In software just about all project management methodologies get labeled one of two things: Agile or Waterfall. There are formal definitions of both labels, but in practice few companies stick to those definitions particularly in the world of consulting. For people who really care about such things, there are actually many more methodologies out there but largely for marketing reasons we call any process that’s linear in nature Waterfall, and any that is iterative we call Agile.
Among consultants I have rarely seen a company that is truly 100% agile or 100% waterfall. In fact I’ve rarely seen a shop that’s close enough to the formal structures of those methodologies to really accurately claim to be one or the other. Nearly all consultancies are some kind of blent of a linear process with stages (sometimes called “a waterfall phase” or “a planning phase”) followed by an iterative process with lots of non-developer input into partially completed features (often called an “agile phase” or “build phase”). Depending on the agency they might cut up the planning into the start of each sprint or they might move it all to the beginning as a separate project phase. Done well it can allow you to merge the highly complex needs of an organization with the predefined structures of an existing platform. Done poorly it can it look like you tried to force a square peg into a round hole. You can see evidence of this around the internet in the articles trying to help you pick a methodology and in the variations on Agile that have been attempted to try to adapt the process to the reality many consultants face.
In 2001 the Agile Manifesto changed how we talk about project management. It challenged standing doctrine about how software development should be done and moved away from trying to mirror manufacturing processes. As the methodology around agile evolved, and proved itself impressively effective for certain projects, it drew adherents and advocates who preach Agile and Scrum structures as rigid rules to be followed. Meanwhile older project methodologies were largely relabeled “Waterfall” and dragged through the mud as out of date and likely to lead to project failure.
But after all this time Agile hasn’t actually won as the only truly useful process because it doesn’t actually work for all projects and all project teams. Particularly among consulting agencies that work on complex platforms like Drupal and Salesforce, you find that regardless of the label the company uses they probably have a mix linear planning with iterative development – or they fail a lot.
Agile works best when you start from scratch and you have a talented team trying to solve a unique problem. Anytime you are building on a mature software platform you are at least a few hundred thousand hours into development before you have your first meeting. These platforms have large feature sets that deliver lots of the functionality needed for most projects just through careful planning and basic configuration – that’s the whole point of using them. So on any enterprise scale data system you have to do a great deal of planning before you start creating the finished product.
If you don’t plan ahead enough to have a generalized, but complete, picture of what you’re building you will discover very large gaps after far too many pieces have been built to elegantly close them, or your solution will have been built far more generically than needed – introducing significant complexity for very little gain. I’ve seen people re-implement features of Drupal within other features of Drupal just to deal with changing requirements or because a major feature was skipped in planning. So those early planning stages are important, but they also need to leave space for new insights into how best to meet the client’s need and discovery of true errors after the planning stage is complete.
Once you have a good plan the team can start to build. But you cannot simply hand a developer the design and say “do this” because your “this” is only as perfect as you are and your plan does not cover all the details. The developer will see things missed during planning, or have questions that everyone else knows but you didn’t think to write down (and if you wrote down every answer to every possible question, you wrote a document no one bothered to actually read). The team needs to implement part of the solution, check with the client to make sure it’s right, adjust to mistakes, and repeat – a very agile-like process that makes waterfall purists uncomfortable because it means the plan they are working from will change.
In all this you also have a client to keep happy and help make successful – that’s why they hired someone in the first place. Giving them a plan that shows you know what they want they are reassured early in the project that you share their vision for a final solution. Being able to see that plan come together while giving chances to refine the details allows you to deliver the best product you are able.
Agile was supposed to fix all our problems, but didn’t. The methodologies used before were supposed to prevent all the problems that agile was trying to fix, but didn’t. But using waterfall-like planning at the start of your project with agile-ish implementation you can combine the best of both approaches giving you the best chances for success. We all do it, it is about time we all admit it is what we do.
This year I took part in Hacktoberfest. Partially to see what all the fuss is about, partially to get myself involved in projects I didn’t know about, and partially for the free t-shirt (which do come in men’s and women’s cuts). If you haven’t run into this project before it’s an effort by Digital Ocean to get people to participate in open source projects. Once you sign up they count all public pull requests you make on Github toward a goal of 5. I participated both as a developer, and by tagging a few issues on my own projects so people would find them.
As a developer:
It was a great excuse to go find new projects and look at ways I can contribute. While I’d have plenty of experience on open source projects, often they have been outside Github or are repos I have commit access to – so I don’t open a lot of pull requests on Github. That meant that Hacktoberfest was a chance to find new projects and practice a basic process for contributing code to teams.
In that regard it was a pretty good success. I opened six PRs on four different projects. Mostly they were small stuff like linting code, updating packages, or tweaking a README file.
In terms of drawing me into projects we’ll see. I did keep up with one after I finished the 5 required (hence having six PRs), but I didn’t dive into anything truly hard on that project.
In terms of getting me to provide truly useful code think that was limited. The largest piece of code I wrote was initially rejected so I re-wrote in a different style, and then re-written by the project maintainer the day after he accepted the PR. He was really nice about it, and it helped him get something done that had been on the to-do list for a long time, but even that was example code to be used in classrooms (which was why he was so concerned about style – he didn’t want it to be idiomatically correct for Python he wanted to clear to beginners).
It did give me a chance to play around in other people’s code bases and I did resolve some issues for people that would have otherwise lingered longer than they already had. It also forced me to meet other people’s standards, lint to their specifications, and pass their automated tests – all good things for everyone to do now and again to see if there are solutions you like better than the ones you use every day.
As a project owner:
Once I got through the contributions I needed to get a shirt, I figured I’d look over my own projects to see if there were issues I could label for beginners to help them find ways to get started. I listed several issues are both Hacktoberfest and good first issues. Almost all the ones I flagged as good first issues got PRs opened – sometimes more than one.
I got two problems solved that I wouldn’t have known how to solve without a bit of research, and those were great. But most of the PRs were simple things that took me longer to solve collaboratively than it would have taken me to solve myself. That’s okay, in part because some of my PRs caused the same problem for their project maintainers, and because it forced me to final learn how to setup CircleCI so the code gets checked and tested automatically when PRs are opened in the future.
What I don’t expect it caused was anyone to be truly interested in the project and helping it move forward over time. So while I solved a couple small problems, I did not get new help that going to keep engaging. That made it useful as a sprint, but not useful to helping build great projects.
But even if there is room for improvement my shirt is ordered and on the way.
This week, for the second time in a year, the unacceptable behavior of a high profile man in the Drupal community has been the topic of public discussion and debate. This time the organizations involvedacted more clearlyand rapidly, if imperfectly. The issue came to the forefront during #metoo campaign, and again showed that the Drupal community reflects the world around us. I listened to friends and colleagues respond in various ways to the events and to the recognition of several men that they had been allowing this behavior to go on right in front of them for years without intervention. It is clear that in Drupal, like in all parts of our society we can – and must – do better.
As I reflected on these discussions this weekend I read back through some posts from Danah Boyd I’d read a while ago and stashed with my list of ideas of topics for blog posts. In particular I read her comments from last March on how failures to understand people’s hate fuels it and then a piece I had initially missed from July on change in the tech community. Her experiences and perspective are worthy of a few minutes read in their own right, but this week her views seem particularly timely.
One of the things that struck me about Boyd’s piece from July was her clear simple ask:
…what I want from men in tech boils down to four Rs: Recognition. Repentance. Respect. Reparation.
To me the first two are painfully obvious and most men who care about these issues have been working through those for a while now (too many men still need to learn to care at all). I count myself among the group of men who care, and the this post is mostly directed at that group of peers.
More and more you will hear men acknowledge they believe women are telling the truth, recognizing there are more stories we don’t hear than we hear, and apologizing for their own actions or inactions in the past. But of course just believing people and saying sorry doesn’t get us very far. The next two on Boyd’s list are the places where real forward looking change comes from.
Respect should be easy, but too often it is the first place we get into trouble. It is the part her call to action that will always be true no matter what future progress we make on these issues. Respect is an ongoing act requiring constant care, attention, and effort. Meaning to be respectful is not the same as actually being respectful. It requires actively listening to the ideas of women and people of color and considering them as fully as you do anyone else’s. It means tracking in yourself when you fail to do listen and making the personal change required to do better going forward. It includes monitoring our own behavior in meetings, hallway interactions, and one-on-one discussions to make sure you understand how you are being perceived differently by different people – your friendly or silly gesture to one colleague could be insulting or threatening to another. Respect is not something special that women and people of color are suddenly asking for, it’s something that we all already knew we should be extending to all our colleagues but too often fail to show. And when we fail to show true respect for coworkers – regardless of why we failed or which demographic categories they fall into – it’s our responsibility to recognize it and repent.
Finally Boyd also calls for Reparations. Reparations is a word that lots of us fear for no particularly defendable reason since it’s just about attempt to undo some of the harm we’ve benefited from. And in this case her ask is so direct, plain, and frankly easy that I’m giving her the last words:
Every guy out there who wants to see tech thrive owes it to the field to actively seek out and mentor, support, fund, open doors for, and otherwise empower women and people of color. No excuses, no self-justifications, no sexualized bullshit. Just behavior change. Plain and simple. If our sector is about placing bets, let’s bet on a better world. And let’s solve for social equity.
With the turmoil in the Drupal community this spring and summer I have seen a wave of calls for open source projects to judge their community members, and other contributors, by the code contributions alone. It’s an idea that sounds great and has been popular among developers for at least forty years. Eric Raymond, while writing about Drupal, described it this spring as a right developers deserve. In some circles it gets treated almost as religious doctrine: “Thou shalt judge by code alone.”
The problem is that it’s not actually true nor just.
There may have been a time it was an ethic that held communities together but now it’s a line we pull out when we want to justify someone’s otherwise unacceptable behavior. Too often it’s a thinly veiled attempt to protect someone from consequences of their own choices and actions. And too often its used at the expense of other community members and other would be contributors.
