Thursday, December 29, 2011

It's so, like, social!


Ok, so I know I'm supposed to do the second half of the post about the REST interface, but I got distracted.

You see, I'm on holiday.

On holiday, I like to do something just crazy and interesting. And not too much work ;-)

Anyway, what I've built is a very alpha-ish prototype of a concept for Social Coding.

The original idea for this came to me in September. I posted about it on Google+. Here's the content of the post:
Imagine a web app for social coding.

You get there via a link from somewhere else. At the top of the page in big typeface is the name of a function, the signature (parameters, return type) and a short description.

Then, side by side, are two columns.

On the left, there is a list of unit test implementations. Each is just a slab of code with asserts in it.

On the right there is a list of implementations.

Each unit test and each implementation can be commented on, and can be modded up or down.

Unit tests are listed in two sections; "Working" at the top and and "Broken" at the bottom. The "Broken" section lists tests that are syntactically busted.

Within the sections, the unit tests are listed in order of moderation score.

Implementations are listed in order of the number of unit tests passed. Within the same number, they are listed in moderation order.

You are free to
- Add a new unit test (possibly based on an existing test)- Add a new implementation (possibly based on an existing implementation)- Moderate other tests and implementations- Comment on anything

You can share the page on social networks and so forth with the usual buttons.

The owner of the page is the person who originally defined the function, including description. The owner can modify the definition, can mark any unit tests and implementations as not acceptable.

The function is considered implemented if there is an acceptable implementation that passes all acceptable, working unit tests. An implemented function may still be re-implemented at any time in the future, or become unimplemented by the addition of new tests which it fails.

When writing a test or an implementation, you may define new methods that don't yet exist. All user defined methods behave as links to their own page. Methods that don't have a page have one created for them when first clicked, wiki-like.

You can also define a new function directly, without actually using it in another function.

A method which relies on other methods which are not considered implemented is also not considered implemented.

A unit test which relies on methods which are not considered implemented is part of the "broken" group.

Analogs of this function definition mechanism should be created for object oriented Classes and for html Pages.

If, say, both Javascript and Python are allowed, then you could build a google AppEngine app this way.

Thoughts?
A long chat ensued. A bit of enthusiasm flared up, and then went nowhere, because I did nothing with the idea. Yeah!

Anyway, now I have. I've built a prototype of this idea, in fact, called "Social Code". What a creative name!

It's hosted here: http://socialcode.emlynhrdtest.appspot.com/

The code is in github here: https://github.com/emlynoregan/Social-Code

Basically, it works like this:

  • Anyone can log in with a google account.
  • You can create functions. Functions are
    • A name (purely for descriptive purposes)
    • A slab of python code, hopefully containing a function implementation, but can be anything really.
    • Another slab of python code, Tests, which should be tests of the function implementation, but again can be anything. When the user hits "Save and Run!", this will be run and will be successful if no errors/exceptions are thrown, fails otherwise.
    • A list of past runs, with results & logs.
  • Functions can refer to each other
    • Say I've separately defined the function "Add"
    • If you want to call "Add" in your code, you need to include {{Add}} somewhere in your implementation code, probably in a comment. When you save it, it'll be parsed out, and appear in the "Imports" list.
    • You can call anything defined in "Add" in your code. This might include a python function called "Add", but only by convention.
For a really simple example of the way this hangs together, select the function Multiply, see what's going on, then click through to dependencies etc.

Now, anyone can change any of the tests or any of the implementations of any functions, delete any functions, add new ones. That's all so open that the whole thing's only usable as a curiosity at the moment.

In fact my current implementation is really daggy. Not a stick of javascript (or there is, there's an onclick confirm function for the delete button). So mondo page refreshes. Also no design, some css where necessary, inline (gasp!).

And OMG you'll hate editing code in textareas.

Also the "Save and Run!" button just cobbles all the code (tests + implementation + dependencys' implementations) into one big slab o' text and calls "exec" on it. Not terribly sophisticated. It'll need eventually to do stuff like run in an appengine task, probably work with code in a more sophisticated manner (should I be doing something with code objects?) etc. 

I've put the code in a serious sandbox (I think), by not allowing the __builtin__ collection to be in scope. You can't do a python import. So, you can only currently do simple things, intentionally. Opening this up in some way will be necessary, but it'll need some serious discussion, and care I think.

But it gives you something to play with, get a feel for the kind of thing I'm thinking about.

The intention is that, instead of one slab of code for "Implementation" and one for "Tests", we'll have many competing Implementations and many competing Tests. There'll be a concept of the current implementation for any function, which is one that passes all tests, which is voted up by the most users, and probably which is newest, in case of ties. That's the one that other dependent functions will import.

I think potential implementations need to be immutable. If you want to edit an implementation, you actually copy it and edit the copy. Might need a draft/published mechanism to help with this. So you see all the published implementations, and all your own drafts. Published implementations are immutable, drafts are not.

I don't know if/how this applies to tests. 

Also, I think functions should be able to define acceptance tests on other functions. If B depends on A (imports it) then B should be able to define acceptance tests on A. If A changes such that it has new implementation and tests, and passes those tests, but no longer is suitable for B, then B's acceptance tests will fail and flag that B needs fixing.

Of course the current giant-slab-o-tests approach could accommodate this; in the tests for B, just define some tests of A.

Anyway, have a play, read the old google+ post and comments, and come chat on the new google+ post where hopefully people will be yammering about this.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment