0:00:25.699,0:00:27.679
PAVAN SUDARSHAN: Hi. My name is Pavan.

0:00:27.679,0:00:31.320
ANANDHA KRISHNAN: And I'm Anandha Krishnan.[br]I'm

0:00:31.320,0:00:35.980
also called Jake. Not Anandha. I know. We[br]work

0:00:35.980,0:00:37.390
at MavenHive technologies.

0:00:37.390,0:00:40.449
P.S.: This is probably the only

0:00:40.449,0:00:42.760
talk where there are two speakers, and we[br]haven't

0:00:42.760,0:00:45.260
rehearsed who says what, so we'll be stepping[br]on

0:00:45.260,0:00:47.750
each other's toes, so yeah. Bear with us.[br]So

0:00:47.750,0:00:50.260
yeah. Quick disclaimer: Most of what we are[br]going

0:00:50.260,0:00:52.589
to talk about is actually platform and language[br]independent,

0:00:52.589,0:00:55.510
or at least, in a sense, learned. But the

0:00:55.510,0:00:58.369
reason we are talking here in a Ruby Conf

0:00:58.369,0:01:01.180
is because of the Ruby community. We really[br]think

0:01:01.180,0:01:02.879
that a lot of things we are going to

0:01:02.879,0:01:04.739
talk about resonates really well with the[br]community, and

0:01:04.739,0:01:07.290
we are hoping to, you know, drive a good

0:01:07.290,0:01:10.890
discussion, conversation, whatever it is,[br]from this audience. So

0:01:10.890,0:01:13.340
that's really why we are talking here on this

0:01:13.340,0:01:13.659
topic.

0:01:13.659,0:01:15.350
A.K.: And a lot of the points that

0:01:15.350,0:01:17.460
we're going to talk about kind of naturally[br]apply

0:01:17.460,0:01:22.390
to Rails and Ruby. And most of these we

0:01:22.390,0:01:25.860
learned, and we sort of experience in our[br]projects,

0:01:25.860,0:01:29.490
which are mostly in Ruby and Rails, so.

0:01:29.490,0:01:33.619
P.S.: Yeah, so let's start with condition.[br]We have screwed

0:01:33.619,0:01:36.289
up a lot in our careers. Right, between me

0:01:36.289,0:01:38.740
and Jake, we have no idea how many mistakes

0:01:38.740,0:01:41.219
we have made. And on those rare occassions,[br]we

0:01:41.219,0:01:43.130
have actually learned from it, or at least[br]we

0:01:43.130,0:01:46.359
would like to think so. So yeah, this talk

0:01:46.359,0:01:52.789
is about one such mistake from which we learned,

0:01:52.789,0:01:53.100
and yeah.

0:01:53.100,0:01:54.899
A.K.: And, yes, I think most of

0:01:54.899,0:01:57.439
it, we just put it up front, just based

0:01:57.439,0:02:00.389
on projects, and you know, as we were talking

0:02:00.389,0:02:03.520
about what happened with each of us, and things

0:02:03.520,0:02:06.069
like that. So yeah, just trying to make it,

0:02:06.069,0:02:09.008
you know, presentable and that stuff. But[br]we-

0:02:09.008,0:02:11.680
P.S.: Yeah, like, though we screwed up, we[br]would like

0:02:11.680,0:02:14.170
to believe that no employers or paranoid androids[br]were

0:02:14.170,0:02:17.360
hurt in the process of our mistakes, so yeah.

0:02:17.360,0:02:21.230
OK, about three months back, so why pharamcist[br]and

0:02:21.230,0:02:23.930
doctors, right? So about three months about[br]I was

0:02:23.930,0:02:28.120
in this pharmacy buying diapers for my daughter,[br]and

0:02:28.120,0:02:30.090
in walks this guy - he just goes straight

0:02:30.090,0:02:33.700
to the pharmacist and he's like, hey, can[br]you

0:02:33.700,0:02:36.909
give me something for a toothache? There was[br]something

0:02:36.909,0:02:40.489
very interesting and weird about this, and[br]Jake and

0:02:40.489,0:02:42.540
I, we carpool. So the next morning I was

0:02:42.540,0:02:45.340
just telling Jake, and between the two of[br]us,

0:02:45.340,0:02:50.340
like, between the two of us, we realized that

0:02:50.340,0:02:54.150
we have seen people ask for all sorts of

0:02:54.150,0:02:56.829
medicines in a pharmacy. Right. Headaches,[br]fever, like, like,

0:02:56.829,0:02:59.640
true story, I even once saw this guy with

0:02:59.640,0:03:04.519
a lot of cuts on his face from a

0:03:04.519,0:03:06.939
knife, and yeah. Insane. Insane, right. So[br]about, when

0:03:06.939,0:03:08.930
we were talking about this, we thought there[br]was

0:03:08.930,0:03:11.390
something fundamentally wrong with this. Is[br]there anyone here

0:03:11.390,0:03:14.000
who thinks that it's totally OK for you to

0:03:14.000,0:03:21.000
just walk up to a pharmacist and ask for

0:03:25.129,0:03:28.120
a medicine? Oh yeah, cool. Yeah, so. Nice.[br]OK.

0:03:28.120,0:03:31.269
Hold that thought. Yeah, but like. So what[br]we

0:03:31.269,0:03:34.400
think, yes, a pharmacy potentially has a cure[br]for

0:03:34.400,0:03:37.390
pretty much any, most ailments that you could[br]think

0:03:37.390,0:03:41.120
of, and but the important thing is, though,[br]you

0:03:41.120,0:03:43.099
need to know what ailment you have. Right,[br]there's

0:03:43.099,0:03:47.260
that small implementation detail, right. And[br]if it was

0:03:47.260,0:03:48.620
that easy for you to just go to the

0:03:48.620,0:03:51.840
right medicine and get it, this world would[br]be

0:03:51.840,0:03:56.730
filled with only pharmacists and not doctors,[br]right. Yeah,

0:03:56.730,0:03:59.329
so that's, so that's where the whole analogy[br]starts,

0:03:59.329,0:04:01.269
and then we'll get to how we connect to

0:04:01.269,0:04:02.180
what we're going to talk about.

0:04:02.180,0:04:05.810
A.K.: Yeah, and that's, that's where we, in[br]a sort of thought

0:04:05.810,0:04:09.159
that we use this metaphor to drive home that

0:04:09.159,0:04:11.859
point. Of course, a lot of you might have

0:04:11.859,0:04:15.269
your opinions about self-medication and the[br]whole thing. So

0:04:15.269,0:04:18.790
we'll stop it at this, and we will give

0:04:18.790,0:04:21.269
us, our definition of what we think about[br]these

0:04:21.269,0:04:25.610
two sort of mindsets actually are and, you[br]know.