For obvious reasons open source communities are dominated by developers. And as developers we have faith in our code. We like to believe our code doesn’t care who we are or what we believe. It will do exactly as asked every time. It forgives us all our sins as long as we faithfully fix any bugs and update to new versions of our platforms.
We like to claim that by focusing only on the code, and not the person behind it, we are creating a meritocracy and therefore better results. I don’t need to convince you I’m smart if I can show you my wonderful and plentiful code. We will be faithful to the best code and nothing more.
But none of this is proven to be true.
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:14-17 NKJV
Any project worth doing could be done many different ways. One solution might solve the problem more quickly, another might be easier to maintain in the future, and yet another might be easier to extend to solve even more complex problems later. Which of the solutions is right will depend on the problem, the users, the developers, the timeline, and everyone’s guesses about future needs. There isn’t some objective measure of best. We figure out which solution we’re going to use by working together to sort through the competing ideas. Sometimes the best solution wins, sometimes the loudest voice wins, sometimes the most famous person wins.
When you say that code is the only valid way to judge a developer it tells people how you expect developers to work together. If I see that out of a project lead it tells me expect they me to put up with jerks and bullies as long as those people write good code. It says that women contributing code should expect to be belittled and degraded by colleagues, friends, and strangers as long as those people can solve a problem as well or better than she can (and often even if they can’t do that).
It says these things because for decades that’s been the behavior of large numbers of developers who are still welcomed on projects and praised for their amazing code.
It’s a simplistic way to view people that encourages the bad behavior developers, particularly many famous developers, are known for. Instead of creating a true meritocracy it drives away smart and talented people who don’t want to deal with being called names, threatened, and abused in their work place or while volunteering their time and talents.
People who damage a community because they mistreat others in it hold everyone back. If you join a project and write a module that brilliantly solves a new problem, but drive three people off the project because you are unbearable to work with, your work now has to offset all of their potential contributions. You also have to offset the loss of productively when people get distracted dealing with you. And you have to offset the reputation loss caused by your bad behavior. That better be an amazing block of code you wrote to do all those things, and you better be ready to do it again, and again, and again just to keep from slowing the project down.
Terrible developers can move a project forward. If someone comes into a project and writes a terrible module that stimulates someone else to solve that same problem better, they are making the project better even if none of their code is ever accepted. Or if someone takes time to make new participants feel welcome and excited to contribute, they may cause more code to be written than anyone else, even if they never write a line of code themselves.
And just because I can solve a problem faster and better than someone else doesn’t prove anything. If I start a project, or contribute for several years, I’m going to have more code credited to me than a new person. I’m going to know the project’s strengths and weaknesses better, and I’ll be able to solve problems more easily. Which means I should produce better code than another equally talented developer, or even someone a smarter than me. I just have a head start on them – anyone can beat Usain Bolt in the 100 meter dash if you give them a big enough head start. If we judge just by code contributions, I can use my head start to make sure no one catches me. That’s not merit, that’s just gaming a system.
Developers are people. People are flawed, complicated, biased, and wonderful creatures. Our value to a project is the sum of all those parts we choose to pour into a community. It matters how we handle discussions in issue queues; debates with community members on Twitter, Slack, or IRC; the content of our blogs; how we act at conferences; and anything else that is going to affect how others experience our contributions.
If you don’t care for how your community functions and if you don’t make sure people are treated well, even when their code is terrible, your project will suffer, and eventually may die. Sure there are examples (big examples like the Linux kernel and OpenBSD) of projects that are doing just fine with communities that allow developers treat each other terribly. The men leading those projects (if anyone has an example of a female lead projects where vile behavior is tolerated let me know and I’ll edit this sentence) are happy with the communities they have built. But can you imagine what those project could have achieved if they hadn’t driven highly talented developers away? Can you show any compelling evidence that those projects succeed because of the bad behavior not despite it?
Communities will be flawed, complicated, biased, and wonderful, just like the people that make them up. But if you only focus on part of someone’s contributions to the community you may miss their value and the damage one person can cause.
Faith in your code, if it isn’t matched with works in your community, is dead.
After several hours on hold, 5 or 6 visits (I’ve lost count), and them testing everything in sight, I finally started writing software to see if I can help find the problem.
At strange intervals there is a run of noise on the line that kills my service. The noise eventually goes away and my service resumes. But figuring out those intervals has been a challenge since it turns out I don’t actually sit around 24 hours a day watching for service interruptions.
So after the last tech was unable to find a problem, and implied that it was my cable modem, I wrote a simple python script that pings Google every 5 seconds and records the response time (or failure). I setup an old Linux laptop to sit around and do nothing but ping Google 24 hours a day and record the results of each request.
I learned that my service interruptions tend to start and stop on the hour or half hour. For example, the first night it started to be bad at noon and improved at 2:30 the next morning. That pattern of human friendly times and data was enough to convince them to try again (although they aren’t willing to consider it’s something scheduled since they aren’t aware of any scheduled processes on their network).
So at the moment I have a loaner modem – which has ruled out my device as the problem – and they are closing on having replaced every piece of hardware between me and the nearest node. To their credit, it has gotten much less bad. Most outages now last five minutes (more or less exactly), and I have only have a few a day (instead of a few an hour).
