Good practices

Australia
Canada
Germany
Netherlands
New Zealand
South Africa
United Kingdom
United States
World

This section comprises sections that focus on the technical and development aspects of the RSEs’ work. They aim to understand good practices in developing software.

We chose two broad measures to provide an insight into sustainability: the bus factor and technical hand over planning.

The bus factor is a measure of the number of developers who understand a specific software project and could, with only a cursory review of the project, maintain or extend the code. A project with a bus factor of 1 is completely reliant on only one developer. If this developer finds new employment, becomes ill or is hit by the titular bus, then the project will fail. A high bus factor provides some confidence that the project can be sustained even if a developer leaves.
A technical hand over plan is used to introduce a new developer to a software project. These plans cover basic information, such as the license and location of the software, a repository, a description of the software architecture, a summary of development plans and any other information that a new developer would need to understand the software. A project that has written (and maintained) a technical hand over plan can withstand the departure of a developer, even a key developer, significantly better than one without such a plan.

Developing software requires a set of good practices to ensure the quality of the subsequent analysis as well as the robustness of the developed software, to name a few of important aspects. We wanted to see if the implementation of some simple but essential good practices were a reality beside the bus factor and technical hand over planning.

When developing software, version control and testing can be seen as tool to enhance the quality of the developed software, especially considering the importance of code review and sharing in public funded places such as academia.

For testing, we asked the participants to choose any of the following testing methods:

Automated testing with continuous integration
Test engineers conduct testing
Developers conduct own testing
No formal testing but users provide feedback
No formal testing

Test engineers conducting testing is the most robust testing method but may not be possible in smaller projects while no formal testing should not occur in any ideal scenario, regardless of the size of the project.

We also asked the participants if they use any version control tools through a list of choice. And finally we asked them which repository they are currently using for their most important project.

Australia

Bus factor

Bus factor for Australia	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
1	15	48.39	68.18	-19.79
2	10	32.26	18.18	14.08
3	4	12.9	5.68	7.22
5	1	3.23	3.41	-0.18
10	1	3.23	nan	nan

Use of version control for Australia	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
Git	30	93.75	81.82	11.93
None	1	3.12	2.02	1.1
CVS	0	0	7.07	-7.07
SVN	0	0	20.2	-20.2
Mercurial	0	0	4.04	-4.04

Testing strategies for Australia	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
No formal testing	3	9.38	12.12	-2.75
No formal testing but users provide feedback	9	28.12	33.33	-5.21
The developers do their own testing	20	62.5	73.74	-11.24
Test engineers conduct testing	3	9.38	4.04	5.33
Automated testing with continuous integration	15	46.88	0	46.88
Don’t know	nan	nan	nan	nan

Testing strategies for Canada	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
No formal testing	1	9.09	0	9.09
No formal testing but users provide feedback	2	18.18	9.09	9.09
The developers do their own testing	7	63.64	81.82	-18.18
Test engineers conduct testing	1	9.09	9.09	0
Automated testing with continuous integration	8	72.73	0	72.73
Don’t know	nan	nan	nan	nan

Bus factor for Germany	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
0	11	5.09	5.76	-0.67
1	125	57.87	57.29	0.58
1.5	2	0.93	0.68	0.25
2	51	23.61	26.44	-2.83
3	8	3.7	5.76	-2.06
3.5	1	0.46	nan	nan
4	4	1.85	1.02	0.83
5	7	3.24	1.02	2.22
8	1	0.46	nan	nan
10	3	1.39	nan	nan
18	1	0.46	nan	nan
20	1	0.46	nan	nan
1e+10	1	0.46	nan	nan

Use of version control for Germany	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
Git	208	80.62	78.98	1.64
SVN	19	7.36	28.23	-20.86
None	9	3.49	6.61	-3.12
Mercurial	2	0.78	4.5	-3.73
CVS	1	0.39	3.9	-3.52

Testing strategies for Germany	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
No formal testing	30	11.63	14.11	-2.49
No formal testing but users provide feedback	64	24.81	34.83	-10.03
The developers do their own testing	155	60.08	77.18	-17.1
Test engineers conduct testing	6	2.33	4.2	-1.88
Automated testing with continuous integration	128	49.61	0	49.61
Don’t know	2	0.78	0	0.78

Bus factor for Netherlands	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
1	33	56.9	52.94	3.96
1.3	1	1.72	nan	nan
1.5	1	1.72	nan	nan
2	18	31.03	33.33	-2.3
3	3	5.17	7.84	-2.67
4	1	1.72	1.96	-0.24
10	1	1.72	3.92	-2.2

Use of version control for Netherlands	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
Git	56	84.85	90.74	-5.89
SVN	7	10.61	24.07	-13.47
CVS	1	1.52	1.85	-0.34
None	1	1.52	0	1.52
Mercurial	0	0	5.56	-5.56

Testing strategies for Netherlands	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
No formal testing	11	16.67	11.11	5.56
No formal testing but users provide feedback	18	27.27	42.59	-15.32
The developers do their own testing	40	60.61	77.78	-17.17
Test engineers conduct testing	2	3.03	1.85	1.18
Automated testing with continuous integration	31	46.97	0	46.97
Don’t know	1	1.52	0	1.52

