Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • kmitov 9:56 am on April 4, 2020 Permalink |
    Tags: bundler, gem, geminabox, rake, ruby   

    bundle exec vs non bundle exec. 

    This article is part of the series [Everyday code].

    We use bundler to pack parts of the Instruction Steps Framework, especially the parts that should be easy to port to the rails world. We learned something about Bundler so I decide to share it with everybody.

    TL; DR;

    Question is – which of these two should you use:

    # Call bundle exec before rake
    $ bundle exec rake 
    # Call just rake
    $ rake

    ‘bundle exec rake’ will look at what is written in your .gemspec/Gemfile while rake will use whatever is in your env.

    Gem.. but in a box
    gem inabox with bundler

    Bundle exec

    For example we use geminabox, a great tool to keep an internal repo of plugins. In this way rails projects could include the Instruction Steps framework directly as a gem. This makes it very easy for rails projects to use the Instruction Steps.

    To put a gem in the repo one must execute:

    $ gem inabox

    You could make this call in three different ways. The difference is subtle, but important.

    Most of the time the env in which your shell is working will be almost the same as the env in which the gem is bundled. Except with the cases when it is not.

    From the shell

    # This will use the env of the shell. Whatever you have in the shell.
    $ gem inabox

    From a rake file

    If you have this rake file

    require 'rails/all'
    task :inabox do 
      system("gem inabox")

    then you could call rake in the following ways:

    rake inabox

    # This will call rake in the env defined by the shell in which you are executing
    $ rake inabox

    bundle exec rake inabox

    # This will call rake in the env of the gem
    $ bundle exec rake inabox

    When using the second call bundle will look at the ‘.gemspec’/’Gemfile’ and what is in the gemspec. If non of the gems in the .gemspec adds the ‘inabox’ command to the env then the command is not found and an error occurs like:

    ERROR:  While executing gem ... (Gem::CommandLineError)
        Unknown command inabox

    If ‘gem inabox’ is called directly from the shell it works, but to call gem inabox from a rake job you must have ‘geminabox’ as development dependency of the gem. When calling ‘gem inabox’ from a shell we are not using the development env of the gem, we are using the env of the shell. But once we call ‘bundle exec rake inabox’ and it calls ‘gem inabox’, this second call is in the environment of the gem. So we should have a development_dependency to the ‘geminabox’ gem:

     spec.add_development_dependency 'geminabox'

    Nice. Simple, nice, logical. One just has to know it.

  • kmitov 10:45 am on April 3, 2020 Permalink |
    Tags: bash, , linux   

    99 versions are not good enough – [Everyday Code] 

    This article is part of the series [Everyday Code]

    You’ve done nothing until you release more than 99 versions of your product. 99 versions are just not good enough.


    Today we released version 103 of is-core – the core of the Instruction Steps Framework. We noticed a bug. Generally the build would produce two files:

    is-core-sdk-6.0.0.pre.103.js - that is the current version 
    is-core-sdk-latest.js  - this is pointing to the content of the latest version. 

    Problem was that while the current version was 103, the latest version in is-core-sdk-latest.js was pointing to version is-core-sdk-6.0.0.pre.99.js.

    As a conclusion – You have done nothing until you’ve released at least 100 versions of your software (and probably at least it works through a millennium shift with a leap year, but that’s another story)


    It’s pretty simple actually. This is what we were doing to get the latest file generated:

    # Creates is-core-sdk-latest.js link to the latest compiled 
     cd ../../release
     rm is-core-sdk-latest.js -f
    -latest=`find is-core-sdk-* -type f | tail -1`
    +latest=`ls -1v is-core-sdk* | tail -1`
     echo "Latest sdk is: $latest"

    Notice the find is-core-sdk-* -type f | tail -1 If the files are like

    # Find all the files but they are listed in non natural order of the integer for the version.
    # This code is: BAD
    $ find is-core-sdk-* -type f 
    # If we get just the tail it will give us version 99 which is clearly not right
    $ find is-core-sdk-* -type f | tail -1

    I have done this mistake at least a few times in my career.

    Solution is an option in ls:

    # This code is GOOD
    # This will list all the files
    $ ls -1v is-core-sdk*
    # This will get just the last
    $ ls -1v is-core-sdk* | tail -1

    Moral of the story

    For months I thougth we have a rock solid infrastructure. There was almost no failed build. Delivery to production is in 2 minutes for a pretty complex framework with a lot of projects and modules. And then it “broke” after months of stable work just as we were to release version 100.

    Show me your 100-th version of your product. Then we can talk.

  • kmitov 4:40 am on April 2, 2020 Permalink |
    Tags: , javascript, promise   

    Should you care about the settlement of Promise(s) or use Promise.finally() – [Everyday code] 

    This article is part of the series – [Everyday code]

    – This logic should not be in Promise#finally()?

    – Why? We just care that the Promise is settled.

    – No. We care why it is settled.

    TL; DR;

    You might be tempted to put some specs logic in Promise#finally(), but here is why you should not do it.

    It’s like try/catch/finally

    In Instruction Steps Framework we try to load the list of parts in the instructions. There could be no list of parts in the instructions. How should we test this?

    Consider the examples:

    it("shows message 'No parts list provided' when there is no parts list", function() {
          // get the promise that the part list will be loaded, 
          // but we know that it will not be loaded, 
          // because this is how we setup the test. 
          this.promise = ... 
          // Using then()
          this.promise.then(() => {
                  expect($("#partsList").text()).toContain("No parts list provided");
          // Using catch()
          this.promise.catch(() => {
                  expect($("#partsList").text()).toContain("No parts list provided");
          // Using finally()
          this.promise.finally(() => {
                  expect($("#partsList").text()).toContain("No parts list provided");

    Would you use then(), catch() or finally() in the spec?

    Using then()

    The purpose of the promise is to load a file. The file is not there. So it is not successfully settled. As this is not successfully settled then() should not be called.

    Using catch()

    The promise is promising us that it will load a file and show something on the screen. It fails. It settles, but fails. It would be best to put the spec in catch().

    Using finally()

    The promise fails as the test is setup like this. We’ve setup the test to have the wrong url. But this is only in this test. What if other clients are waiting on the same promise in a production code. Should they use finally()?

    From the finally documentation –

    The finally() method can be useful if you want to do some processing or cleanup once the promise is settled, regardless of its outcome.

    The key here is “regardless of its outcome”. We get a Promise that is promising us to load a file. It fails. We care about the outcome. We care to have a successfully loaded list of parts, and if there is an ‘exceptional case’ we should catch() it and process it. We know exactly why the promise settles. We care.

  • kmitov 4:43 pm on April 1, 2020 Permalink |
    Tags: documentation,   

    This code is: ‘BAD’. This code is: ‘GOOD’ 

    This article is part of the series [Everyday Code].

    TL; DR;

    When providing examples in developers documentation always add the bad example, but make it stupid clear that “this is a bad example and it should not be done like this, while this is a good example and it should be done like this!”

    Too long; but I will actually read it.

    We are copy/paste developers. We are fighting challenging problems on tight schedules with complex frameworks running on enormous stacks and we rarely use tools designed with ergonomics in mind. When we stumble on a problem we go for an internet search, copy the first result that looks like a solution and continue. (this is also my main mode of work with nginx. I love it, but it is always so much work to get this assets through a proxy, and this server was even designed for this.). Or AWS API…

    Yet, we somehow manage to deliver software platforms and most of them are in a running state. Brilliant.

    One thing that we are missing in the documentation is of course the understanding of the “why”. Why things are implemented like this? What were the considerations? Why it should not be implemented in different ways? You get this in a book, but you don’t have it in the documentation.

    Most of the time of course we don’t have the time to enter into the details, but I would make the argument that the more we understand the underlying problem, the more fun it is and the more satisfaction that we can get from work. Because most of the time we just can get not satisfaction. (no reference intended, but here it is –

    But this brings us to the problem. When developing a tutorial for how to use your framework should you include the bad examples along with the good?

    Should you include the bad examples in the documentation?

    This was an issue in the early stage of our Instruction Steps Framework developed at As a proper framework it has documentation. As it is a framework it puts some boundaries and rules on what you should do. But we’ve tried to go one step further and describe why we are doing it like this.

    I’ve found it rewarding to include information about why specific decisions were taken not only what are these decisions.

    Example 1 – we’ve decided not to have a central object model on which all extension are based. A central object model would simplify a lot of things and is a lot easier for many developers, but it is less flexible.

    Example 2 – we’ve decided that certain event methods could return Promises, but could also not. Now why would you do this to yourself is a really good question?

