How to make junior programmers write tests? [closed]

Answer 1

It's his Mentor's responsibility to Teach him/her. How well are you teaching him/her HOW to test. Are you pair programming with him? The Junior more than likely doesn't know HOW to set up a good test for xyz.

As a Junior freshout of school he knows many Concepts. Some technique. Some experience. But in the end, all a Junior is POTENTIAL. Almost every feature they work on, there will be something new that they have never done before. Sure the Junior may have done a simple State pattern for a project in class, opening and shutting "doors", but never a real world application of the patterns.

He/she will only be as good as how well you teach. If they were able to "Just get it" do you think they would have taken a Junior position in the first place?

In my experience Juniors are hired and given almost same responsibility as Seniors, but are just paid less and then ignored when they start to falter. Forgive me if i seem bitter, it's 'cause i am.

Answer 2

1. Make code coverage part of the reviews.
2. Make "write a test that exposes the bug" a prerequisite to fixing a bug.
3. Require a certain level of coverage before code can be checked in.
4. Find a good book on test-driven development and use it to show how test-first can speed development.

Answer 3

Lots of psychology and helpful "mentoring" techniques but, in all honestly, this just boils down to "write tests if you want to still have a job, tomorrow."

You can couch it in whatever terms you think are appropriate, harsh or soft, it doesn't matter. But the fact is, programmers are not paid to just throw together code & check it in -- they're paid to carefully put together code, then put together tests, then test their code, THEN check the whole thing in. (At least that's what it sounds like, from your description.)

Hence, if someone is going to refuse to do their job, explain to them that they can stay home, tomorrow, and you'll hire someone who WILL do the job.

Again, you can do all this gently, if you think that's necessary, but a lot of people just need a big hard slap of Life In The Real World, and you'd be doing them a favor by giving it to them.

Good luck.

Answer 4

First off, like most respondents here point out, if the guy doesn't see the value in testing, there's not much you can do about it, and you've already pointed out that you can't fire the guy. However, failure is not an option here, so what about the few things you can do?

If your organization is large enough to have over 6 developers, I strongly recommend having a Quality Assurance department (even if its just one person to start). Ideally, you should have a ratio of 1 tester to 3-5 developers. The thing about programmers is ... they are programmers, not testers. I have yet to interview a programmer that has been formally taught proper QA techniques.

Most organizations make the fatal flaw of assigning the testing roles to the new-hire, the person with the LEAST amount of exposure to your code -- ideally, the senior developers should be moved to the QA role as they have the experience in the code, and (hopefully) have developed a sixth sense for code smells and failure points that can crop up.

Furthermore, the programmer that made the mistake is probably not going to find the defect because its usually not a syntax error (those get picked up in the compile), but a logic error -- and the same logic is at work when they write the test as when they write the code. Don't have the person who developed the code test that code -- they'll find less bugs than anyone else would.

In your case, if you can afford the redirected work effort, make this new guy the first member of your QA team. Get him to read "Software Testing In The Real World: Improving The Process", because he obviously will need some training in his new role. If he doesn't like it, he'll quit and your problem is still solved.

A slightly less vengeful approach would be let this person do what they are good at (I'm assuming this person got hired because they are actually competent at the programming part of the job) , and hire a tester or two to do the testing (University students often have practicum or "co-op" terms, would love the exposure, and are cheap)

Side Note: Eventually, you'll want the QA team reporting to a QA director, or at least not to a software developer manager, because having the QA team report to the manager who's primary goal is to get the product done is a conflict of interest.

If your organization is smaller than 6, or you can't get away with creating a new team, I recommend paired programming (PP). I'm not a total convert of all the extreme programming techniques, but I'm definitely a believer in paired programming. However, both members of the paired programming team have to be dedicated, or it simply doesn't work. They have to follow two rules: the inspector has to fully understand what is being coded on the screen or he has to ask the coder to explain it; the coder can only code what he can explain -- no "you'll see" or "trust me" or hand-waving will be tolerated.

I only recommend PP if your team is capable of it, because, like testing, no amount of cheering or threatening will persuade a couple of ego-filled introverts to work together if they don't feel comfortable doing so. However, I find that between the choice of writing detailed functional specs and doing code reviews vs. paired programming, the PP usually wins out.

If PP is not for you, then TDD is your best bet, but only if its taken literally. Test Driven Development mean you write the tests FIRST, run the tests to prove they actually do fail, then write the simplest code to make it work. The trade off is now you (should) have a collection of thousands of tests, which is also code, and is just as likely as production code to contain bugs. I'll be honest, I'm not a big fan of TDD, mainly because of this reason, but it works for many developers who would rather write test scripts than test case documents -- some testing is better than none. Couple TDD with PP for a better likelihood of test coverage and less bugs in the script.

If all else fails, have the programmers equivalence of a swear jar -- each time the programmer breaks the build, they have to put $20, $50, $100 (whatever is moderately painful for your staff) into a jar that goes to your favorite (registered!) charity. Until they pay up, shun them :)

All joking aside, the best way to get your programmer to write tests is don't let him program. If you want a programmer, hire a programmer -- If you want tests, hire a tester. I started as a junior programmer 12 years ago doing testing, and it turned into my career path, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. A solid QA department that is properly nurtured and given the power and mandate to improve the software is just as valuable as the developers writing the software in the first place.

Answer 5

This is one of the hardest things to do. Getting your people to get it.

Sometimes one of the best ways to help junior level programmers 'get it' and learn the right techniques from the seniors is to do a bit of pair programming.

Try this: on an upcoming project, pair the junior guy up with yourself or another senior programmer. They should work together, taking turns "driving" (being the one typing at they keyboard) and "coaching" (looking over the shoulder of the driver and pointing out suggestions, mistakes, etc as they go). It may seem like a waste of resources, but you will find:

1. That these guys together can produce code plenty fast and of higher quality.
2. If your junior guy learns enough to "get it" with a senior guy directing him along the right path (eg. "Ok, now before we continue, lets write at test for this function.") It will be well worth the resources you commit to it.

Maybe also have someone in your group give the Unit Testing 101 presentation by Kate Rhodes, I think its a great way to get people excited about testing, if delivered well.

Another thing you can do is have your Jr. Devs practice the Bowling Game Kata which will help them learn Test Driven Development. It is in java, but could easily be adapted to any language.

Answer 6

Frankly, if you are having to put that much effort into getting him to do something then you may have to come to terms with the thought that he may just not be a good fit for the team, and may need to go. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean firing him... it may mean finding someplace else in the company his skills are more suited. But if there is no place else...you know what to do.

I'm assuming he is also a fairly new hire (< 1 year) and probably recently out of school...in which case he may not be accustomed to how things work in a corporate setting. Things like that most of us could get away with in college.

If this is the case, one thing I've found works is to have a sort of "surprise new hire review." It doesn't matter if you've never done it before...he won't know that. Just sit him down and tell him your are going to go over his performance and show him some real numbers...take your normal review sheet (you do have a formal review process right?) and change the heading if you want so it looks official and show him where he stands. If you show him in a very formal setting that not doing tests is adversely affecting his performance rating as opposed to just "nagging" him about it, he will hopefully get the point. You've got to show him that his actions will actually affect him be it pay wise or otherwise.

I know, you may want to stay away from doing this because it's not official... but I think you are within reason to do it and it's probably going to be a whole lot cheaper than having to fire him and recruit someone new.