Overview
Version control is the backbone of software development, establishing project management and teamwork. The changes in codes are, therefore, systematically documented by the tool over time, as Beckman et al. (2021) noted. Thus, the development of the Calculator and Jukebox Playlist applications is described in the report, concentrating on the significant changes, improvements, and lessons that were learned through the project. This report will also delve into version control, an essential aspect of exploring the complex terrain of software development, seeking perfection, and pursuing easy cooperation in the development of the apps.
Version Control Summary
Version control tools are the centre of software development and help set up and organize every aspect of complete software projects. According to Beckman et al. (2021), their general benefits include ensuring an entire file change history, monitoring the changes easily for the software, and helping developers find specific versions. Moreover, the possibility of going back to old versions positively impacts debugging efficiency and gives more chance for rollback. Further, Beckman et al. (2021) posit that version control supports multiple development paths running in parallel, as it is feasible to branch and merge them at any given time. This powerful system tracks evolution and improves teamwork and project quality.
Key to our development of the Calculator application was version control since it helped us manage the source code. As shown by Beckman et al. (2021), history change is a feature that enables developers to trace the development of the codebase. In other words, the tool’s functionality increased the debugging process’s efficiency and improved the application’s overall stability. On the other hand, it made collaboration so easy since we could work on individual features but made sure to maintain consistency in the project structure.
On the other hand, teamwork in developing the Jukebox Playlist app proved that version control is great for teamwork. According to Raibulet and Fontana (2018), distributed workflow allows for joint work on different parts of projects simultaneously, ensuring parallel software development, which proved adequate for our team’s productivity. Yet some difficulties still emerged with managing conflicts and fitting together divergent branches. This was to be reconciled with the benefit of the parallel development presented and the challenge of merging, which required scrupulous coordination.
Development
Pushing local repositories to remote shared repositories is critical in developing repository functionality. Sterman (2014) notes that developers can ensure the smooth running of the version control, collaboration, and backup of their changes in the codebase since remote repositories act as a central point where team members can access and review the codebase. Further, it improves the functions of the repository by supporting configuration and cloning. Configuration and cloning helped to have customized settings and easy copying of the repositories in different environments. According to Sterman (2014), cloning gives the ability to provide copies of the repository for a local experiment or development, and it is maintained that configuration adapts the repository behaviour.
Besides, essential to our development process was managing code evolution in both the Calculator and Jukebox Playlist applications. Gousios et al. (2015) explain that branching allows for the inception of parallel development efforts that can permit the developers to work on some features or fixes independently of each other in a manner that does not affect the primary codebase. However, conflicts were inevitable during the merger of branches, which had to be judiciously tackled using approaches like blaming to identify contributors and stashing to hold onto the changes for a while. Significantly, Gousios et al. (2015) assert that the need for approaches such as blaming to identify the contributors is because the responsibility is put on the conflicting changes to help in disputes or misunderstandings.
Also, when merging a branch, conflict can happen while the same lines of code are changed separately in two branches to be connected. This leads to an overlapping change whereby the version control system cannot self-determine, which varies to retain (Gousios et al. 2015). Thus, even though we had to take lots of care while using it so that it did not harm the continuity and integrity of the code, rebase allowed a cleaner and more linear history. Furthermore, the file status lifecycle management base was based on the staged, modified, and committed source file states. In the work of Gousios et al. (2015), the changes can be included in a selective way in the staging area, where the granularity and control over the commit contents are assured. After modification, the apps’ files were improved, indicating changes that should be staged for the next commit.
Improvements/Enhancements
The shared utility module that carried out input validation in the Calculator and Jukebox Playlists apps was developed majorly following a group code review session it received when it was used in the Calculator app for the first time. Zanjani et al. (2015) illustrate that during code review, peers point at possible enhancements, which imply a more modular and reusable structure that is, in turn, a valuable entity for other parts of the application. Having these results in the Jukebox Playlist app during its development, I was obliged to implement the utility module. As Zanjani et al. (2015) described, the shared input validation module improves the consistency of code between two applications, which is helpful for easier future maintenance and updates. Hence, applying this demonstrated how code reviews, through promoting teamwork and cross-application learning, resulted in the development of a reusable component that helped to make both the Calculator and Jukebox Playlist apps more efficient and consistent.
The feedback from the review was a guiding compass that significantly impacted the development work. Zanjani et al. (2015) suggest that implementation decisions are not only based on the need to respond to identified issues but also on a comprehensive assessment of the implications of feedback. As such, when feedback was not used, intentional decisions were made to preserve code consistency or reconcile competing needs. Equally, the decisions to maintain inevitable design trade-offs or decisions were made transparently, allowing the codebase’s evolution to align with aesthetic and functional considerations.
Addressing concerns raised during code reviews is a team effort in team-based projects. Zanjani et al. (2015) claim that regular communication channels, for instance, team meetings and dedicated forums, play a crucial role in addressing conflicting opinions. Notably, there were disagreements in developing the Jukebox Playlist app regarding the best way to implement a playlist sorting feature. However, open debates enabled an in-depth analysis of conflicting ideas, which resulted in a consensual solution that reconciled different positions. Equally, Zanjani et al. (2015) note that documentation of decisions and reasons reduces misunderstandings and guides future developments, which we also applied.