0:04:25.610,0:04:29.610
So starting off with like doctors, right.[br]They don't

0:04:29.610,0:04:32.580
treat, rarely, they don't try to treat the[br]symptoms,

0:04:32.580,0:04:34.710
it's about how you deal with them. So they

0:04:34.710,0:04:36.970
go about just figuring out what the problem[br]could

0:04:36.970,0:04:40.120
be, you know, and then probably, you know,[br]a

0:04:40.120,0:04:43.330
lot of tests, make you run through a few

0:04:43.330,0:04:46.250
tests or try and figure out what's what, if

0:04:46.250,0:04:49.460
indeed it is the problem, and then try and,

0:04:49.460,0:04:53.670
based on that, prescribe a treatment and,[br]of course,

0:04:53.670,0:04:55.660
make sure that you're OK at the end of

0:04:55.660,0:04:58.080
it, right. The symptoms are gone.

0:04:58.080,0:05:01.250
P.S.: And we didn't take a look through a[br]medical textbook, so

0:05:01.250,0:05:02.960
we don't know if this is right, but assuming

0:05:02.960,0:05:06.060
it is, though, this is what worked for us,

0:05:06.060,0:05:06.540
so.

0:05:06.540,0:05:10.620
A.K.: And, again, in contrast, a pharmacist's[br]job,

0:05:10.620,0:05:14.360
we think very different, should be more about[br]understanding

0:05:14.360,0:05:18.600
the medicines, the medicines themselves. Probably[br]even figure out

0:05:18.600,0:05:21.000
what the disease is based on the medicine,[br]right.

0:05:21.000,0:05:24.850
But definitely they don't really think about,[br]you know,

0:05:24.850,0:05:26.790
what was the problem originally or what are[br]we

0:05:26.790,0:05:29.420
prescribing the treatment for. And they usually[br]don't do

0:05:29.420,0:05:31.220
it. Hopefully they don't do it.

0:05:31.220,0:05:32.120
P.S.: Yeah. OK.

0:05:32.120,0:05:33.880
So now with this context of what we mean

0:05:33.880,0:05:37.560
by a doctor and a pharmacist and medicines[br]and

0:05:37.560,0:05:40.580
self-medication, all right. Let's get back[br]to our mistake,

0:05:40.580,0:05:44.310
which we want to talk about. Right. So our

0:05:44.310,0:05:45.670
mistake that we want to talk about is a

0:05:45.670,0:05:47.610
way we have dealt with, or rather we used

0:05:47.610,0:05:50.780
to deal with bad symptoms on our code bases

0:05:50.780,0:05:54.630
and on our projects, right. So you, a lot

0:05:54.630,0:05:57.680
of times you see these in your code bases.

0:05:57.680,0:06:01.130
There's the symptom, or there are some issues,[br]right.

0:06:01.130,0:06:04.360
So we obviously had a lot of those, in

0:06:04.360,0:06:07.080
every single project we have worked on, and[br]this

0:06:07.080,0:06:09.310
is about how we dealt with that, right.

0:06:09.310,0:06:12.740
A.K.: Let's start off with one very simple[br]one, or

0:06:12.740,0:06:14.690
at least the one which was the most easily

0:06:14.690,0:06:15.440
expressible.

0:06:15.440,0:06:18.930
P.S.: Yeah, as in, Tejas Dinkar, who has

0:06:18.930,0:06:21.560
already been mentioned several times in different[br]talks, he

0:06:21.560,0:06:24.380
threatened us to throw off the stage if we

0:06:24.380,0:06:28.410
took anything more than twenty-nine minutes,[br]fifty-nine seconds. So

0:06:28.410,0:06:32.390
we had to like really dumbify our, you know,

0:06:32.390,0:06:34.890
anecdotes. But you learn, we have like a quick

0:06:34.890,0:06:36.440
mention of different things which we would[br]love to

0:06:36.440,0:06:40.210
talk about offline, but yeah. So thanks Dejas.

0:06:40.210,0:06:43.270
A.K.: So we'll get started on the first one.[br]So

0:06:43.270,0:06:45.800
this was a project where we had a familiar

0:06:45.800,0:06:49.340
problem of regression bugs. We added new features,[br]and

0:06:49.340,0:06:53.460
that kept breaking things. So this is what[br]we

0:06:53.460,0:06:56.120
designed. We want this down. We want the number

0:06:56.120,0:06:58.650
of bugs down from 10 to 5, you know.

0:06:58.650,0:07:01.250
At that time it was, like, let's set up

0:07:01.250,0:07:03.410
this goal, let's try and achieve this. What[br]did

0:07:03.410,0:07:05.410
we do? Oh, before that. Some facts about the

0:07:05.410,0:07:09.470
project, right. This was not a project we[br]started

0:07:09.470,0:07:11.810
on from scratch, it was a lot of legacy

0:07:11.810,0:07:13.280
code, a lot of code that we did not

0:07:13.280,0:07:17.560
understand, and probably that's why we thought[br]it was

0:07:17.560,0:07:19.280
bad. And the test coverage was-

0:07:19.280,0:07:21.910
P.S.: How many of you have taken over a code[br]base from

0:07:21.910,0:07:24.160
another team and thought the code base was[br]awesome?

0:07:24.160,0:07:29.110
Very small samples, so you realize what we[br]mean

0:07:29.110,0:07:32.320
when we thought it was bad. So.

0:07:32.320,0:07:33.070
A.K.: Sure.

0:07:33.070,0:07:36.200
So test-coverage was low, which was probably[br]one of

0:07:36.200,0:07:39.470
the reasons why people complained about the[br]code base,

0:07:39.470,0:07:41.990
of course. So what's your guess?

0:07:41.990,0:07:46.090
P.S.: OK, so the problem we had was every[br]time we checked

0:07:46.090,0:07:48.640
in something, built a new feature, touch any[br]part

0:07:48.640,0:07:50.330
of the code base, we ended up breaking a

0:07:50.330,0:07:52.280
whole bunch of other things. And we would[br]not

0:07:52.280,0:07:54.300
even know it right away, we would know it

0:07:54.300,0:07:55.240
over a period of time. Right, so this was

0:07:55.240,0:07:57.930
a regression problem. And given the facts,[br]what would

0:07:57.930,0:07:59.000
you probably have done?

