Suppose you are working on a codebase that has 10,000 warnings. Perhaps you have discussed how you can get rid of the warnings. Perhaps you have discussed it more than once. But you still have 10,000 warnings. What can you do? There is no magic bullet. You are not going to be able to buy a magic tool, or wave a magic wand, and with almost no effort, get rid of them all. If there was you would already have waved the wand.
Even if there was such a silver bullet it would create a shallow improvement, rather than a deep one. It would create no dynamic whatsoever to encourage the developers to learn how not to introduce warnings in the first place. It would do the opposite.
Naturally new warnings keep appearing. Tomorrow there will be 10,001 warnings. But the 1 new warning gets lost in the sea of 10,000 others. It's not even noticed. The number of warnings is trending relentlessly upwards.
The only way you can get rid of 10,000 warnings is the same way you got them in the first place. A little bit at a time. With effort. Effort that shows you care.
The first thing to do is put a finger in the hole. Cap the number of warnings. Make new warnings count as errors from now on. Don't just say "new warnings count as errors from now on". You said that last time and it didn't work. Alter the way you build your software so that new warnings cause a build failure. If module X has 3,663 warnings then 3,663 is the stake in the ground. If it gets more than 3,663 make that a build failure.
This creates pressure to remove warnings on the code actually being worked on. In a culture where warnings are ignored to the extent that they've grown to be 10,000 strong, developers are not likely to see the merits of removing warnings from old code that seems to work and no one has touched for a long time.
Once the number of warnings has stabilized, or even started to trend slightly downwards, you can work on reducing the number of warnings. If the maximum number of warnings in the build is currently 10,000 then set a target. Agree that in a weeks time the number will have dropped to 9,900. Or agree to look at the classes of warnings and target the worst one.
You don't have to get to zero. Getting to zero would mean removing warnings from old code that hasn't been touched for ages. That's not as important as changing the dynamics of the how people act so that the number of warnings is going down rather than going up.
Once you get to a level your happy with, don't turn the build-checks off. Don't take your finger out of the hole. If you do that warnings can easily start to rise again. Leave them in place.
Once you get to a level your happy with, look at ways you can improve further. Buy new tools that detect new warnings. And start again. Focus on improvement not perfection.
I once took a lead role on an existing project (C++ & C#) that was riddled with warnings (not quite 10000). It was clear that no-one had bothered about them, and most were fairly benign in context. I was told not to pay any attention to them.
ReplyDeleteHowever I made it my goal to fix at least one (ideally five) warning(s) every day.
After a month they were almost all gone and I'd found some latent bugs.
Unfortunately the rest of the development approach reflected the same lack of care and I left shortly after that.
Indeed. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
ReplyDelete