Anyone have guesses about what processes run on cable networks that last five minutes and reattempt for a few hours at a stretch before giving up for roughly 13 or 14 hours?
My takeaway so far has been that if your internet provider is unable to figure out what’s wrong, offer them more data. Even if they don’t know how to use it, it them to take the problem seriously.
In short he argues for a category of developer he calls the Expert Beginner. These are people who rose to prominence in their company or community due more to a lack of local competition than raw skill. Developers who think they are great because they are good but have no real benchmarks to compare themselves to and no one calling them out for doing things poorly. These developers not only fail to do good work, but will hold back teams because they will discourage people from trying new paths they don’t understand.
I have one big problem with his argument: he treats Expert Beginning as a finished state. He doesn’t provide a path out of that condition for anyone who has realized they are an expert beginner or that they are working with someone who needs help getting back on track to being an actual expert.
That bothers me because I realized that at times I have been, or certainly been close to being, such expert beginner. When I was first at AFSC, I was the only one doing web development and I lacked feedback from my colleagues about the technical quality of my work. If I said something could be good, it was good because no one could measure it. If I said the code was secure, it was secure because no one knew how to attack it. Fortunately for me, even before we’d developed our slogan about making new mistakes, I had come to realize that I had no idea what I was doing. Attackers certainly could find the security weaknesses even if I couldn’t.
I was talking to a friend about this recently, and I realized part of how we avoided mediocrity at the time was that we were externally focused for our benchmarks. The Iraq Peace Pledge gathered tens of thousands of names and email addresses: a huge number for us. But as we were sweating to build that list, MoveOn ran out and got a million. We weren’t playing on the right order of magnitude to keep pace, and it helped humble us.
I think expert beginnerism is a curable condition. It requires three things: mentoring, training, and pressure to get better.
Being an expert beginner is a mindset, and mindsets can be changed. Deitrich is right that it is a toxic mindset that can cause problems for the whole company but change is possible. If it’s you, a colleague, or a supervisee you have noticed being afflicted with expert beginnerism the good news is it is fixable.
Step 1: Make sure the expert beginner has a mentor.
Everyone needs a mentor, expert beginners need one more than everyone else. A good mentor challenges us to step out of the comfort zone of what we know and see how much there is we don’t understand. Good mentors have our backs when we make mistakes and help us learn to advocate for ourselves.
When I was first in the working world I had an excellent boss who provided me mentoring and guidance because he considered it a fundamental part of his job. AFSC’s former IT Director, Bob Goodman, was an excellent mentor who taught me a great deal (even if I didn’t always admit it at the time). Currently no one person in my life can serve as the central point of reference that he did, but I still need mentoring. So I maintain relationships with several people who have experiences they are willing to share with me. Some of these people own companies, some are developers at other shops, some are at Cyberwoven, and probably none think I look at them as mentors.
I also try to make myself available to my junior colleagues as a mentor whenever I can. I offer advice about programming, careers, and on any other topic they raise. Mentoring is a skill I’m still learning – likely always will be. At times I find it easy, at times it’s hard. But I consider it critical that my workplace has mentors for our junior developers so they continue progress toward excellence.
Step 2: Making sure everyone gets training.
Programming is too big a field for any of us to master all of it. There are things for all of us to learn that someone else already knows. I try to set a standard of constant learning and training. If you are working with, or are, an expert beginner push hard to make sure everyone is getting ongoing training even if they don’t want it. It is critical to the success of any company that everyone be learning all the time. When we stop learning we start moving backward.
Also make sure there are structures for sharing that knowledge. That can take many different shapes: lunch and learns, internal trainings, informal interactions, and many others. Everyone should learn, and everyone should teach.
Step 3: Apply Pressure.
You get to be an expert beginner because you, and the people around you, allow it. To break that mindset you have to push them forward again. Dietrich is right that the toxicity of an expert beginner is the fact that they discourage other people from learning. The other side of that coin is that you can push people into learning by being the model student.
Sometimes this makes other people uncomfortable. It can look arrogant and pushy, but done well (something I’m still mastering) it shows people the advantages of breaking habits and moving forward. This goes best for me is when I find places that other colleagues, particularly expert beginners, can teach me. Expert beginners know things so show them you are willing to learn from what they have to offer as well. They may go out and learn something new just to be able to show off to you again.
Finally, remember this takes time. You have to be patient with people and give them a chance to change mental gears. Expert beginners are used to moving slow but it feels fast to them. By forcing them into the a higher gear you are making them uncomfortable and it will take them time to adjust. Do not let them hold you back while they get up to speed, but don’t give up on them either.
I deal with passwords a lot. In any given day I log into five or six servers, another dozen web sites, plus my personal systems and tools. Some are stored in password managers, some are memorized, some are mine, and some are shared. To avoid losing things I need I have several patterns, schemes, and password generation tools I use to try to keep up with it all and make sure I’m using good passwords most of the time.
I don’t have a deep background in cryptography and a definitely don’t consider myself an expert in the related math. But I have spent a lot time time with users and observing behaviors, so I do consider myself reasonably knowledgeable about how people actually behave with their passwords.