0:07:59.000,0:08:00.860
A.K.: I'll try and just

0:08:00.860,0:08:03.910
go back again, and then hopefully forward[br]- we're

0:08:03.910,0:08:04.680
done [00:08:04]??.

0:08:04.680,0:08:07.750
P.S.: Yeah, based on some facts.

0:08:07.750,0:08:13.820
A.K.: Sure, so the low coverage was definitely[br]a problem.

0:08:13.820,0:08:17.040
We thought, I mean, everybody agreed that[br]we need

0:08:17.040,0:08:19.880
to start working on that, and you know, fix

0:08:19.880,0:08:23.340
the coverage. So we went in there, put the

0:08:23.340,0:08:26.150
coverage tool in place, you know. And then[br]we

0:08:26.150,0:08:28.170
decided we will write tests for every bug[br]we

0:08:28.170,0:08:32.610
caught. We got the coverage up, not very surprising,

0:08:32.610,0:08:36.279
I mean, we didn't manage to- you know, improving

0:08:36.279,0:08:37.200
the coverage-

0:08:37.200,0:08:41.039
P.S.: Yeah like, so we spend like the whole[br]time-

0:08:41.039,0:08:42.539
A.K.: over a period of time.

0:08:42.539,0:08:44.880
P.S.: OK, so, like so this was a problem,

0:08:44.880,0:08:46.360
right. When you look at that, when you try

0:08:46.520,0:08:48.380
to abstract the, into, like what our thought[br]process

0:08:48.440,0:08:56.540
was. It was something like this, right. Check.[br]Yeah.

0:08:56.540,0:08:58.620
So, we had a symptom. In this case it

0:08:58.620,0:09:04.140
was low test-coverage, and - Jake - and we

0:09:04.140,0:09:06.750
had, we decided on what metric and tool to

0:09:06.750,0:09:09.700
use. In our case it was a simple line

0:09:09.700,0:09:11.570
coverage, right and, archive?? [00:09:10],[br]this was back in

0:09:11.570,0:09:14.930
the days. And then we started solving that[br]problem

0:09:14.930,0:09:17.550
that we had, and then, you know, hopefully,[br]for

0:09:17.550,0:09:20.670
example, we were TDDing most of the new code

0:09:20.670,0:09:23.970
that we wrote, so coverage was good on that,

0:09:23.970,0:09:28.500
then start writing tests for things, which[br]were, any

0:09:28.500,0:09:29.980
part of the code base which we touched where

0:09:29.980,0:09:31.720
there were no tests, we started adding tests[br]there.

0:09:31.720,0:09:33.900
You know, a bunch of different things. So[br]basically,

0:09:33.900,0:09:36.240
like, the idea was to improve the coverage[br]and

0:09:36.240,0:09:39.620
keep on writing, right. So cool, so. And what

0:09:39.620,0:09:42.710
was the result? We ended up with, of course,

0:09:42.710,0:09:45.390
drastically improving our test coverage, so[br]we were in

0:09:45.390,0:09:48.130
the late '90s for most the part of the

0:09:48.130,0:09:50.630
code base, which was awesome.

0:09:50.630,0:09:53.010
A.K.: A hundred, man, a hundred.

0:09:53.010,0:09:55.890
P.S.: A hundred, yeah. Or, yeah, sure.

0:09:55.890,0:10:00.070
Very good coverage. But things got only marginally[br]better.

0:10:00.070,0:10:02.200
At this point, this was when we realized that

0:10:02.200,0:10:04.260
inspite of putting so much effort into actually[br]improving

0:10:04.260,0:10:07.000
our test coverage, our actual goal was to[br]actual

0:10:07.000,0:10:10.640
reduce the number of regression bugs. So we,[br]we

0:10:10.640,0:10:13.500
were still no better than what we started[br]off,

0:10:13.500,0:10:17.240
about two months back. So the developers were[br]generally

0:10:17.240,0:10:19.580
very happy, now they were doing a lot more

0:10:19.580,0:10:22.360
TDD, they have a lot, they had manag- successfully

0:10:22.360,0:10:24.600
convinced the manag- you know the product[br]manager and

0:10:24.600,0:10:27.590
the stake holders to spend more time on the

0:10:27.590,0:10:29.600
tech deck?? [00:10:29] and things like that.[br]They they

0:10:29.600,0:10:31.800
also were happy. But the project manager was[br]extremely

0:10:31.800,0:10:34.430
frustrated, because in spite of spending so[br]much effort,

0:10:34.430,0:10:37.430
there was no real benefit from any of it,

0:10:37.430,0:10:39.560
right. So it's like one of those very classic

0:10:39.560,0:10:41.730
moments where you know, in Dilbert where,[br]you know,

0:10:41.730,0:10:45.029
the, OK, in Dilbert developers are never happy,[br]but

0:10:45.029,0:10:47.080
at least here we were happy and the project

0:10:47.080,0:10:48.960
manager was sad, right. A.K.: And we weren't[br]happy

0:10:48.960,0:10:49.870
with the project managers as well.

0:10:49.870,0:10:52.510
P.S.: Yeah, and eventually we feel there was[br]something wrong,

0:10:52.510,0:10:56.200
it's not like we take pleasure out of it.[br]So, we

0:10:56.200,0:10:58.630
think this is a very big mistake, where we

0:10:58.630,0:11:01.380
spent almost two months of time without really[br]realizing

0:11:01.380,0:11:03.870
where we were going wrong, right. So this[br]mistake

0:11:03.870,0:11:07.490
and several mistakes across different projects[br]which Dejas won't

0:11:07.490,0:11:11.620
let us go into, ended up making us realize

0:11:11.620,0:11:15.770
something very basic, right. And that's, this[br]is basically

0:11:15.770,0:11:17.000
what, this is what we were going to say.

0:11:17.000,0:11:18.080
A.K.: OK, tell us a little bit.