    In these two and other examples I have taken the time to include proper documentation and tutorials on why we are implementing a feature like this. But I failed at one place. I was including both the bad and the good examples in the documentation.

    Looks at the example below for iterations from the previous article. This is an example for iterating over trees.

    anArray = node.getDescendants();
    // here you have all the elements of the tree in anArray
    // loop over the array
    anArray.forEach((a)=> {
       if("1")) {
          print a.getDescendants().length

    Here is an example without getDescendants()

    anArray = []
    rootNode.traverse((node)=> {

    See what I did here. If you came to this article looking for ways to iterate over trees it is completely unclear what is good and what is bad. Writing it right here in the text as “the first example is bad”, “the second example is good” won’t help. Who is even reading this text? So you arrive at the article, get the first iteration that is “bad iteration”, copy it and paste it in your code.

    The point is – it is valuable to include the bad examples as they give people the understanding why the good examples are good. But by including the bad example a large percentage of your readers will just copy paste the bad example and continue.

    My solution

    Mark your examples clearly in the code as “GOOD” or “BAD”. Not in the text. We are developers, we don’t read text.

    // BAD EXAMPLE - because it uses a lot of memory
    anArray = node.getDescendants();
    // here you have all the elements of the tree in anArray
    // loop over the array
    anArray.forEach((a)=> {
       if("1")) {
          print a.getDescendants().length

    Again some text that no developer is ever reading, as it is in between the examples.

    anArray = []
    rootNode.traverse((node)=> {

    See how clear this is. I dare any developer to now copy the bad example in their code. Hope this approach could help you in time of need.

  • kmitov 6:17 pm on March 31, 2020 Permalink |
    Tags: algorithms, , , tree   

    Everyday Trees in Computer Science – [Everyday Code] 

    The goal of this article was to equip developers with everything they need to know about trees to use Instruction Steps Framework (IS) and Instruction Converter (IC) that we are currently working on in Axlessoft. While developing the article for internal use I realized that these are things that every developer should have under their sleeve to successfully use tree structures in their day to day tasks.

    image of a tree that will make the article more interesting. Not a real programming tree

    Some of us might be tempted to revise the heavy Knuth books when it comes to solving the next tree problem. But generally we don’t need to do it. You know the meme:

    • First year Computer Science – “algorithms, data structures, etc …”
    • Second year – “functional programming, object oriented, etc…”
    • Last year – “cryptography, network programming, design of languages, etc
    • First day at work – “move this button to the left”

    So let’s start with a few things you need to know day to day.

    You will see “parent->children” more often than “node->left,right”, eg. binary trees.

    If you have a structure of parent and children this is a tree structure. You have three scenarios:

    1. The parent knows about the children and the children know about the parent. There is a parent.children and child.parent
    2. The parent knows about the children, but the children do not know about the parent. There is parent.children, but there is no child.parent
    3. The parent does not know about the children, but the children know about the parent. There is no parent.children, but there is child.parent

    In many books, algorithms and generally articles you will have people talking about Binary Trees. Now, it might be because of my line of work, but:

    1. I can not remember the last time that I had to properly work with a binary tree – something more than “just find this node”.
    2. For every time I have to work with “binary trees” there are at least 1024 times I have to work with “parent->children” structures.

    Yes, it is the same. But it is also not the same.

    Take away:

    All the three cases represent a tree. It is best to have case 1, but this is not always possible. You will deal with “parent->children” more often than with “left node”, “right node”.

    If there is a library for it, use a library.

    This should be a no-brainer, but a lot of times we like to code a few iterations here and there and develop things for basic iteration over a tree. Just don’t. If there is something tree related that you can not find a library to do for you in about 5 minutes internet search, then you are doing something worth of a Phd or you are searching with the wrong queries (or you are trying to do something stupid!).

    There are of course exceptions. Because when we, as great developers, implement Pre and Post order iteration we are doing it better than anyone else. So this exception is acceptable. Of course.

    Iteration -Pre, Post, In and visiting a node

    Visiting a node means that you are processing it. For example printing to the screen.

    There are a few basic ways. Just search for them on the internet. There are a lot of really nice resources of how you iterate over tress. The basic ways are:

    1. LRN – Left Right Node – first you visit the left child, then you visit the right child, then you visit the node. But as we say this is the theory. In a real life scenario with “parent->children” you visit children[0]..children[n] and then the parent
    2. LNR – Left Node Right – How do you do this for “parent->children” I don’t know.
    3. NLR – Node Left Right – first the parent then children[0]..children[n]
    4. NRL – Node Right Left – first the parent then children[n]..children[0]
    5. RLN – Right Left Node – first children[n]..children[0] then the parent.

