Tuesday, we got some new input data that just wouldn't work.
What -- if anything -- went wrong?
Agile is as Agile Does
We're following an Agile approach for several reasons.
- I'm too lazy to draw up an elaborate project plan full of lies ("assumptions").
- Our requirements were two versions of a powerpoint slide that showed one use case at the tail-end of a long information life-cycle.
- Outside the one slide, we had no concrete actors or use cases. We had some clue what we were doing, but it involved inventing new business models for customers -- a challenging thing to "automate".
The Agile approach is that we pick a use case, build some stuff, and put it into production.
One consequence of this is rapid response to requirements changes. Another consequence is fundamental changes to the design. A small change to a use case could lead to devastating design changes.
Learning is Fundamental
Since we didn't have all the requirements (indeed, we barely had any,) we knew we'd be learning as we went. Tuesday's data drop was one example.
We have a nice library to handle many of the vagaries of the Spreadsheet-As-User-Interface (SAUI™) problem. We use xlrd and csv modules to handle basic spreadsheet file formats. (We have the ElementTree parser standing by to handle xml, if necessary.) We use the rest of the Python archiving packages to handle ZIP files of spreadsheets.
We've broken spreadsheet processing down into layers.
- Data Source. All of our various sources offer methods to step through the sheets and rows. This minimizes the various file format differences. Note that CSV provides cells that are text, where xlrd provides cells in a variety of data types. We have a Cell class hierarchy to implement all the conversions required.
- Operation. Each operation (validate, load, delete, etc.) is a subclass of a common Operation. This operation is given a sheet and processes the rows of that sheet. It doesn't know anything about the Data Source.
- Builders. Each row, generally, builds some model object which is either validated or validated and persisted in the database. The builder handles the mapping from spreadsheet column to DB column, along with data type conversions.
Sadly, we left something out.
The Devastating Change
We had no use cases, so we were making things up as we went along. We'd made an implicit assumption in our sheet operations. All the data we'd been loading was polluted with rows we had to ignore. So we tossed a quick-and-dirty little if-statement down inside one of the sheet operations.
The new data had slightly different rules for rows we were supposed to ignore. The quick-and-dirty little if-statement broke the loads.
We have to refactor our sheet operations to hoist out this if-statement. We have to use the Strategy pattern to replace the statement with a formal appeal to a Filter object that implements the decision.
What If Analysis
The Cost Of Learning (COL™) was two days. Half of one day to find the problem. Half of another to reason out the root cause and determine a solution. Finally, a full day to code and test the revisions.
Yes, it took two full days of effort (spread over three calendar days) to figure out what was wrong.
What if we had tried a waterfall design? Would we have found, designed and resolved this problem in two days? No earthly way. It would have taken two days of brainstorming to think of the use case. It would have taken a week of hand-wringing to work out a be-all-and-do-all processing pipeline for spreadsheet data -- one that included dynamic filtering.
Instead, we built a processing pipeline that worked. Now we're expanding that processing pipeline to add a feature.