Small Tweaks, Big Results: Redefining Software Quality

Maintaining high-quality, defect-free code can feel like an uphill battle. It’s a constant struggle, right? Just when you think everything is in place, new changes roll in, and suddenly you’re back to square one, untangling a mess of code. It’s frustrating, but what if I told you it doesn’t have to be this way? What if you could make high-quality code the standard without burning out your team?

Let me share a story from my experience as a software quality assurance  engineer. I’ve seen it all—from projects that went smoothly to ones that felt like sunk before they started. Through these ups and downs, I’ve learned what makes the difference between a stable, high-quality product and one constantly on the verge of failure.

The Quality Conundrum

We all want to write better code, build stable products, and reduce defects. That’s a given. But when discussing improving quality, most people think of substantial, sweeping changes. You know, the kind that sounds great in theory but requires so much effort that short-term productivity takes a hit. And the kicker? All this effort is often tied to the vague promise of “future improvements” that might never materialize.

So, what do we do? Do we just accept quality costs as high, or is there a smarter way?

The Missing Piece

I’m not one for textbook answers. I like to dig deeper and find that missing piece everyone overlooks. I’ve discovered that maintaining high-quality code shouldn’t feel like an uphill struggle. If it does, something’s off. The effort to keep code clean and defect-free should be more like a natural flow, not a constant fight against the current.

But how do you make that happen? How do you make quality the default, not the exception?

The Power of Small Changes

This is where things get interesting. I’m a big believer in the power of small changes—those small tweaks that, when done right, trigger positive effects. It’s like knocking over the first domino and watching the rest fall in line.

Let me share one of those simple yet impactful changes that can totally change the game for your team. It’s not a magic bullet, and yes, it might come with some costs, but trust me, the benefits far outweigh them.

Continuous Refactoring

Let’s get straight to the point: continuous refactoring is the key to clean code. You’ve probably heard this before, but let’s dig deeper. Every time you make a change, you should reflect and improve the code. If you don’t, it’s only a matter of time before that codebase turns into a tangled mess where a change in one place causes unexpected problems elsewhere.

Sounds simple, right?

But here’s where things get tricky. Asking developers to clean up code for every feature they touch is all well and good, but in practice, it often falls apart. Why? Because teams run into obstacles that make this task a nightmare without even realizing it.

The Pitfalls of Branch-Based Development

Picture this: a developer cleans up code while working on a feature in their branch, isolated from the rest of the team. Meanwhile, other team members do their own things, such as cleaning up code in different branches. Now, here’s the rub—good cleanup often involves untangling knots in the code, which means making changes that might overlap with what others are working on. And what does that lead to? You guessed it-emergence conflicts. A large, hairy, time-consuming conflict.

These conflicts turn into a race where one developer rushes to merge their changes before another does, leaving others to pick up the pieces. This isn’t just frustrating—it creates resistance. After a few rounds of this, no one wants to risk redoing work because of a conflict. So what happens? Cleanup stops, productivity drops, and defects creep in.

Sound familiar?

Turning the Situation Around

So, how do we avoid this issue? The answer is simpler than you might think: make smaller changes and integrate them more often.

This isn’t some new idea. Practices like Continuous Delivery and Continuous Integration have championed this for years. Trunk-based development, where developers work on a single branch and integrate changes frequently, eliminates long-lived feature groups that create conflicts. Continuous integration ensures that these changes are safe, with each developer integrating their code every 15 minutes to an hour at most. This way, everyone works with nearly the same code, reducing conflicts.

It’s like having developers in a constant, silent meeting, communicating changes without disrupting their workflow.

The Reality Check

But let’s be honest—just because it works in theory doesn’t mean it’s always smooth sailing in practice. I’ve seen plenty of teams that claim to be doing trunk-based development and Continuous Integration, yet they’re still struggling with poor code quality and high defect counts.

So, what’s going on?

Upon closer inspection, I’ve found that these teams often fail spectacularly at one crucial aspect: frequently integrating changes into the trunk. Instead, they work on features for days at a time, feeling the pressure to avoid those dreaded merge conflicts.

But here’s the kicker: it’s not because these teams are undisciplined or lazy. The problem often lies in the environment itself.

Stacking the Odds in Your Favor

If you want to help developers maintain better code, you can’t just ask them to do it—you need to stack the odds in their favor.

The first step? Measure the frequency of merges to the trunk. Track how often pull requests are merged into the repository. If the frequency is low, with only a few daily merges, it’s time to act.

And what action should you take? Start by resolving any technical problems that slow down your team. One of the biggest culprits is a slow continuous integration process. If your CI takes more than 5 minutes to run, it’s creating resistance. Developers don’t want to merge frequently if they have to wait 15 or 30 minutes for their changes to be incorporated before continuing to work.

5 Minutes Maximum: The CI Speed Rule

Your CI speed directly impacts your team’s productivity. Keep it as short as possible—5 minutes or less. Trust me, this one change can make a world of difference.

But CI speed isn’t the only bottleneck. Code reviews are another major roadblock. Pull requests are often used to request code reviews from team members to catch errors, but the process can be slow and disruptive.

Fixing the Code Review Bottleneck

So, how do we speed up code reviews without sacrificing quality?

First, encourage developers to review their own work before requesting reviews from others. This self-review process catches obvious issues, making subsequent reviews faster and more efficient. Next, aim for smaller pull requests. The smaller the PR, the easier and quicker it is to review.

Another strategy? Request reviews from team members most familiar with that part of the code. They’ll understand the context and the changes faster, leading to quicker approvals.

But here’s the thing: Requesting reviews can interrupt team members and disrupt their workflow, discouraging developers from seeking reviews in the first place. To avoid this, consider pair programming. One developer writes the code in pair programming while the other reviews it in real-time. This means all code is reviewed during creation, and the reviewer can approve the PR immediately.

Alternatively, you can defer the review process. Code review doesn’t need to be immediate or blocking. Techniques like the “Friday Review” can be used. From Monday to Thursday, developers self-approve their pull requests, and on Friday, the entire team reviews the changes introduced during the week and plans how to improve the quality.

The Problem with Big Stories

And finally, let’s discuss one last bottleneck: the temptation to deliver too much at once. This usually happens when stories are too large. Large stories mean big changes and big changes mean significant risks.

To avoid this, aim for smaller changes and smaller stories. Break down those big stories into manageable chunks. This not only makes it easier to integrate changes frequently but also reduces conflicts and defects.

Once you’ve addressed the previous issues, breaking down stories becomes much easier, and your team will see the benefits almost immediately.

The Final Word

So there you have it—a few lessons learned from software quality assurance. The next time you feel like you’re pushing a boulder uphill to maintain high code quality, remember this: it doesn’t have to be that way. By making small, strategic changes—like speeding up your CI, streamlining code reviews, and breaking down big stories—you can create an environment where high-quality code is the default, not the exception.

And trust me, when that happens, everything else falls into place.

So, what’s stopping you?

Take it on, smash that domino, and watch the chain reaction unfold. Your team—and your code—will thank you. And if you ever need help getting started, remember that software quality assurance practices, software testing services, and other software quality assurance services are there to guide you along the way. Let’s make high-quality code the new normal.