    Avoid recursion

    Yes, you have trees. But avoid recursion. Use “traversers”. Almost any reasonably useful library has a “traverser” support. The idea is simple – somebody else is doing the recursion for you and this somebody else is the library.

    In pseudo code:

    rootNode = ... 
    rootNode.traverse((node)=> {
       print node

    The idea is simple. You have a rootNode. It has a method ‘traverse’ that will traverse the whole tree, iterate, recurse, do a lot of magic, but at the end it will traverse the whole tree and will call the “print node” for every node in the tree.

    There is no recursion or iteration in your code. There is just traverse. Sometimes it is called “visitor” ( Visitors pattern, Gang of four, things like this). I kind of preferred “visitor” in early stage of my software development career, but now I more often call them “traversers”. Traversers are visitors, but not all visitors are traversers from my point of view. Would be happy to talk about this over a beer. Anyone..?

    Take away:

    If you are using a library that does not have traverse you should seriously consider using another library.

    Avoid ‘getDescendants()’ and getDeepChildren()

    Yes. These are some libraries that try to help. Imagine that you nave:

    node 1
      node 1.1
        node 1.1.1
      node 1.2
        node 1.2.1
        node 1.2.2
      node 1.3

    You need to get all the children of node 1 and all of their children and you need this in an array. Why? Because reasons. This is the feature request. There are libraries like BABYLON.js that try to help. They offer a “getDescendants()’ method. You can call:

    anArray = node.getDescendants();
    // here you have all the elements of the tree in anArray
    // loop over the array
    anArray.forEach((a)=> {
       print a

    This method saves a lot. You do not need a “traverser”. You don’t need to know anything about order. You need all the elements of the whole tree so get an array. But there are drawbacks.

    1. It could be a large tree. So you are creating a copy, but this time in an array and memory and user experience are expensive.
    2. Even if it is not large you are still creating an array. Do you really need an array or you could just traverse the whole tree and do your job without previously creating an array?
    3. If you have to call getDescendants() more then once, you should refactor your code.

    Consider the following:

    anArray = node.getDescendants();
    // here you have all the elements of the tree in anArray
    // loop over the array
    anArray.forEach((a)=> {
       if("1")) {
          print a.getDescendants().length

    In the example above we would like to print the number of descendants for each node that includes the string “1” in its name. How many times is the tree traversed? How many arrays are created? The answer is “a lot”. You traverse once for the rootNode and then for every other node again and you create new arrays.

    Take away:

    If there is a helper method it is probably giving you, the developer, something, but it is at the expense of the user experience – more memory, slower execution. Consider the implications of using helper methods. They might help you, but are they helping the user using your software.

  • kmitov 6:30 pm on March 28, 2020 Permalink |
    Tags: , git   

    Time to be praised as “The Guru” in your office – or how to move a folder from one Git repo to another Git repo and preserve the history 

    Ok. This is the 5th or 6th time that I am doing this and one of my colleagues asked me.

    Could you please write down how you do it so that we could do it without you next time.

    So here it is. 2 minutes read and you can move files from one git repo to another repo and move the commit history for some of the files. Commands below, but first:

    Word of caution (please):

    Such an enormous power under your fingers would make you and object of great attention in your company. Colleagues will sing songs about you. You would be praised as “The Guru”. Small talks before meetings will start with “Have you heard of that dude that can move files to a new git repo and keep all the history”. (believe me, it is like walking on water). Also I can not promise, but I am pretty sure you can get laid with such knowledge. I once got laid for knowing JUnit and Eclipse so… who knows.

    The disadvantage is that once people learn about you and your knowledge, you will be their go to person for questions about git. Git is quite complex and many people are lazy when it comes to reading documentation, so naturally many people would start asking you questions. Mostly stupid questions, of course. Can you handle the load?