History and newsfeed tools became essential for tracking the progress of the apps’ development. According to Sedano et al. (2017), version history provides clarity, which enables the identification of significant milestones, while newsfeeds help track team members’ contributions and updates on the project. These tools promote transparency and teamwork by providing real-time data on the ever-changing nature of the codebase. Thus, they allowed the evolution of the code to be traced and the project’s development to be comprehended much more subtly. Besides, a thorough preparation before the code reviews mainly included a lot of unit testing and focusing on the code readability. Zanjani et al. (2015) claim that using unit tests guarantees the functional correctness of the implemented features while preventing regressions. Using consistent naming conventions and inline documentation may be helpful in code readability. Thus, these strategies simplified the review process and secured the codebase’s long-term maintainability.
Distribution and Deployment, and Troubleshooting Tactics and Strategies
The integration and deployment tools were central in developing the Calculator and Jukebox Playlist applications. A notable feature was the automated deployment pipeline that enabled continuous integration and delivery. According to Arachchi and Perera (2018), the automatic deployment pipeline involves a faster life of the software development process for the timely and effective release of new features and the provision of testing. This ensures changes made in software are automatically checked and delivered to users without the developers having to do everything manually. Arachchi and Perera (2018) posit that this aspect substantially reduces manual intervention, enabling quick and precise releases. For instance, in an occurrence where a patch for the bug in the division functionality of the Calculator application was giving wrong results in some cases, the deployment through this automated pipeline was flawless, causing the downtime only at the least and delivering a proper solution to end-users in a speedy manner.
The applications’ development involved context-specific workflow strategies for individual versus team development. On the one hand, individual projects flourished by supporting agile adjustments and fast feedback loops with the iterative approach. On the other hand, team projects, such as developing the Jukebox Playlist app, used a formal workflow such as Scrum. According to Kadenic et al. (2023), an organization using this method should incorporate daily sprint reviews and have outlined roles that use the different talents and viewpoints of the team members. The synchronized teamwork strengthened each other in problem-solving and expedited expedited milestone completion, proving its validity for using customized workflow in varied development scenarios.
The ability to adhere to best practice version control was crucial for ensuring that both applications were developed consistently and effectively. A version control tool was critical in developing the Calculator app to identify and resolve a problem attached to a critical bug introduced during a feature enhancement. Through the use of the version history, the team was able to identify the commit which caused the regression quickly. Sedano et al. (2017) posit that the return to previous commits for work on bugs in an isolated development environment allows for quick fixes without risk of developing the current developments. Similarly, version control tools were critical to solving one problem in the development of the Jukebox Playlist app, in that it had complex merge conflicts right at the merging of the main feature branch, which would have affected the stability of the project. According to Sedano et al. (2017), teams can resolve conflicts in changes by using the provided conflict resolution tools in version control and preserving the integrity of an app. This event is the role of version control made extremely prominent for managing complex conflicts, keeping codebases coherent, and enabling cooperation in team projects.
Lastly, regular rebasing proved to be an effective way of controlling versions in both the Calculator and Jukebox Playlist projects, which will be an indispensable instrument for the future. As suggested by German et al. (2016), when merging changes between one branch to another, a cleaner history of commits is made, reducing the mess of merge commits. As such, this simplified chronology helped to create a more understandable and chronological version of history. As German et al. (2016) point out, rebasing and other actions perfectly fit the promise to keep an organized, readable version of history in future software development projects, aiming towards efficiency and clarity. Its ability to maintain a project timeline highlighted its potential as a transformative technique to improve simple version control workflows.
Conclusion
In conclusion, versioning control practices discussed in the evolution of the applications Calculator and Jukebox Playlist are not just safeguards regarding systematic code changes but also an engine of streamlined cooperation and timely issue resolution. The incidents described, from the ethical handling of the source code for the Calculator app to the complex choreography of maintaining multiple versions of the Jukebox Playlist app as it is distributed from one team to another, admit no possibility of doubt. Thus, version control tools are indispensable in the development of applications.
References
Arachchi, S., & Perera, I. (2018). Continuous integration and continuous delivery pipeline automation for agile software project management. 2018 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon), 156–161. https://doi.org/10.1109/MERCon.2018.8421965
Beckman, M. D., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., Horton, N. J., Rundel, C. W., Sullivan, A. J., & Tackett, M. (2021). Implementing Version Control With Git and GitHub as a Learning Objective in Statistics and Data Science Courses. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education, 29(sup1), S132–S144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2020.1848485
German, D. M., Adams, B., & Hassan, A. E. (2016). Continuously mining distributed version control systems: An empirical study of how Linux uses Git. Empirical Software Engineering, 21(1), 260–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-014-9356-2
Gousios, G., Zaidman, A., Storey, M.-A., & Van Deursen, A. (2015). Work practices and challenges in pull-based development: The integrator’s perspective. 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, 1, 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2015.55
Kadenic, M. D., Koumaditis, K., & Junker-Jensen, L. (2023). Mastering ScrumScrum with a focus on team maturity and key components of ScrumScrum. Information and Software Technology, 153, 107079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2022.107079
Raibulet, C., & Fontana, F. A. (2018). Collaborative and teamwork software development in an undergraduate software engineering course. Journal of Systems and Software, 144, 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.07.010
Sedano, T., Ralph, P., & Péraire, C. (2017). Software development waste. 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2017.20
Sterman, L. (2014). Institutional Repositories: An Analysis of Trends and a Proposed Collaborative Future. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21(3–4), 360–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2014.943919
Zanjani, M. B., Kagdi, H., & Bird, C. (2015). Automatically recommending peer reviewers in modern code review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 42(6), 530–543. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2015.2500238
write