0:11:18.080,0:11:20.700
P.S.: If we had like a lightning talk, this[br]is what

0:11:20.700,0:11:22.050
we probably the only thing we would have put

0:11:22.050,0:11:26.230
up and left. So never improve a metric. Solving

0:11:26.230,0:11:29.850
a problem should automatically imrpve the[br]metric that you're

0:11:29.850,0:11:34.350
measuring, right. So the focus is on, is never

0:11:34.350,0:11:36.700
on making a metric better. It's always about[br]solving

0:11:36.700,0:11:38.270
the problem. And, the metric-

0:11:38.270,0:11:38.690
A.K.: This is like

0:11:38.690,0:11:40.430
one of those, one of those things that is,

0:11:40.430,0:11:41.620
it's very easily said and-

0:11:41.620,0:11:42.080
P.S.: Yeah, and it-

0:11:42.080,0:11:43.480
A.K.: You have to, at least for us, we

0:11:43.480,0:11:45.070
always fell in that trap of-

0:11:45.070,0:11:45.900
P.S.: Yeah, like

0:11:45.900,0:11:48.480
it almost sounds like 'do the right thing,'[br]but,

0:11:48.480,0:11:51.090
yeah, like, it's very, it fits your common[br]sense

0:11:51.090,0:11:52.670
very well, but then when you're caught up[br]in

0:11:52.670,0:11:55.000
the daily, the day-to-day stuff in what you[br]do

0:11:55.000,0:11:57.029
in a project, it becomes very easy for you

0:11:57.029,0:11:59.430
to miss the point here. So yeah, like this

0:11:59.430,0:12:03.120
is really what, what is essence of what we

0:12:03.120,0:12:05.779
are trying to say, right.

0:12:05.779,0:12:08.190
A.K.: So, so what really happened here.

0:12:08.190,0:12:09.050
Let's go a little bit more

0:12:09.050,0:12:11.940
into what we were trying earlier and what[br]we

0:12:11.940,0:12:14.770
think we should have probably done. Instead[br]of something

0:12:14.770,0:12:18.800
like this, which, which actually ended up[br]attacking the

0:12:18.800,0:12:23.279
symptoms, or you know, targeting the symptom,[br]we want

0:12:23.279,0:12:25.430
to do something like this: There is a symptom,

0:12:25.430,0:12:26.360
so just like always-

0:12:26.360,0:12:27.480
P.S.: This is where the

0:12:27.480,0:12:29.570
whole, like, the pharmacist and the doctor[br]approach, yeah,

0:12:29.570,0:12:32.279
like, it's a very long-shot metaphor, we agree,[br]but-

0:12:32.279,0:12:35.170
A.K.: The doctor thinking, which we hopefully[br]want to

0:12:35.170,0:12:39.800
do, is first is just try and take a

0:12:39.800,0:12:41.339
guess at least at the problem, at least in

0:12:41.339,0:12:42.810
our context, maybe not the doctor's. But in[br]our

0:12:42.810,0:12:46.570
context, take a quess at the problem, right.[br]Think

0:12:46.570,0:12:49.720
what it might be. Then that hopefully will[br]tell

0:12:49.720,0:12:52.230
you what you could do to probably solve the

0:12:52.230,0:12:55.320
problem, solve, you know, that could be the[br]solution

0:12:55.320,0:12:59.230
which hope- will hopefully fix the problem,[br]right. So

0:12:59.230,0:13:01.740
this kind of very similar, we are iterating??[00:13:00][br]over

0:13:01.740,0:13:05.380
this and hopefully, you know, improving on[br]what we

0:13:05.380,0:13:09.589
thought was the problem. And how do you know,

0:13:09.589,0:13:12.420
then, that you know we are in fact improving

0:13:12.420,0:13:13.870
on the problem? How do we know that is

0:13:13.870,0:13:13.900
the problem?

0:13:13.900,0:13:14.050
P.S.: Like the whole, how do you

0:13:14.050,0:13:14.650
define them, right. So, how do we define them?

0:13:14.650,0:13:17.900
A.K.: And that's where we think, that's where[br]we

0:13:17.900,0:13:21.420
think the metrics come in. Again, not metric,[br]hopefully

0:13:21.420,0:13:24.410
metrics, because that lets us measure the[br]problem. It

0:13:24.410,0:13:27.620
tells us at every point that, you know, you're

0:13:27.620,0:13:30.440
doing better, you know, it's improving. And[br]hopefully you

0:13:30.440,0:13:34.620
also, when it gets done, right. So, yeah.[br]So

0:13:34.620,0:13:36.700
this is, this is probably the approach that[br]we

0:13:36.700,0:13:40.020
would like to try on, try from now on,

0:13:40.020,0:13:43.860
also. And, right, there, you know, the problem[br]may

0:13:43.860,0:13:46.050
not be the, what is the one that we

0:13:46.050,0:13:48.400
started out to fix. Like, like, probably in[br]our

0:13:48.400,0:13:50.610
previous case, you know, it, you should always[br]be

0:13:50.610,0:13:53.270
open to the idea that the problem will, what

0:13:53.270,0:13:54.990
you thought was the problem was never the[br]case,

0:13:54.990,0:13:57.670
and it was not showing up. I mean, you

0:13:57.670,0:14:00.029
were trying to, you were seeing the metrics[br]improve,

0:14:00.029,0:14:02.360
but then the symptom never went away, right.[br]So

0:14:02.360,0:14:04.040
be open to the notion that the problem could

0:14:04.040,0:14:06.520
be different, in which case, the important[br]thing is

0:14:06.520,0:14:09.170
the solution is different and the metrics[br]are different,

0:14:09.170,0:14:10.380
right. So yeah.

0:14:10.380,0:14:12.000
P.S.: Any guesses on what could

0:14:12.000,0:14:15.240
have been the problem on that project? Where[br]the

0:14:15.240,0:14:20.460
regression bugs were written very high? It[br]was duplication,

0:14:20.460,0:14:23.180
as in there was, like, rampant duplication[br]all over

0:14:23.180,0:14:26.270
the place. And we would change something but[br]forget

0:14:26.270,0:14:28.410
to change the same thing in some other place.

0:14:28.410,0:14:30.110
But, and because we didn't know about the[br]code

0:14:30.110,0:14:33.610
base, yeah. We were just blindly adding tests.[br]And

0:14:33.610,0:14:36.710
incrimentally going through different places,[br]where each place where

0:14:36.710,0:14:38.870
we found that there were no tests, we added

0:14:38.870,0:14:40.470
a test, right. But that didn't really help[br]us

0:14:40.470,0:14:42.870
with actually solving the problem of duplication.[br]Yeah. So-

0:14:42.870,0:14:44.730
A.K.: The coverage number is something which[br]is, it

0:14:44.730,0:14:47.300
easily drives you to just keep adding the[br]specs,

0:14:47.300,0:14:50.210
and we will talk about, more about that soon.