    Moving folder integration/processors from old_repo repo to new_repo


    # Enter new repo
    $ cd new_repo/
    # Make sure you are up to date
    $ git pull
    Already up to date.
    # Check remotes. Just to see what you've got
    $ git remote -v
    origin  git@host:new_repo (fetch)
    origin  git@host:new_repo (push)
    # You are in the new repo. Add the remote to the old_repo
    $ git remote add old_repo git@host:old_repo
    # Make sure the remote for old_repo is added
    $ git remote -v
    old_repo  git@host:old_repo (fetch)
    old_repo  git@host:old_repo (push)
    origin  git@host:new_repo (fetch)
    origin  git@host:new_repo (push)
    # Fetch from the branch of old_repo as it is now an origin
    $ git fetch old_repo
    From host:old_repo
     * [new branch]      dev                     -> old_repo/dev
    # Checkout the branch from old_repo
    $ git checkout --track old_repo/dev
    # Remove all the paths that you don't need. Keep the paths that you do need. Bunch of magic. Better read the documentation about it.  
    $ git filter-branch --force --index-filter   "git rm --cached -r --ignore-unmatch PATH_1 PATH_2 EVERYPATH_THAT_DOES_NOT_INCLUDE_INTEGRATION/PROCESSORS"   --prune-empty --tag-name-filter cat -- --all
    # Return to your master branch
    $ git checkout master
    # Merge the already filtered branch to your master.
    $ git merge dev  --allow-unrelated-histories
    # Think not twice, but three times. After this there is not turning back. It's the Fame or the Shame!!!
    $ git push -f

  • kmitov 6:26 am on March 23, 2020 Permalink |
    Tags: , prettier   

    Simple warning goes a long way 


    Just warn people with a simple message when you are deprecating a behavior in your tool and you are introducing a breaking change. It’s not that difficult


    Yesterday I kind of wake up to a nasty surprise in our local Continuous Integration.

    Continuous Integration on Jenkins failing miserably

    The problem

    Prettier ( have released a breaking change from version 1.19.1 to 2.0.1. This breaks most of our projects.

    The bigger problem

    Prettier is one of the nicest tools we’ve used. It allows us to keep the code formatted. It is also integrated in our CI and if a file is not properly formatted when committed the build fails.

    Several months ago it took us 17.5 hours to integrate Prettier to all developers and all projects and since then we had no problems.

    Then the update happened.

    I have nothing against breaking changes in an API or a project. I welcome them especially in non-critical tools as formatting the code. People learn. People need to learn and building and maintaining an API takes practice, consideration and a lot of experience. I have personally broken some API(s) that I’ve developed in the past. But what I think about breaking changes is that you should properly communicate this with you clients. We are using prettier in a very simple way. Here is the command:

    npx prettier app/**/*.js test/dummy/spec/javascripts/**/*_spec.js vendor/assets/javascripts/gcc/externs/*.externs.js --write --config prettier_conf.json"  

    That’s it. Turns out that as of version 2.0.1 prettier have broken this behavior and now if the project has no files for any of the globs it will return an error.

    For version 2.0.1

    $ mkdir pretti
    $ cd pretti/
    /pretti$ touch some.js
    /pretti$ npx prettier --version
    /pretti$ ls
    /pretti$ npx prettier app/**/*.js *.js
    [error] No files matching the pattern were found: "app/**/*.js".
    /pretti$ echo $?

    For version 1.19.1

    $ mkdir pretti
    $ cd pretti/
    /pretti$ touch some.js
    /pretti$ npx prettier --version
    /pretti$ ls
    /pretti$ npx prettier app/**/*.js *.js
    /pretti$ echo $?

    See what they did there. Previously if a pattern was not matched prettier returned 0 and now it returns 127, which for a Linux is just error.

    Conclusion and solution

    “Professionals have standards”

    When designing tools have Interoperability in mind. Do breaking changes, but release a version that warns people for the deprecation and for the breaking change they are about to experience. Like a simple print to console in version 1.99 (the one before the breaking change) that says “hey, this is deprecated and will be removed in 2.0. Please read here ‘link’ so that your clients don’t break, you don’t open issues on our github and you don’t write blog posts. Stay safe.”

  • kmitov 9:09 am on March 11, 2020 Permalink |
    Tags: awesome, , ,   

    They will leave you, if they tell you everything is fine – [Everyday Company Culture] 

    Culture is how we do stuff around here. Read more about the [Everyday Company Culture] series.

    Today’s resolution. TL;DR

    If team members tell you everything is fine, it’s like a sure sign they will leave you.

    Today’s case

    People leave your organization for different reasons. One pattern I’ve noticed, learned and observed through the years is that people leave when “everything is fine” and people stay when there is a “list of things that are wrong”. People stay for “something” to fight for, because “something” is not right. People don’t stay because “everything is awesome”.

