "text/xml" type, then the syntax is as follows:

 

 

using System.Net.Mime;
.
.
.
string textXml = MediaTypeNames.Text.Xml; //look Mum, no strings!

Of course this is just a bit of a buck pass to the framework; it all boils down to a string literal eventually, but it lets me sleep better at night nonetheless.

I scared myself this morning, I thought I had managed to get the testing policy to ignore inconclusive test results and allow check in for change sets that had no business doing so.

We use sub lists, that is to say we have a few master test lists that are parents to several sub lists of tests. It seems to make dealing with many tests a little easier. When you initially set up the testing check in policy for a team project you select which test lists you want it to ensure pass before the user can check in.

We started with a single list, and added sub lists at whim and will, wherever the need arose basically. However what we didn't realise was that, if you don't go and update the testing policy to watch your shiny sub list, any failures or inconclusive results will bypass the policy check. 

It would be nice, although its not imperative, if the testing policy could automate this process so we plebs don't have to remember. If you happen to agree, then submit your vote to Microsoft connect here.

Hooly dooly batman, as it turns out, if all goes well between now and April/May 2008 we will be the proud and bewildered parents of identical monochorionic, diamniotic twins.

Interestingly, according to the repository of all knowledge, identical twins do not occur as a hereditary predisposition (as with fraternal twins), but rather as a random event distributed evenly across all populations. I don't think I will ever look at GUIDs the same way ever again!

I'm such a stunned mullet I can barely type, but needless to say my wife and I are absolutely ecstatic at the thought of having two bundles of joy. I didn't think I could get any happier. Wish us luck, we're gonna need it :)

I forget every now and again that VSTS Test runner does not run your shiny test suite in place, it makes a new folder for each test run and....well you know the story.

 So this post is really just here to remind me that if I want to read in a file or have some other file system dependancy in a test then I really must apply the DeploymentItemAttribute to my test as well as setting it to copy to the output directory in some fashion. Oh, and I can get fancy by using the OutputDirectory property of said attribute if need be.

*sigh* If I say it often enough I will remember...

...I will use DeploymentItem and not scratch my head as every test fails...

...I will use DeploymentItem and not scratch my head as every test fails...

...I will use DeploymentItem and not scratch my head as every test fails...

It's been a while since posts, and I have a few brewing so stay tuned, but I found out today that my wife is pregnant and I'm going to be a Dad. Wow!

I'm so excited!

Jeremy Miller's post on software teams berates the use of strict enforcement mechanisms of development processes, in favor of a more nurturing environment of self awareness and coaching. He writes:

Quality gates are a very common tool in software development processes to enforce quality by making the people on the project demonstrate some sort of compliance to a standard or process before the project is allowed to proceed.  I'm not sure that I'd say that quality gates are necessarily a bad thing at all, but by themselves, quality gates are absolutely worthless in promoting software quality.

I wholeheartedly agree. Personally, I like to see the odd quality gate, simply so that people are periodically reminded that quality is an issue. However the overuse of gates will simply lead to process apathy.  One of the reasons why I feel such checks are usually pointless, is because they check for the symptoms of good behaviour, rather than rewarding actual good behaviour itself. Besides, we all know that where there are systems of forced quality assurance, there are people who will deliberately pay lip service to prove to themselves that they can beat the system.

Teamwork is about trust and communication, and no amount of Office Nazi-like behaviour is going to produce more of either qualities. Participating in a team must be about nurturing these qualities. By imposing hoops to jump through, you prove you don't trust your fellow team members. By dictating progress rather than collaborating on it, you are denying your team the ability to communicate effectively with you. 

If you don't trust your team members, or you aren't interested in their opinions, why are you working with them?

I came across a cool looking TV show on G4TV, and it's fashioned in the classic style of 8 bit graphics. Entitled Code Monkeys, I think anybody who owned one of these books or similar as a kid, will appreciate this for at least 5 minutes.

It's not for the faint hearted or easily offended though. Personally, I'm hooked and I can't get enough. Have a look at the previews.