Home » Posts tagged "code" (Page 2)

GitHub 上有大量重複的程式碼...

扣除掉 fork 的程式碼後,研究人員在 GitHub 上還是發現有大量重複的程式碼:「DéjàVu: a map of code duplicates on GitHub」。

This paper analyzes a corpus of 4.5 million non-fork projects hosted on GitHub representing over 482 million files written in Java, C++, Python, and JavaScript. We found that this corpus has a mere 85 million unique files.

Java/C++/Python/JavaScript 寫的 4.5M 個專案有 482M 個檔案,但只有 85M 個檔案是不一樣的 XD

想一想其實也是... 現在愈來愈多工具產生程式碼了 XD (i.e. Scaffold)

AWS CodeDeploy 支援單機測試模式

AWS CodeDeploy 本來是個 client-server 服務架構,但現在讓你方便在本機測試,支援直接在本機下指令 deploy (不需要 server) 看看發生什麼狀況:「AWS CodeDeploy Supports Local Testing and Debugging」。

Previously, if you wanted to test and debug your deployment, you had to fully configure AWS CodeDeploy. This includes installing the agent on the target host, creating a CodeDeploy Application, and creating a CodeDeploy Deployment Group.

Now, you can execute a deployment directly on a local machine or instance where the CodeDeploy agent is installed. If your deployment has errors, you can easily find and view the error logs by accessing the agent with your terminal. This makes it faster and easier to find and fix bugs before configuring CodeDeploy for production.

是有很多人一直中獎然後跟 AWS 反應嗎... XD

The DUHK Attack:因為亂數產生器的問題而造成的安全漏洞

Bruce Schneier 那邊看到的:「Attack on Old ANSI Random Number Generator」,攻擊的網站在「The DUHK Attack」,論文在「Practical state recovery attacks against legacy RNG implementations (PDF)」。

攻擊的對象是 ANSI X9.31 Random Number Generator:

DUHK (Don't Use Hard-coded Keys) is a vulnerability that affects devices using the ANSI X9.31 Random Number Generator (RNG) in conjunction with a hard-coded seed key.

然後攻擊的對象是 FortinetFortiOS

Traffic from any VPN using FortiOS 4.3.0 to FortiOS 4.3.18 can be decrypted by a passive network adversary who can observe the encrypted handshake traffic.

如果照說明的只到 4.3.18,那麼去年 11 月更新的 4.3.19 (參考「FortiOS 4.3.19 Release Notes」) 應該是修正了?不過裡面沒翻到類似的資料,是剛好把 RNG 換掉了嗎?

將 Sketch 輸出成 iOS/Android 的程式碼

Supernova 是前陣子看到的工具,目前是 public beta,將 Sketch 的設計直接轉成 iOS/Android 的程式碼,減少每次手動調整的痛:「Introducing Supernova」。

目前只支援 iOS/Android,但之後有打算要支援 React Native。(參考「Import & Export」這邊的說明)

五月時寫到的「透過 NN (類神經網路) 訓練好的系統,直接把圖片轉成程式碼」這篇是直接從圖片轉成程式碼,也是想做類似的事情。但 Supernova 因為有 Sketch 內的資訊,轉換的準確度會高不少...

GitHub 引入 Code Owner 的概念

GitHub 推出了 Code Owner 的概念:「Introducing code owners」。也很直接說這個能是向 Chromium「致敬」出來的:

The code owners feature was inspired by Chromium's use of OWNERS files.

檔案名稱是 CODEOWNERS,可以放在根目錄或是 .github/ 下,可以針對不同的目錄設不同的人:

To specify code owners, create a file named CODEOWNERS in the repository's root directory (or in .github/ if you prefer) with the following format[.]

這樣一來,在 pull request 的時候就會跳出來:

另外也可以設定需要 code owner 同意才能 merge:

Microsoft Blogs 上 TDD 的戰文...

文章標題就直接寫「#NoTDD」的戰文 XDDD

列了 Pros (一行) 跟 Cons (超長 XDDD):

Pros

  • We end up with tests that verify the behavior of the code and help prevent regressions

這個是 TDD 的目的。而 Cons:

Cons

  • It takes us longer to write code using TDD
  • The tests get in the way. Because my design does not have low coupling, I end up with tests that also do not have low coupling. This means that if I change the behavior of how class works, I often have to fix tests for other classes.
  • Because I don’t have low coupling, I need to use mocks or other tests doubles often. Tests are good to the extent that the tests use the code in precisely the same way the real system uses the code. As soon as I introduce mocks, I now have a test that only works as long as that mock faithfully matches the behavior of the real system. If I have lots of mocks – and since I don’t have low coupling, I need lots of mocks – then I’m going to have cases where the behavior does not match. This will either show up as a broken test, or a missed regression.
  • Design on the fly is a learned skill. If you don’t have the refactoring skills to drive it, it is possible that the design you reach through TDD is going to be worse than if you spent 15 minutes doing up-front design.

這四個問題講的是時間與能力兩個因子的作用,轉一個角度來討論其實是:如果 junior engineer 可以寫出好的測試,他們就不叫 junior engineer 了... 而 senior engineer 是稀缺資源,讓他們多花時間寫出「好的測試」未必是划算的。

反而是另外一種常見的方式常常跟 TDD 在對抗:透過 QA team 在完成後測試,尤其是用手動測試的 QA team XDDD

這個方法很簡單,而且行之有年。而且很無奈的,跟一般軟體工程所期望的相反,junior engineer 就可以做的不錯,所以人力的部份相當好 scale,而品質也有不錯的水準 (畢竟是直接測實際的功能了)。

剛好前陣子有提到另外一篇論文也在討論 TDD 的效果 (參考「又一篇戰文:討論 TDD 的過程」這邊),也有類似的反思。

前陣子在 Twitter 上看到這則也是很有趣,拿來當結尾 XDDD:

Archives