    As a manager be careful when team members return a positive feedback. Of course you want a positive feedback and you want people to be happy. But this does not mean there are no things to work towards to. Get feedback constantly, list things that are still not OK and work towards improving and resolving them.

    Root cause

    “Everything is fine” could mean that people don’t care enough to point the problems.

    Full story

    A team member of our organization left us yesterday. He was a great guy with great potential. As a software product company we are working on developing frameworks and solutions and this requires a great set of skills. It is certainly not a regular software development job. We are the ones building the platforms and the frameworks and providing them to clients and other developers. My experience is that not many people could grasp the concepts, importance and rules when building things like a sustainable API. This guy did, but he left us yesterday as he wanted to explore a different career path. (yek, this is more corporate sounding that I am comfortable with, but you get the point)

    Anyway, this finally prompt me to write this article and get deeper into. I hope members in and out of our organization could benefit by identifying and approaching such cases. Looking even at my personal experience as I have left two companies in my career, I did left when everything was kind of ok.

    Feedback and retrospective is a must

    We do regular retrospectives and I try to get more formalized feedback from team members. This happens once every 1-2 months with a simple Trello card where everybody should answer a few simple questions like:

    1. What are we doing wrong
    2. What are we doing right
    3. What could we improve

    Team members answer these questions publicly or privately to their managers.

    We are also doing regular 1-on-1 discussions (because we are not doing meetings…) and talk about how our organization is doing. The means of receiving feedback could be different, but it is important to give and receive feedback regularly. Even on a daily basis. Of course, you don’t have to solve every issue over lunch, but you could take a note (literally take a note and write it down) if in a conversation someone is mentioning that they have a “problem with something”. After all your job is to address this.

    On these regular retrospectives I try to be the first to return feedback and be honest of where we are, what have we done and what we could improve.

    67 things we could improve – co-founder

    On one of this discussions we sat down with my co-founder and we started sharing all the things that we don’t like. We wrote them down. Every one of them. One of them was of course “we should make more money”. But the others 66 were basically not connected with money at all and were rather small things in the whole organization. So we were happy that we have a basics right and in the large picture we are ok and moving in the right direction. But there were 66 things we came up with in about an hour that we thing we should improve.

    Example – one of them was “more A/B testing” before taking decisions. Since then we have done about 15 different tests that help us learned more and we are doing more structured A/B testing. Yet still, if currently we have to list the things that we could improve “more A/B testing” would make it to the list as there are still some decisions that we make based on a “feeling, preference and common sense”, which could be correct, but are not based on data.

    Point is – there are still things we could improve and we want to improve and we want to stay for.

    ‘I am a problem’ – VP of Engineering

    I’ve constantly received feedback from our VP of Engineering. He is sharing it publicly to the whole team and is somewhere on the lines of “I think that the organization is great, but It seems that I am not doing enough and I am trying to change this,…”. Here again – other things are great, of course we could always get more clients, but it is “me that is not doing enough and I am working on fixing this”. There are few things better than hearing your VP of Engineering, that has the largest engineering experience than any other in the organization, come to the office and say “Yesterday I learned how we could do this thing x2 times faster”

    ‘Our code needs to improve’

    As a software company we are working on our code. In one of our latest products we have one of the most clean code that I’ve ever seen. We could deliver in minutes. Modularity is great. Concerns are separated. Almost no redundancy and coupling. Automatic tests for different modules run in seconds. It is just really fun.

    Yet I’ve constantly received feedback that “our code needs to improve”. Because there is always room for improvement. This tests that are running for 15 seconds could now run for 5. This class could be renamed to make it more clear. This method could be called with different params and refactored. And the code could be made even more beautiful. We have a backlog of about 81 things that are exactly this. Not features, but just things to improve and make even better. So we prioritize and work on them in order. As we work we would learn more and the backlog grows even further and that’s ok.

    Point is, there are things that we are working towards to in the code. The code is never fine.

    “Everything is OK” and why at least ONE thing is not OK.

    Compare the above three examples with an “Everything is fine” feedback. No, it is not fine. It can never be fine. You could be doing too much meetings. Probably you are. Or sending to much emails. Probably you are. You could have unclear responsibilities. You could have people on positions that are not appropriate for them.

