At LMAX we value simplicity very highly and since most of the UI we need for the exchange is fairly straight forward settings and reports we’ve historically kept away from JavaScript frameworks. Instead we’ve stuck with jQuery and bootstrap along with some very simple common utilities and patterns we’ve built ourselves. Mostly this has worked very well for us.

Sometimes though we have more complex UIs where things dynamically change or state is more complex. In those cases things start to breakdown and get very messy. The simplicity of our libraries winds up causing complexity in our code instead of avoiding it. We needed something better.

With Promise/A+ spreading through the world of JavaScript at a rapid pace, there’s one little detail that makes them very hard to unit test: any chained actions (via .then()) are only called when the execution stack contains only platform code. That’s a good thing in the real world but it makes unit testing much more complex because resolving a promise isn’t enough – you also need to empty the execution stack.

I’ve been gradually tidying up the build process for UI stuff at LMAX. We had been using a mix of requires and browserify – both pretty sub-optimally configured. Obviously when you have too many ways of doing things the answer is to introduce another new way so I’ve converted everything over to webpack.

Webpack is most often used as part of a node or gulp/grunt build process but our overall build process is controlled by Buck so I’ve had to work it into that setup. I was also keen to minimise the amount of code that had to be changed to support the new build process.

Buck is a weird but very fast build tool that happens to be rather opaque about where it actually puts the things you build with it. They wind up somewhere under the buck-out folder but there’s no guarantee where and everything under there is considered buck’s private little scratch pad.

So how do you get build results out so they can be used? For things with built-in support like Java libraries you can use ‘buck publish’ to push them out to a repo but that doesn’t work for things you’ve built with a custom genrule. In those cases you could use an additional genrule build target to actually publish but it would only run when one of it’s dependencies have changed. Sometimes that’s an excellent feature but it’s not always what you want.

Symlinks have been causing me grief lately.  Our build tool, buck, loves creating symlinks but publishes corrupt cache artefacts for any build rule that includes a symlink amongst it’s output.

We also wind up calling out to npm to manage JavaScript dependencies and it has an annoying (for us) habit of resolving symlinks when processing files and then failing to find required libraries because the node_modules folder was back where the symlink was, not with the original file. Mostly this problem is caused by buck creating so many symlinks.

I have three Benq GW2765 monitors which periodically report “No Signal Detected” for DisplayPort even when the computer it’s attached to recognises the monitor is present (displaying it in the monitors/displays list etc). Changing  the DisplayPort cable or plugging it into a different computer doesn’t help (I tried with both Mac OS X and Linux/Fedora machines), but HDMI and D-Sub connections work perfectly (but can’t support the full screen resolution). I can even disconnect a cable from a working monitor, plug it into a non-working monitor and it will continue to complain about no signal, but plug the cable back into the working monitor and it carries on working fine.

After any major Fedora upgrade my system loses the proprietary nvidia drivers that make X actually work (I’ve never successfully gotten the nouveau drivers to handle my card and multi-monitor setup) so the system reboots and simply presents an “oops, something went wrong” screen.

The issue seems to be that the nvidia driver doesn’t recompile for the new kernel, despite the fact that I’m using akmod packages which should in theory automatically recompile for new kernels.

One reason that automated UI tests can be unreliable is that they tend to be sensitive to what else is on screen at the time and even things like the current screen size. Developers running the tests locally also find it annoying to have windows opening and closing on their machine while the test runs and are unable to do anything else because their clicking might interfere with the test.

When an automated UI test fails, it can be hard to tell exactly what went wrong just from the failure message. The failure message typically just says that some element the test was looking for wasn’t found, but it doesn’t tell you what was there.  Was there an error message displayed instead? Was the operation still executing? Did something completely unexpected happen instead?

To answer those questions our DSL automatically captures a screenshot when any UI operation fails and we include a link to it in the failure message. That way when someone reviews the test result they can see exactly what was on screen which typically makes it straight forward to identify what went wrong and fix it.

So I can find this again easily in the future, to avoid introducing merge commits git pull –rebase is a great idea and you can make it the default behaviour with:

git config --global pull.rebase true

Found on Coderwall which has some further details.

I’ve recently started a little side project to create a java implementation of a CommonJS compiler: commonjs-java which is available on github under the Apache 2 license. It’s output is targeted at browsers, bundling together all the dependencies into one javascript file.

There are plenty of utilities that can do that for you on the command line or as part of a build process (e.g. browserify) and in most cases you should stick with them, but I had a couple of requirements that drove me to want a Java implementation:

Once an application goes live, it is absolutely essential that any future changes are able to be work with the existing data in production, typically by migrating it as changes are required. That existing data and the migrations applied to it are often the riskiest and least tested functions in the system. Mistakes in a migration will at best cause a multi-hour outage while backups are restored and more likely will subtly corrupt data, producing incorrect results that may go unnoticed for long periods making it impossible to roll back. At LMAX we reduce that risk by running compatibility tests.