0:14:50.210,0:14:53.440
P.S.: Yeah, so, if you really think about[br]it,

0:14:53.440,0:14:55.980
of, basically what, at least, we would love[br]to

0:14:55.980,0:14:59.490
believe that we have stopped doing this, right.[br]So

0:14:59.490,0:15:02.490
Yogi mentioned this in the panel discussion[br]yesterday, block-force

0:15:02.490,0:15:05.779
driven decisions, right. So that was really[br]what we

0:15:05.779,0:15:07.870
were doing, essentially. Like, we were a bunch[br]of

0:15:07.870,0:15:10.899
kids on this project, who'd see a problem[br]at

0:15:10.899,0:15:14.220
the first, the, at the first, trigger we would

0:15:14.220,0:15:17.399
just start crawling the web, start crawling[br]block force,

0:15:17.399,0:15:20.600
see different github projects, find a gem,[br]install it,

0:15:20.600,0:15:23.270
start, like, monitoring it, measuring it,[br]try to improve

0:15:23.270,0:15:25.510
it, you know. We don't really spending too[br]much

0:15:25.510,0:15:28.850
time into figuring out what was really the[br]problem,

0:15:28.850,0:15:35.850
right. And, especially, so in, OK - where[br]does-

0:15:36.960,0:15:40.399
Especially so in Rails projects, where, you[br]know, or

0:15:40.399,0:15:42.589
Ruby projects, where we believe that the number[br]of

0:15:42.589,0:15:46.800
gems which actually bundle best practices[br]is actually very

0:15:46.800,0:15:48.620
high, right. Here it's very easy for us to

0:15:48.620,0:15:50.600
fall into the trap of, OK, just choose a

0:15:50.600,0:15:53.360
gem, start using it, and then two months or

0:15:53.360,0:15:54.690
three months down the way you have no idea

0:15:54.690,0:15:56.589
where you used it in the first place. But

0:15:56.589,0:15:58.580
it's just there in your process, right. Yeah.[br]Like

0:15:58.580,0:16:01.020
at least we used to find ourselves in that

0:16:01.020,0:16:04.600
trap all the time. So yeah. This is basically

0:16:04.600,0:16:08.200
what we stopped doing. OK, at this-

0:16:08.200,0:16:08.820
A.K.: [indecipherable]

0:16:08.820,0:16:10.740
P.S.: So this, this dude is basically Hari,

0:16:10.740,0:16:13.680
he's sitting way over there. Yesterday we[br]were doing

0:16:13.680,0:16:16.600
a write-in??[00:16:14], and the only dude[br]that, after this

0:16:16.600,0:16:18.810
point it's fine, but it's getting monotonous,[br]it's very

0:16:18.810,0:16:21.760
black and white. And you need more images.[br]And,

0:16:21.760,0:16:24.690
like, Jake and I were really, we really think

0:16:24.690,0:16:24.959
that-

0:16:24.959,0:16:26.290
A.K.: That's our image, Hari!

0:16:26.290,0:16:28.720
P.S.: We really think that we don't know how[br]to add images

0:16:28.720,0:16:31.290
to a presentation. And we were like, OK fine

0:16:31.290,0:16:34.709
Hari, we'll just add your picture. And, yeah,[br]so

0:16:34.709,0:16:37.190
thanks for- and as you notice, we are very

0:16:37.190,0:16:38.850
receptive of feedback, so.

0:16:38.850,0:16:41.110
A.K.: He hasn't spoken yet,

0:16:41.110,0:16:42.250
but his is full of interesting ones.

0:16:42.250,0:16:44.959
P.S.: Like it would have been funny if like[br]his was

0:16:44.959,0:16:46.649
the presentation before we got the schedule,[br]but yeah,

0:16:46.649,0:16:51.080
anyway. He'll be talking next. So yeah, when[br]you

0:16:51.080,0:16:53.279
look at test coverage, right, how many of[br]you

0:16:53.279,0:16:59.010
think you understand test coverage very well?[br]Well enough.

0:16:59.010,0:17:03.970
OK, I mean, sure, yeah, like-

0:17:03.970,0:17:07.510
A.K.: This was one thing which at least took[br]us as a

0:17:07.510,0:17:10.419
very obvious metrics thing, which we always[br]get into,

0:17:10.419,0:17:10.609
and-

0:17:10.609,0:17:12.250
P.S.: When we were young and stupid as

0:17:12.250,0:17:14.299
against now old and stupid, right, we were,[br]we

0:17:14.299,0:17:16.500
used to think oh, test coverage, what's that,[br]it's

0:17:16.500,0:17:18.799
just - meh. It's so easy, right. But then

0:17:18.799,0:17:21.839
we realized even something so seemingly obvious[br]had, like,

0:17:21.839,0:17:25.059
so many different shades of details. And once[br]you

0:17:25.059,0:17:27.669
start understanding it and interpreting it[br]in context is

0:17:27.669,0:17:32.029
when you really understand the, the complexity[br]of that,

0:17:32.029,0:17:35.980
of that thing that you're measuring, right.[br]Now think

0:17:35.980,0:17:38.409
of all the things that people at Flipkart[br]measure.

0:17:38.409,0:17:40.820
I don't even know if they have a rational

0:17:40.820,0:17:43.940
behind every one of it. I'm hoping they do,

0:17:43.940,0:17:46.129
but you know like, it becomes very OK, we

0:17:46.129,0:17:48.239
just need to monitor these ten things. Why?[br]Why

0:17:48.239,0:17:51.080
are you doing it? Right. So it should not

0:17:51.080,0:17:52.940
be like a checklist at every project on start.

0:17:52.940,0:17:55.519
You just start using it. So yeah, test coverage

0:17:55.519,0:17:57.779
is definitely one thing that we found where,[br]on

0:17:57.779,0:17:59.059
start of every project we just set up a

0:17:59.059,0:18:01.350
coverage tool. We just wanted to talk about[br]some

0:18:01.350,0:18:04.450
details on what we learned when doing that,[br]so

0:18:04.450,0:18:05.309
yeah.

0:18:05.309,0:18:07.330
A.K.: So first we want to start off

0:18:07.330,0:18:11.850
the obvious one. The measuring. So controller[br]specs versus

0:18:11.850,0:18:15.989
model specs coverage. I- I'm guessing it,[br]does it

0:18:15.989,0:18:20.989
ring any bells? I'm- so, so I'm, think of

0:18:20.989,0:18:23.519
it this way, like, he has a question for

0:18:23.519,0:18:27.320
you, right? You have, let's take a simple[br]case.

0:18:27.320,0:18:29.190
There is a single controller, you have a spec

0:18:29.190,0:18:32.090
around it, there's a corresponding module,[br]you have a

0:18:32.090,0:18:34.279
spec around it, right. And then, you, with[br]these

0:18:34.279,0:18:35.330
two tests you run your coverage, right.