A couple years ago this XKCD comic came out, and an admin’s view of it has become one of my measures of their understanding of users and passwords:
If you’re interested in understanding what technically right and wrong with the math and assumptions in that comic you might find some of the references on explain XKCD’s discussion interesting.
I don’t actually think that’s the interesting part. To me the interesting part is the number of system administrators I have talked to who are convinced the comic is wrong, because they are also convinced that anyone who doesn’t use truly random password and avoid password reuse is stupid and therefore their behavior can be ignored. These people have access to your system, and it’s your job to keep those system secure. The problem isn’t your users, the problem is we have made passwords unreasonably hard to do right.
At this point people generally know they are supposed to use good passwords, like we all know we’re supposed to brush after every meal. Sure there are people that do that, but not most of us. We all know that passwords should be long (even if we fight over the exact length to require) and use lots of different kinds of characters (although many password systems require them to be from the latin character set). But it’s too hard to follow all the rules, and security experts are so concerned about being right they don’t provide useful guidance about when the cheat.
Let me grant those who like long-random passwords the following point: if you use different passwords on every system that needs one, and they are all truly random strings, and you memorize them all so you don’t have them recorded someplace they could be stolen, you have the hardest for an attacker to crack. Great for you. But I work with people who are not perfect, have limited memories, and need to be able to have shared access on a regular basis.
Knowing the perfect random password generation pattern is useful in some cases (or so I’ve heard), but rarely are you in a case where you can use the perfect setup. I don’t care about perfect: I’m not perfect, I don’t work in a perfect office, have perfect colleagues, or perfect clients. So here are my good-enough rules for admins and developers.
0) Make it easier to do the right thing than the hard thing. This gets to be rule zero, because everything else is meant to support this idea. You want the path of least resistance to be the one that gets you the results that are secure enough to protect your systems from the attackers they face. Make sure your users have good tools for storing passwords, settings on password fields to encourage good (not perfect) behavior, and a minimum of stupid rules you don’t really understand but someone told you are “best practice”.
1) If you make it hard for people, they will find a way around you and likely weaken security. It might be post-it notes on monitors, cycles of passwords that are 5 long (because you force them to not use the last 4). If you make it hard to pick a password (because you required punctuation but not ‘, \, “, &, or !), you will end up with lots of passwords that are curse words – and your attacker will thank you for shrinking the search space. If they are using touch devices to type them, they will do things like repeat as many characters as you allow to make it easier to type (if you ban any repeats: again the attackers thank you for shrinking the search space). All things you want them to stop doing.
2) Do not have a maximum password length. Any time I hit a system with an upper bound of 12 I want to scream (although jokes about chimps might be a better tactic). Even if you are using a secure hashing system that ignores all characters after some point: who cares? Why limit the attacker’s search space to only strings between 8-12 characters?!? Sure that’s a massive search space, but not nearly as big as it could be.
3) Do have minimum lengths. Minimum lengths forces your users to do two things. First, not use passwords that could be broken in less time than it took you to read this article. Second, it gives you leverage to push them to either good phrases or generators. If you’re smart and don’t have legacy systems to support go with something like 15 or 20 characters.
5) Provide secure means to share passwords. I have more than once been sent a password in chat (running through Google, Slack, or once upon a time AOL’s servers), email, word documents, text file, and a variety of other terrible solutions. This happens not because my colleagues didn’t know it was a bad thing to do but because they didn’t have a good option. We spend so much time locking down passwords, that we don’t create secure channels to hand them around responsibly which defeats the purpose of secured storage.
6) Pay attention to how users will be using individual passwords. Not all passwords are created equal, which is why I encourage you to support throw away passwords: something short, easy to remember, and only used places it doesn’t matter if it were stolen. But even when a password is important there are issues like the ease of entering them: if I have to enter a password 4 times a day it better be easy to type or I better be able to copy and paste it. If I need it once a month it should be impossible to remember and its okay if it takes me 5 minutes to get it right. Most of us can’t type complicated passwords quickly, and if we have to enter it a bunch we want to be fast. This is even more true for people using touch interfaces where shift is an extra keystroke as is changing to a different part of the standard keyboard.
7) Stop telling people they have to use a different password every time. This is an extension of number six. People have too many passwords, and that’s not changing soon. Sure we can encourage them to use LastPass, or a tool like it, but most people aren’t going to (and if they did that could be its own problem since it creates single points of failure). Tell them to use a different password when it’s important, and to use a throw away password or scheme when it’s not.
Not everything needs to be Fort Knox so stop pretending it is. Important things like your bank account(s), your email, Facebook need their own passwords because they can be used to do real damage in the real world. Online communities, games, and other trivial places asking you to sign in do not.
8) Don’t lecture people about bad personal password habits. Honestly, this is probably the hardest one (here I am lecturing you about not lecturing them). Usually the first people to admit they are sloppy about passwords are developers and sysadmins. Sure, they will tell you about the awesome password wallet they use first, and the two factor authentication they created for their blog, but then toss off that all their production servers have the same root password and it’s 8-10 nonrandom characters. Even if you are perfect (if you are still reading this by definition you probably have room for improvement) don’t lecture people who aren’t. It just makes them feel they can’t admit when something has gone wrong, or if they don’t understand something. When you find people doing it wrong, show them how easy it is to do it right, and if it isn’t apologize and fix it.
Every week I try to ask myself: What did I do this week to make myself more valuable? Am I moving forward toward a goal, or further from it?
In technology, communications, or any other job that involves one of those two things you are either moving forward or moving backward: standing still is not an option. You are either learning new skills, trends, tools, and concepts, or you’re falling behind as other people build new tools that drive new ideas and trends.
I read lots of advice that says to plan your career two or three moves in advance. That is good advice, but I don’t think it’s wise to trust your gut that far out. The technology landscape changes too fast and too dynamically to believe you know where everything will be in three or five years. On the one hand I think it’s important to deepen my skills for the path I want to be on, but at the same time I try to broaden my skills into areas other areas that have things to teach me. In the back of my head there is always plan B and C, just in case plan A doesn’t come together they way I hope. In part, because I’ve never been able to stay on plan A very long: life always intervenes.
When I was 23 (and sure I wanted to be teacher) I was advised to read an hour a day in my field, and that it should not just be reading about the kind work I was already doing. At the time I was the new kid in IT of a mid-sized international nonprofit organization doing whatever no one else wanted to do: which is a great way to learn a variety of things. I didn’t really know anything yet about how to have a career – I had a job, and I liked my job, but couldn’t envision a career path.
But I took that advice to heart and tried to find ways to constantly learn about things I don’t know. I read books, listened to podcasts, and taught myself new skills. I learned about communications planning, economics, corporate strategy, algorithms, and a variety of other topics. The ideas I pick up from those sources help me think about technology more creatively, and helped me understand the importance of making sure I build tools that are useful not just cool to me.
The biggest thing I’ve learned from all these different inputs is that I need to live in constant fear of getting behind, outmoded, and sidelined. That fear keeps me motivated to learn more and push myself harder. By the time I retire I cannot imagine I will still be paid to be a full-time Drupal developer, I doubt that’s what I’ll be doing five years from now. Certainly by in 30 years Drupal, and the web as we know it, won’t look anything like they do today and I will be doing my job very differently. This is the blerch that keeps me motivated.
So every week ask yourself: what did I learn this week? Did I move forward or fall behind?
This week I was working with a new colleague on our account team. As with all people knew to working with technical teams and bug tracking, she’s having to learn how to create good trouble tickets for when clients report issues. This is a challenge I’ve seen played out in every place I’ve ever worked: developers want detailed tickets so we can dive in without asking 16 follow up questions, and people creating tickets don’t actually know what we want and assume we know how to find and fix the problem. And so I’d like to try to offer this explanation of what we’re looking for and why.
At the most basic level I need to know at least three things to find and fix a problem on a project (either a web site or some other tool I’m supporting):
Where in the program is the problem? This is usually a link to a sample page that has the problem.
What happened? I need a clear explanation of what went wrong. Is there a picture missing? Is the text format wrong? Is there a big red error message at the top?
What you expected to happen? What is the picture of and where exactly was the picture supposed to appear? What formatting was supposed to appear on the text? Did you do something right before the error message appeared that helps me see that message again?
These things are part of allowing me to reproduce the problem. If I can’t reproduce the problem, I can’t promise you I fixed it. If you can’t reproduce the problem, you can’t check that I’m right.
Developers will often say that if you can’t give me the step to reproduce a problem I can’t fix it. But in my experience sometimes a problem is actually really hard to reproduce, and you need a developer or a professional tester to actually figure out those steps. So it’s okay if you can’t give me perfect directions, but give me what you have.
If you find yourself writing a ticket that doesn’t say more than “Search is broken” or “Blog post didn’t look right” the problem better be massive (think big red error message level). As an account/support team member that may be all you got from the client but someone has to fill the gaps – and developers are terrible people to have fill those gaps.
As a developer there are several reasons that’s true.
First, rarely do developers get the luxury of working on one project for an extended period, and when they do those tools are large and complex. So we probably don’t have every detail in our heads at any moment. If we could store all that information we wouldn’t need task tracking systems, you could just call us and tell us about a problem as we’d call you back a few hours/days/weeks later and say “fixed”.
Second, we’re terrible at finding mistakes in our own work. Like everyone else, we need editors. If I could see the problem you are reporting, I would probably have fixed it, or at least reported it to you so we could open a task to get it fixed later.
Third, we probably don’t spend as much time in the project documentation as you do. So if someone needs to track down the original design to check for a discrepancy between the design and what’s happening a developer is probably going to be much slower at this task than you are (or you will become soon).
Also remember your developer probably will not look at the problem today unless it’s mission critical to the client. So they need to be able to figure out three weeks from now what you were talking about. If it just says: “search is broken” and I run a search in two weeks and everything looks fine, you are going to need to tell me what’s broken about it (maybe a result is missing, maybe it’s formatted wrong, maybe it’s working perfectly but the client doesn’t like the results).
Even with all that context, I know it is intimidating for many new support or account team members to crack the code developers use when talking. We over explain this, using technical terms, and get annoyed too quickly when people don’t understand us. And we often forget that teaching by analogy is helpful.
My new colleague is a baker, and so as I was trying to help her understand what I needed to be helpful on tasks I switched to bread:
If I came to you and said “my bread didn’t work out, please tell me how to fix it” how would you start?
That helped her make the connection. Just saying my bread didn’t work out, doesn’t tell her enough to help me do it right next time. She’s going to have to ask several follow up questions before she can be helpful.
Did it taste wrong or look wrong?
What kind of bread was it?
Did you follow the instructions or do something different?
Are your ingredients fresh?
Did it rise enough?
Did you knead it enough?
Did you set the oven to the right temperature?
On the other hand if I come to her and say:
I tried to make sourdough oatmeal bread over the weekend. I followed the recipe closely, but my bread turned out really dense instead of having the bready texture I expected.
Now she knows there was a problem getting the bread to rise. So we can focus questions on the yeast and other details of getting air into bread. Yes, there are still several things that could have gone wrong, but now we know where to start.
Frequently new support staff are intimidated by all the technical things they don’t know. And too often developers brush aside new staff who don’t give them the information they need and just say things like “Oh I’ll figure it myself” instead of helping their colleagues learn. Part of the solution is to help people understand that the first set of questions aren’t actually technical. Baking isn’t the right analogy for everyone, but it helped in this case. And hopefully next time I’ll do better at getting to a better explanation quickly.
In December I gave a talk at the SCDUG meeting on Drupal 8 plugins. This is based on that talk with a few improvements and additions from things I’ve learned since.
Drupal 8 provides many great improvements, but one I’ve been finding to be the most exciting is the easy ability to create my own plugins. They are actually a bit addictive, and it’s easy to start seeing projects as an excuse to create a new plugin manager. At first it can take a little bit of effort to get your head around the process, but I got great details from Unraveling the Drupal 8 Plugin System from Drupalize.me. But the problem with those, and all the examples I could find, was they were either too deep (the drupalize.me article should be considered required reading, but the example is too abstract for most people) or too shallow (the drupal.org Plugin API examples currently lack context about why I would want to do this in practice).
So my goal is to straddle that gap.
What’s a plugin?
Plugins are a design pattern that let you extend a module or service. Drupal 8 has at least four plugin discovery systems:
Annotated ← I’m mostly talking about this one, its used for blocks, views, rules, Queue API, and more.
YAML ← These are used for menus, routes, and services.
Hook ← D7 carry over hook system, still used in many places.
Discovery Decorators ← Wrap around other plugin systems to replace/improve on the classic info alter hooks from previous Drupal versions.
Static ← These are used for test code, and I’m ignoring here.
Basic Commonly Used Plugins
As a Drupal 8 developer you probably use several plugins when building a site, particularly if there is any custom functionality required. When creating controllers you’ll need a route, and likely a menu item, which means you’ll use YAML files to define those aspects. For blocks, the queue api, or Rules you’ll create an annotated plugin. Theme functions are still commonly defined with hook_theme().
Why do I create new plugin?
Between core, and major contrib modules (like Rules and Search API), plugins options abound, but it’s not always obvious why you might want to create one for a more focused project. For large projects that may have a large number of related functions, poorly defined use cases, or use cases that are expected to expand over time Plugins provide three major advantages over other approaches:
Plugins make it easy to easily keep classes small and focused.
Plugins make it easy to extend a service.
Plugins allow one module to easily extend the function of another.
Cyberwoven has a client who needed an internal training portal. They want to provide some basic gamification, particularly badges, and they wanted a more detailed tracking of user behavior than the core statistics module provides. The badges present a function that has many related, but different, use cases and is likely to grow over time. So I created a pluggable service that allows us to easily define a set of conditions for creating a new badge. Each plugin’s annotation lists the events it cares about, and when one of those events is fired the service runs the plugin’s test function. If the badge has been earned the plugin returns the information needed to generate that entity. All the event listening, entity generation, and error checking happens in the service, so each plugin is only focused on the details of the one badge. The event tracker is similar, with each plugin defining a filter for the major system events to determining what details should be recorded, and the service handling the logging of those details and reporting. As the client needs have evolved we’ve been able to add and modify the plugins to meet their needs.
The second place I’ve created a custom plugin system for was an internal project at Cyberwoven (it was actually the project I used to learn how to create custom plugins). Our testing server has always had a service to perform some basic operations on the server, like pulling repos via webhooks and similar tools to help developers. Setting up our development environments for D8 meant it was time for a new test server, and therefore new tools to manage it. From the start I wanted to create a tool that helped both developers and account managers. So I created a D8 site to manage the sites that provides various tools to perform task operations we all need (not only code handling, but also checking if security releases apply to any sites). All the various operations we want exposed through that site are created as plugins to our custom manager. Each task plugin is focused on just that one task. All the other various needed to track the sites, route requests to run a task, and render their responses are all handled in other places. It’s also now making it easy to add features that wrap around the plugins since the plugins all have a consistent interface (like adding new displays and running some tasks through cron).