    Again, the point is that even if everything else in your organization is fine internally, even if you are the greatest “leader of all times”, even when people are earning enough, there is one thing that is still not fine. This thing is the reason your organization exist and the reason you’ve gathered your team. In our case – “people get confused and feel a lot of frustration when they don’t have an easy to follow 3D assembly instructions available instantly on their device”. This is the reason we are developing our products. After all, you’ve gathered together as a team to tackle a problem and even if everything else is “OK”, it is still not OK that there are people feeling pain and in need of your medicine.

  • kmitov 7:47 am on February 21, 2020 Permalink |
    Tags: , ,   

    Feedback could come in any form, not just the one that makes it easy to accept it – [Everyday Company Culture] 

    Culture is how we do stuff around here. Read more about the [Everyday Company Culture] series.

    Today’s resolution. TL;DR

    Feedback from the team could be returned in any form, not only formally, not only verbally, not explicitly, but by the day to day mistakes that we make. Accept all kinds of feedback. Don’t be a “douchebag”.

    Today’s case

    There was a requirement for everybody to write the text “Result” as a first line in the comment of his/her work when marking a task as completed. People were following the rule, but writing “reuslt”, “results”, “Done:”, “Restult”, “Release:” and many others, but were not writing “Result”.

    Instead of pushing for everybody to use the right “Result” at the end we ended up with a list of possible “results” that team members could write as the first line of their result description. It turn out to be pretty funny to add new results and as of today this is the list of all the possible values, accepted by the platform.

    possible_results = ["result", 
      "result:", "results:", #These are added because of Ivan
      "blabla result", 
      "result blabla", 
      "Special Result Line", 
      "The Result:", 
      "Take this result Kiril, I hope you are having a great time",
      "Resutl", # this one is added because of Mihail
      "Restult", # this one is added because of Mihail
      "Ready:", # this one is added because of Mitaka
      "Ready", # this one is added because of Mitaka
      "Done:", # this one is added because of Aleks
      "Done", # This one is added because of Aleks

    These results are accepted in any form of case – upper and lower. We have a team member that submits his results as:

    TaKe ThIs ReSuLt KiRiL, i HoPe YoU aRe HaViNg A gReAt TiMe

    Which is arguably, very funny.

    Root cause

    Feedback was not accepted. 

    We as a team all accepted that we should have “Result” of the work and we should have a description what is actually the result. Generally the result is different from the goals of the task. The goal is “develop a feature”. But the result is “visit this URL to see the feature”.

    We were just making mistakes when marking the result and I was pushing for the use of the correct word which is:”Result”. Nobody returned an explicit, verbal feedback – “I think we should make the result with ‘Done:’, because I don’t like writing ‘Result:'”. Nobody said this. We all understood that there should be a rule and we should follow the rule. But we were just making mistakes.

    Full Story

    I was trying to establish a rule in the team – when a piece of “work” is completed you must provide a short description, URL link, commit, picture/video of the new feature. This makes it extremely easy to generate release notes that we make public to the client. Only rule was

    “When you submit your the description of the result the text must start with ‘Result’.

    Something like this will be enough


    We have implemented a new feature that shows a progress bar when downloading the assembly instruction.

    Here is how it looks like

    After the result is provided we use different internal tools and I could easily generate public client Release Notes for our products and platforms. Examples at: or

    Sounds easy. Only thing you have to do is start your description with “Result”, because other values could be “time track:”, “Code Review”, etc. It took me weeks before I finally realize that we should not be strict on the value “Result”. We should be strict on the behavior that everybody should write a result, but if you happen to make a mistake and write “resTult” – that should not be a problem. We got you on the platform end, accepting different input values for result. Does not matter how you call it, as long as it is there.

  • kmitov 6:34 am on February 21, 2020 Permalink |
    Tags: ,   

    Everyday Company Culture – what’s it about 

    Culture is how we do stuff around here. Every day there is a new challenge with communication, transparency, accountability, with what we value and what we think of the world (mainly inside of our organization).

    With the Everyday Company Culture series I am trying to look at specific cases, the root cause of the challenge and how we approach them. This approach is different form setting X high level, single word values that are understood differently by each member in organization. Example – transparency. It is easy to aim for a ‘transparency’ in an organization. It is difficult to properly communicate what is ‘transparency’. Same for ‘diversity’, ‘accountability’, ‘clarity in communication’, etc.

    My hope is that this series could bring more value inside of our organization and hopefully help other small and large teams work better.

    Check out the full series at

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc