Always Be Shipping
We all want to ship as fast as possible, while making sure we can control the quality of our product. Continuous deployment means we can ship at any time, right? Well, we still need to balance the unstable and stable parts of the codebase.
Web Deploys vs Application Deploys
The ability to control changes in your stable codebase is usually the limiting factor in how quickly and easily you can ship your product to people. For example, web products can ship frequently because it’s somewhat easy to control the state of the product people are using. When something is updated on the website, users get the update when loading the content or refreshing the page. With mobile applications, it can be harder to control the version of the product people are using. After pushing an update to the store, people need to update the application on their devices. This takes time and it’s disruptive. It’s typical for several versions of a mobile application to be active at any given time.
It’s common for mobile application development to use time-based deployment windows, such as 2 or 4 weeks. Every few weeks, the unstable codebase is promoted to the stable codebase and tasks (features and bug fixes) which are deemed stable are made ready to deploy. Getting ready to deploy could mean running a short Beta, to test the release candidate with a larger, more varied, test group.
It’s important to remember, these deployment windows are not development sprints! They are merely opportunities to deploy stable code. Some features or bug fixes could take many weeks to complete. Once complete, the code can be deployed at the next window.
Tracking the Tasks
Just because you use 2 week deployment windows doesn’t mean you can really ship a quality product every 2 weeks. The deployment window is an artificial framework we create to add some structure to the process. At the core, we need to be able to track the tasks. What is a task? Let’s start with something that’s easy to visualize: a feature.
What work goes into getting a feature shipped?
- Planning: Define and scope the work.
- Design: Design the UI and experience.
- Coding: Do the implementation. Iterate with designers & product managers.
- Reviewing: Examine & run the code, looking for problems. Code is ready to land after a successful review. Otherwise, it goes back to coding to fix issues.
- Testing: Test that the feature is working correctly and nothing broke in the process. Defects might require sending the work back to development.
- Push to Stable: Once implemented, tested and verified, the code can be moved to the stable codebase.
In the old days, this was a waterfall approach. These days, we can use iterative, overlapping processes. A flow might crudely look like this:
Each of these steps takes a non-zero amount of time. Some have to be repeated. The goal is to create a feature that has the desired behavior and at a known level of quality. Note that landing the code is not the final step. The work can only be called complete when it’s been verified as stable enough to ship.
Bug fixes are similar to features. The flow might look like this:
Imagine you have many of these flows happening at the same time. Ongoing work happens on the unstable codebase. As work is completed, tested and verified at an expectable level of quality, it can be moved to the stable codebase. All work happens on the unstable codebase. Try very hard to keep work on the stable codebase to a minimum — usually disabling/enabling code or backing out unstable code.
One practice I’ve seen happen on development teams is attempting to crash land code right before a deployment window. This is bad for a few reasons:
- It forces many code reviews to happen simultaneously across the team, leading to delays since code review is an iterative cycle.
- It forces large amounts of code to be merged during a short time period, likely leading to merge conflicts — leading to more delays.
- It forces a lot of testing to happen at the same time, leading to backlogs and delays. Especially since testing, fixing and verifying is an iterative cycle.
The end result is anti-climatic for everyone: code landed at a deployment window is almost never shipped in the window. In fact, the delays caused by crash landing lead to a lot of code missing the deployment window.
A different approach is to spread out the code landings. Allow code reviews and testing/fixing cycles to happen in a more balanced manner. More code is verified as stable and can ship in the deployment window. Code that is not stable is disabled via build-time or runtime flags, or in extreme cases, backout out of the stable codebase.
This balanced approach also reduces the stress that accompanies rushing code reviews and testing. The process becomes more predictable and even enjoyable. Teams thrive in healthy environments.
Once you get comfortable with deployment windows and sprints being very different things, you could even start getting more creative with deployments. Could you deploy weekly? I think it’s possible, but the limiting factor becomes your ability to create stable builds, test and verify those builds and submit those builds to the store. Yes, you still need to test the release candidates and react to any unexpected outcomes from the testing. Testing the release candidates with a larger group (Beta testing) will usually turn up issues not found in other testing. At larger scales, many things thought to be only hypothetical become reality and might need to be addressed. Allowing for this type of beta testing improves quality, but may limit how short a deployment window can be.
Remember, it’s difficult to undo or remove an unexpected issue from a mobile application user population. Users are just stuck with the problem until they get around to updating to a fixed version.
I’ve seen some companies use short deployment window techniques for internal test releases, so it’s certainly possible. Automation has to play a key role, as does tracking and triaging the bugs. Risk assessment is a big part of shipping software. Know your risks, ship your software.
Originally published at stark raving finkle.