0:18:35.330,0:18:36.649
P.S.: And you get some coverage from-

0:18:36.649,0:18:39.059
A.K.: I'm guessing it's going to be a hundred[br]percent.

0:18:39.059,0:18:43.779
P.S.: Do you see a problem with this? Could[br]there, rather, OK,

0:18:43.779,0:18:49.320
could there be a problem with this?

0:18:49.320,0:18:53.669
A.K.: What if you just removed the model spec?

0:18:53.669,0:18:56.960
P.S.: What will the coverage for model be?[br]Is there a

0:18:56.960,0:19:01.570
chance that model's coverage is not zero?

0:19:01.570,0:19:04.570
A.K.: Your controller spec is still gonna[br]be loading the model.

0:19:04.570,0:19:05.049
So your coverage-

0:19:05.049,0:19:05.519
P.S.: Depends on-

0:19:05.519,0:19:06.309
A.K.: -is still in question.

0:19:06.309,0:19:08.139
P.S.: The answer is it depends, right,

0:19:08.139,0:19:09.950
like, really depends on how you are testing[br]your

0:19:09.950,0:19:11.730
controller. But most of all things, what we[br]have

0:19:11.730,0:19:14.409
seen is, not every model is mocked out in

0:19:14.409,0:19:17.169
the controller. Well, it's a totally different[br]debate, whether

0:19:17.169,0:19:19.980
should you mock your models or not, but if

0:19:19.980,0:19:22.629
you are not modelin- or, mocking, your models[br]are

0:19:22.629,0:19:25.330
being loaded in your controller. So the controller[br]spec,

0:19:25.330,0:19:27.789
when it is tested for, like when the coverage

0:19:27.789,0:19:31.289
is reported your models are being reported[br]as well.

0:19:31.289,0:19:33.759
A.K.: While, while the, or the point of, the

0:19:33.759,0:19:35.600
point we are trying to make is, here, is

0:19:35.600,0:19:37.919
not whether you should, how you should test[br]your

0:19:37.919,0:19:41.570
model specs and controller specs. What we[br]do implore

0:19:41.570,0:19:44.220
you to do is make sure that when you're

0:19:44.220,0:19:45.989
doing, when you're looking at your coverage,[br]you do

0:19:45.989,0:19:48.350
have in mind your testing strategy, which[br]is, am

0:19:48.350,0:19:50.549
I actually mocking the model out or is it

0:19:50.549,0:19:52.980
also getting wrote as a part of my controller

0:19:52.980,0:19:54.879
spec? Is my controller spec also hitting the[br]models,

0:19:54.879,0:19:57.169
right? Think about these things when, when[br]you're looking

0:19:57.169,0:20:00.059
at these numbers, right. Or something that[br]worked for

0:20:00.059,0:20:02.179
us which we tried to do was we started

0:20:02.179,0:20:05.730
monitoring the model specs coverage independently,[br]and then started

0:20:05.730,0:20:12.539
looking at the controller specs in light of[br]the,

0:20:12.539,0:20:14.470
in light of the model spec coverage. We wanted

0:20:14.470,0:20:16.820
the model spec coverage to be high, because[br]at

0:20:16.820,0:20:19.649
least we wanted all, hopefully all our business[br]logic

0:20:19.649,0:20:22.590
was in the model specs, and you know, that's

0:20:22.590,0:20:28.960
what we were keen on. Yes. Yeah, and then

0:20:28.960,0:20:31.590
the next one, the line coverage itself, I[br]think

0:20:31.590,0:20:33.320
most commonly when we talk about coverage[br]we just

0:20:33.320,0:20:35.419
talk about line coverage. But then there is[br]a

0:20:35.419,0:20:38.080
bunch of other things as well, branch coverage,[br]and

0:20:38.080,0:20:39.830
then unique path coverage.

0:20:39.830,0:20:40.710
P.S.: How many of you

0:20:40.710,0:20:42.239
pay attention to branch coverages?

0:20:42.239,0:20:44.730
A.K.: Or even monitor it?

0:20:44.730,0:20:46.850
P.S.: How many of you don't think it's

0:20:46.850,0:20:52.690
important? How many of you have no opinions?[br]Cool.

0:20:52.690,0:20:58.190
Yeah. I mean, sure. We have it on projects

0:20:58.190,0:21:00.690
where it's been important, it's not been important,[br]it's

0:21:00.690,0:21:02.739
fine. But it's just that, you just need to

0:21:02.739,0:21:05.830
know that it exists, and you need to train

0:21:05.830,0:21:07.570
your data, right, so.

0:21:07.570,0:21:08.590
A.K.: Just, hopefully it should

0:21:08.590,0:21:11.809
not be a single metric. Something usually[br]seems wrong

0:21:11.809,0:21:13.019
if it is just gonna be about that one

0:21:13.019,0:21:19.080
metric. Next one. So reporting. Yeah, this[br]one is

0:21:19.080,0:21:21.389
a bit tricky. What I usually don't like about

0:21:21.389,0:21:24.480
coverage tools and these tools in general[br]is they

0:21:24.480,0:21:26.929
sometimes miss out this aspect of it. And[br]they,

0:21:26.929,0:21:28.489
in an attempt to try and be nice to

0:21:28.489,0:21:30.820
you when you are very simple answered is try

0:21:30.820,0:21:32.809
and give you a number which inherently makes[br]it

0:21:32.809,0:21:36.070
good or bad. There's nothing in between, and[br]then

0:21:36.070,0:21:38.960
the focus is lost. Like you either start liking

0:21:38.960,0:21:41.340
it or you don't like it. You don't really

0:21:41.340,0:21:46.149
think about what is there in between, right.[br]Yeah.

0:21:46.149,0:21:47.950
So the focus on, focus on some of the

0:21:47.950,0:21:49.499
aspects of where is the coverage, you know,[br]what

0:21:49.499,0:21:51.909
does it mean, right. One thing that worked[br]for

0:21:51.909,0:21:55.109
us was code climate in the region projects.[br]I

0:21:55.109,0:21:56.989
really like it because they put a lot of

0:21:56.989,0:21:59.700
focus into the presentation aspect of it.[br]Not just

0:21:59.700,0:22:03.179
the collection aspect of it. It really, you[br]know,

0:22:03.179,0:22:06.929
takes you down to the, to the code, which

0:22:06.929,0:22:09.649
is missing the specs. Of course, they do also

0:22:09.649,0:22:11.940
other metrics like code quality, which I really[br]like,

0:22:11.940,0:22:14.489
by the way. They have some notification things[br]like

0:22:14.489,0:22:17.109
that, like, on, like Lexus a lot, whenever[br]this

0:22:17.109,0:22:19.169
climate goes in, poof the coverage goes down[br]or

0:22:19.169,0:22:21.019
something like that. [00:22:19] It doesn't[br]break the builder

0:22:21.019,0:22:23.600
part, it doesn't break the build, but it lets

0:22:23.600,0:22:25.080
you know, and then you can deal with it

0:22:25.080,0:22:27.109
if you think it is important to deal with.

0:22:27.109,0:22:30.389
P.S.: OK, speaking of breaking build, how[br]many of

0:22:30.389,0:22:35.859
you know what racheting, in builds? OK. So[br]the

0:22:35.859,0:22:37.999
idea of racheting is basically you will never[br]leave

0:22:37.999,0:22:41.100
your code base worse than what it already[br]was,

0:22:41.100,0:22:45.059
right. So every commit basically makes sure,[br]even if

0:22:45.059,0:22:46.759
it doesn't do any good, it doesn't do any

0:22:46.759,0:22:48.779
bad to your code base. So for example, if

0:22:48.779,0:22:51.859
you're, your current code coverage is at 70%,[br]and

0:22:51.859,0:22:53.840
if this check-in makes it 69%, it will break

0:22:53.840,0:22:56.309
the build. Even though there's nothing functionally[br]wrong with

0:22:56.309,0:23:00.169
it, you know, it's bad, right. We really think

0:23:00.169,0:23:02.600
it's a double-edged sword. I will, this is[br]one

0:23:02.600,0:23:05.249
of those things which I have a, in theory

0:23:05.249,0:23:08.629
sounds very, very good, and direct, but in[br]practice,

0:23:08.629,0:23:10.950
what it typically ends up doing is people[br]end

0:23:10.950,0:23:14.539
up fretting the actual metric, and never about[br]what

0:23:14.539,0:23:17.570
the problem is, right. Becau- this exactly[br]does what

0:23:17.570,0:23:20.450
we said in the previous slide, which is coverage

0:23:20.450,0:23:24.029
is never red or green, right. Sometimes you[br]are

0:23:24.029,0:23:26.359
OK with taking this hit because you want to

0:23:26.359,0:23:28.859
do something. I mean there are all, there[br]are

0:23:28.859,0:23:33.720
so many reasons why which, in practic- in[br]reality

0:23:33.720,0:23:35.850
you may have to do some bad things, and

0:23:35.850,0:23:37.509
eventually have to pay for it, but it's OK,

0:23:37.509,0:23:40.690
it's a conscious decision, right. But racheting[br]invariably stops

0:23:40.690,0:23:44.759
that. It makes it very, you know, black and

0:23:44.759,0:23:45.470
white, right.

0:23:45.470,0:23:47.309
A.K.: Difficult for you to proceed at

0:23:47.309,0:23:47.869
that very moment.

0:23:47.869,0:23:49.369
P.S.: Yeah and it has a

0:23:49.369,0:23:53.379
more behavioral impact on the team, which[br]is your,

0:23:53.379,0:23:56.850
your team members start hating either the[br]racheting, or

0:23:56.850,0:24:00.259
they start hating the metric, or you know,[br]we

0:24:00.259,0:24:03.799
had this one person who did not commit for

0:24:03.799,0:24:06.129
four days because they thought they did not[br]have

0:24:06.129,0:24:09.299
enough test coverage. And, like, when we breached[br]the

0:24:09.299,0:24:12.350
whole, OK, frequent check-ins, call check-in,[br]and this person

0:24:12.350,0:24:14.389
was actually scared because they were about,[br]they would

0:24:14.389,0:24:17.600
break the build, is actually a, very, very[br]bad

0:24:17.600,0:24:20.729
signal, of, a bad sign from your team, right.

0:24:20.729,0:24:22.690
Now well, you can always argue, OK, this person

0:24:22.690,0:24:25.139
totally missed the point, we can say a bunch

0:24:25.139,0:24:27.499
of things, right, but this is the reality.[br]So

0:24:27.499,0:24:29.739
we think that it's a good idea, so that

0:24:29.739,0:24:32.039
you might want to do it at certain points

0:24:32.039,0:24:35.229
in time. But yeah, be very, very careful about

0:24:35.229,0:24:37.729
the freakanomic implication that it has on[br]your team,

0:24:37.729,0:24:38.080
right, always keep that in mind.

0:24:38.080,0:24:40.419
A.K.: And then

0:24:40.419,0:24:43.269
the very other popular thing, which is, you[br]just

0:24:43.269,0:24:46.109
write that test to bump up the coverage, if

0:24:46.109,0:24:46.679
you're not just-

0:24:46.679,0:24:47.309
P.S.: Yeah, so there was, there

0:24:47.309,0:24:49.769
was just one more philosophy of full-on coverage??[br][00:24:50],

0:24:49.769,0:24:52.429
which is saying, OK, you just checked-in code,[br]but

0:24:52.429,0:24:54.249
you don't have a test for this, but that's

0:24:54.249,0:24:56.669
OK. There's this other class which does not[br]have

0:24:56.669,0:24:58.669
a test for it, which is easy, so let's

0:24:58.669,0:25:01.479
start this there and keep my coverage maintained[br]right

0:25:01.479,0:25:04.049
there. There's so many, like, weird things[br]people end

0:25:04.049,0:25:06.389
up doing, just because they are now worried[br]about

0:25:06.389,0:25:09.119
coverage and not really worried about what[br]it means

0:25:09.119,0:25:11.470
to- you know, what it means with what they

0:25:11.470,0:25:12.419
are doing, right. So it's-

0:25:12.419,0:25:14.759
is done with the best of intentions, but then

0:25:14.759,0:25:16.749
you get really, really bad, cause, like-

0:25:16.749,0:25:17.320
P.S.: Yeah.

0:25:17.320,0:25:19.879
So, OK, how, how did we go, I mean,

0:25:19.879,0:25:22.440
how do we now improve, like, so we still

0:25:22.440,0:25:25.639
take on a lot of projects, customer, we are,

0:25:25.639,0:25:27.600
we are mainly now in consulting, so we do

0:25:27.600,0:25:29.889
end up taking worker code bases, right. So[br]what

0:25:29.889,0:25:32.389
do we do to improve coverage if we have

0:25:32.389,0:25:34.690
a bad one? One thing we realized is adding

0:25:34.690,0:25:37.950
unit tests to classes, existing classes, could[br]be a

0:25:37.950,0:25:41.200
very dangerous thing, right. What that essentially[br]means, is

0:25:41.200,0:25:43.369
you have, you know, you are cementing the[br]current

0:25:43.369,0:25:46.379
design. Now I won't say, like prejudiously,[br]it might

0:25:46.379,0:25:48.639
be bad to say not a good design, right.