Introducing Site Manager
The main module defines an entity for each site, a couple displays (like the listing page displayed above), and the annotated plugin base so we can add new features easily. Plugins can be enabled and disabled on a site-by-site basis, and can be run from the plugins dropbutton.
Once we had the basics in place (like getting the git and drush status’s via simple plugins) we started to add more powerful features to turn the tool into a dashboard. We added the module search block you see on the left as a separate module that searches all sites for a specific Drupal module (nice when security updates are released). The search module also provides a plugin for each site that lists the modules for just that site.
The last site in the screen shot has a reference to scanning the HTTPS certificate for a specific site. This is another feature we added recently as this tool increasingly starts to serve as a dashboard. The HTTPS Scanner module again provides both a batch job to scan all sites, and a task plugin that scans just one.
As of this writing, all told there are nine working task plugins across four modules (there are a couple more underway as well). Tasks can also have their results displayed in a block when you look at the details for a site.
Building your own manager
Hopefully by now your convinced that it’s worth having your own plugin manager at least sometimes. So the next question is how to build them.
Elements of a custom plugin
Plugins have several parts, most of which are small and simple:
Annotation Plugin Definition
Plugin Manager Service
The first step is to define the annotation for your plugin. This is a simple class that extends Drupal\Component\Annotation\Plugin to define the variables you want listed in the annotation comments of the plugin. This file goes in custom_module/src/Annotation, and as always the file name and class name match:
Plugin Manager Service
The plugin manager itself is a service, but the vast majority of its function comes from the parent classes. The convention is to place this file in custom_module/src/Plugin (as will the rest of the base definitions we’re about to provide). In this case we call it: TaskPluginManager.php.
The full version of this provides a few more improvements to this class (I overrode the getDefinitions() method to provide some filtering options to support disabling plugins), but those aren’t actually required for it to work well.
In short, this class just provides some general definitions to separate it from all the other annotated plugins.
And since the plugin manager is a service, we add it to our module’s service.yml file:
For this plugin I defined 4 critical public functions, three just provide basic information about a plugin, but fourth (run) will be the interesting one in a minute.
Finally we’re getting to something interesting (or at least something that requires code). The plugin base is an abstract class which all the actual plugins will extend. This goes in custom_module/src/Plugin/TaskPluginBase.php.
The things worth taking notice of here are the fact that I inject several services into the base class, so I have them for each plugin: translation, main sitemanager module configuration, and a wrapper on Symfony’s process service to make running drush and git commands easier. The three informational functions are fully defined here, but the run function stays abstract since it’s the function that actually justifies creating a plugin at all.
In theory I could stop right there. I’ve created a plugin manager and defined all the things someone else needs to be able to use it. But there are two technically optional parts that are useful if you like to work and play well with others: an example implementation and a controller for use or testing purposes.
We went through all the trouble to create the plugin manager, before you stop you should create at least one plugin to prove all the work we just did actually works.
This is a simple task to use drush to run cron for a site. The site entities know the location on the file system for Drupal root, and the simple task service handles the extra settings to control where the commands are run (and time outs and error trapping), so we can safely feed that to command and the location to get the response.
The method returns a render array, that can be used as part of a response.
The controller is truly 100% optional. There are two reasons you might want to create one: to actually run the plugin if that makes sense (it does for the site manager), and to provide for easy testing of a plugin.
For site manager I created the controller because I actually needed it to run the tasks from the dropbutton (its the link used by all the links on those buttons). But when I created the others for clients, I realized they can be very hard to test. They are buried inside several layers of complexity, making a test suite is a challenge to create correctly. And since are of the reason to use a plugin for a project with growing definitions, the test suite is often of limited use for rush additions. But by having a carefully built (and secured) controller and route, you can create an endpoint to use to test the plugin.
Because it’s optional, and well covered elsewhere (or heck just use Drupal console to generate it), I’m going to skip over most of the details of actually building the route, and linking that to the controller, and focus on the single function of running the task itself. To keep this short I’ve removed lots of extraneous details like security and error trapping – creating a tool like this isn’t for beginners so I’m assuming you know how to do those things.
The plugin manager service was injected into the controller (code not shown) so I just have it create an instance of the task requested. The controller calls the run function. If the task is successful the output (a render array) is used for the response, otherwise a simple message is send. This sends an AjaxResponse to work with Drupal’s standard JS handlers, but it could generate a full page just as easily.
Being able to create your own plugins easily is really nice. In Drupal 7 custom plugins where generally considered an advanced developer task. The improvements in the abstraction (and the fact that true plugin support is now in core not pulled from ctools or other critical modules), means that while its still not a beginner task it is something all Drupal developers should be learning.
But remember you don’t always need or want the complexity of your own plugins. I’ve found the idea a bit addictive, and I get unreasonably excited when I find a place plugins are used or that it makes sense for me to create a new plugin type. For custom work you can almost always do the same thing using extra functions on a service, controller, or event listener, so this is a judgement call in the end.