0:25:48.639,0:25:50.989
But you are cementing it, right. If ever you

0:25:50.989,0:25:54.470
want to cement something, cement features.[br]Cement functionality, right.

0:25:54.470,0:25:56.529
Which means you might want to write like a

0:25:56.529,0:26:00.059
much higher level test of, and, you know,[br]ensure

0:26:00.059,0:26:01.799
that the functionality is the same, so that[br]you

0:26:01.799,0:26:04.239
can go and refactor later. On this one project,

0:26:04.239,0:26:07.009
which Yogi, me, and Jake worked together on[br]in

0:26:07.009,0:26:11.470
ThoughtWorks, it worked beautifully for us,[br]where we were

0:26:11.470,0:26:15.879
strangling ?? to Hibernate [00:26:14]. Which[br]meant that all

0:26:15.879,0:26:18.840
that entire unit tests and database level[br]tests were

0:26:18.840,0:26:21.960
completely invalidated, they were useless,[br]right. And because of

0:26:21.960,0:26:24.309
the way, and because we wanted to turn on

0:26:24.309,0:26:26.470
to caches?? [00:26:24], transactions changed.[br]Like that meant the

0:26:26.470,0:26:30.100
whole app was rendered useless from a testing[br]point

0:26:30.100,0:26:31.359
of view, right, from a safety net point of

0:26:31.359,0:26:34.979
view. But what came to our help was controller

0:26:34.979,0:26:38.289
and beyond level tests. So our biggest, we[br]had

0:26:38.289,0:26:40.929
such good coverage there, that we went in[br]and

0:26:40.929,0:26:42.989
we just modified a whole bunch of things,[br]and

0:26:42.989,0:26:45.399
we like started deleting tests, you know.[br]You get

0:26:45.399,0:26:48.289
a lot more flexibility and freedom inside[br]your code

0:26:48.289,0:26:49.840
base when you know that you're not breaking[br]any

0:26:49.840,0:26:53.210
functionality. So yeah like it's a really,[br]really, like,

0:26:53.210,0:26:55.570
good thing, so definitely think about it when[br]you're

0:26:55.570,0:26:57.229
inheriting a legacy codebase.

0:26:57.229,0:26:58.669
A.K.: Unit tests, unit tests

0:26:58.669,0:27:01.279
are great, but do keep in mind that they

0:27:01.279,0:27:03.029
might also come in the way of-

0:27:03.029,0:27:03.619
P.S.: Changes.

0:27:03.619,0:27:04.489
A.K.: Refactoring, and changes.

0:27:04.489,0:27:04.909
P.S.: Yeah.

0:27:04.909,0:27:05.899
A.K.: Big, big refactoring-

0:27:05.899,0:27:07.739
P.S.: So, OK. What - the whole measurement

0:27:07.739,0:27:11.399
reporting, racheting, improvement, all of[br]this is basically saying,

0:27:11.399,0:27:13.279
always keep the problem you're solving in[br]mind, right.

0:27:13.279,0:27:15.739
Rachet don't rachet - how do you decide? Well,

0:27:15.739,0:27:17.950
is it helping you to achieve your goal, or

0:27:17.950,0:27:20.460
the problem you have at hand? Sure, you know,

0:27:20.460,0:27:26.499
so do it. Otherwise don't do it, right. It's-

0:27:26.499,0:27:27.249
Yeah.

0:27:27.249,0:27:28.659
A.K.: I think-

0:27:28.659,0:27:29.999
P.S.: So, the second-

0:27:29.999,0:27:30.669
A.K.: Let's-

0:27:30.669,0:27:33.350
P.S.: -anecdote- I'll just be, quickly talk[br]about-

0:27:33.350,0:27:35.359
A.K.: We have five minutes, so-

0:27:35.359,0:27:36.359
P.S.: Yeah, like,

0:27:36.359,0:27:37.369
the second anecdote was basically, OK, we[br]had this

0:27:37.369,0:27:42.489
server which was under a very heavy load.[br]And,

0:27:42.489,0:27:48.629
like thousands of requests, a minute, and[br]only about

0:27:48.629,0:27:52.320
5% of those requests, in very seemingly arbitrary[br]periods

0:27:52.320,0:27:56.340
of times, and arbirtrary controllers and actions,[br]would pause,

0:27:56.340,0:27:59.409
and it would take a very long time, right.

0:27:59.409,0:28:01.899
So the- this problem was way more technical.[br]It

0:28:01.899,0:28:04.169
had nothing to do with the behavior or, you

0:28:04.169,0:28:09.440
know, like, or practices part of, or side[br]of

0:28:09.440,0:28:11.460
things. It was pure technical problem. And[br]goal was

0:28:11.460,0:28:13.059
for us to find the root cause of this

0:28:13.059,0:28:17.200
unpredictable behavior and fix it, right.[br]And, yeah, like

0:28:17.200,0:28:20.340
we were, like we can definitely talk about[br]how

0:28:20.340,0:28:22.499
we went into, like a lot of different solving,

0:28:22.499,0:28:24.549
a lot of different symptoms, at one point[br]even

0:28:24.549,0:28:28.159
suspecting JRuby. You know, like, so it's[br]very, like,

0:28:28.159,0:28:30.580
it becomes very hard for you to figure out,

0:28:30.580,0:28:32.470
OK, what is a problem, what is a symptom,

0:28:32.470,0:28:35.159
and like, go very methodical about it, right.[br]So

0:28:35.159,0:28:38.009
that's what this, this problem was going to[br]be

0:28:38.009,0:28:38.999
about. But let's take this offline. At this[br]point

0:28:38.999,0:28:39.029
we can-

0:28:39.029,0:28:39.139
A.K.: I mean, before that, yeah, let's

0:28:39.139,0:28:43.159
get out some questions.

0:28:43.159,0:28:45.839
P.S.: Yeah, let's take some

0:28:45.840,0:28:47.720
questions if you have any.

0:28:47.720,0:28:48.920
A.K.: Cool.

0:28:48.920,0:28:50.520
P.S.: Cool, thanks.

0:28:50.520,0:28:51.720
A.K.: Thanks.

0:28:51.720,0:28:53.180
P.S.: Thanks guys.