Bus factor for New Zealand	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
0	4	15.38	nan	nan
1	13	50	67.65	-17.65
2	5	19.23	17.65	1.58
3	1	3.85	8.82	-4.98
5	2	7.69	2.94	4.75
6	1	3.85	nan	nan

Presence of transition plan for Australia	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
Yes	8	25.81	10.23	15.58
No	23	74.19	89.77	-15.58

Presence of transition plan for Germany	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
Yes	22	10.14	16.22	-6.08
No	195	89.86	83.78	6.08

Presence of transition plan for Netherlands	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
Yes	7	12.07	19.61	-7.54
No	51	87.93	80.39	7.54

Bus factor for United Kingdom	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
0	2	1.32	2.34	-1.02
1	72	47.37	38.32	9.05
2	42	27.63	35.98	-8.35
3	23	15.13	9.81	5.32
4	8	5.26	6.54	-1.28
5	2	1.32	1.87	-0.55
6	1	0.66	1.4	-0.74
20	1	0.66	nan	nan
100	1	0.66	nan	nan

Use of version control for New Zealand	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
Git	25	89.29	89.19	0.1
SVN	3	10.71	24.32	-13.61
None	1	3.57	0	3.57
Mercurial	0	0	2.7	-2.7

Testing strategies for South Africa	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
No formal testing	1	50	13.04	36.96
No formal testing but users provide feedback	2	100	47.83	52.17
The developers do their own testing	2	100	60.87	39.13
Test engineers conduct testing	0	0	4.35	-4.35
Automated testing with continuous integration	nan	nan	nan	nan
Don’t know	nan	nan	nan	nan

Use of version control for United Kingdom	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
Git	149	85.14	84.32	0.82
SVN	14	8	22.46	-14.46
Mercurial	3	1.71	9.75	-8.03
None	2	1.14	1.69	-0.55
CVS	0	0	4.66	-4.66

Testing strategies for United Kingdom	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
No formal testing	20	11.43	7.63	3.8
No formal testing but users provide feedback	35	20	22.46	-2.46
The developers do their own testing	116	66.29	81.36	-15.07
Test engineers conduct testing	6	3.43	2.97	0.46
Automated testing with continuous integration	100	57.14	0	57.14
Don’t know	1	0.57	0	0.57

Bus factor for United States	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
1	63	44.06	52.9	-8.84
1.5	2	1.4	nan	nan
2	49	34.27	28.26	6
3	17	11.89	9.42	2.47
4	4	2.8	5.8	-3
5	6	4.2	0.72	3.47
7	1	0.7	0.72	-0.03
10	1	0.7	nan	nan

Use of version control for United States	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
Git	136	85	91.16	-6.16
SVN	8	5	14.97	-9.97
CVS	4	2.5	6.12	-3.62
None	4	2.5	3.4	-0.9
Mercurial	2	1.25	4.08	-2.83

Testing strategies for United States	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
No formal testing	19	11.88	6.8	5.07
No formal testing but users provide feedback	37	23.12	29.25	-6.13
The developers do their own testing	102	63.75	85.03	-21.28
Test engineers conduct testing	8	5	10.88	-5.88
Automated testing with continuous integration	96	60	0	60
Don’t know	2	1.25	0	1.25

Bus factor for World	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
-1	1	0.12	nan	nan
0	31	3.71	3.51	0.2
1	441	52.81	52.83	-0.02
1.3	1	0.12	nan	nan
1.5	5	0.6	0.23	0.37
2	221	26.47	28.12	-1.65
3	70	8.38	8.05	0.33
3.5	1	0.12	nan	nan
4	18	2.16	3.29	-1.13
5	21	2.51	1.47	1.04
6	4	0.48	0.68	-0.2
7	1	0.12	0.45	-0.33
8	2	0.24	0.11	0.13
10	8	0.96	0.34	0.62
18	1	0.12	nan	nan
20	2	0.24	0.11	0.13
50	2	0.24	0.11	0.13
100	2	0.24	nan	nan
1000	1	0.12	nan	nan
1e+10	1	0.12	nan	nan
1e+20	1	0.12	nan	nan

Use of version control for World	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
Git	814	81.64	82.81	-1.17
SVN	70	7.02	22.41	-15.39
None	30	3.01	3.82	-0.81
Mercurial	10	1	5.53	-4.52
CVS	9	0.9	4.12	-3.22

Testing strategies for World	Count	Percentage	Percentage in 2018	Difference with previous year
No formal testing	111	11.13	10.85	0.28
No formal testing but users provide feedback	238	23.87	31.06	-7.18
The developers do their own testing	599	60.08	77.99	-17.91
Test engineers conduct testing	34	3.41	4.82	-1.41
Automated testing with continuous integration	502	50.35	0	50.35
Don’t know	10	1	0	1

Good practices

Australia

Bus factor

Presence of transition plan

Use of version control

Testing strategies

Repository

Canada

Bus factor

Presence of transition plan

Use of version control

Testing strategies

Repository

Germany

Bus factor

Presence of transition plan

Use of version control

Testing strategies

Repository

Netherlands

Bus factor

Presence of transition plan

Use of version control

Testing strategies

Repository

New Zealand

Bus factor

Presence of transition plan

Use of version control

Testing strategies

Repository

South Africa

Bus factor

Presence of transition plan

Use of version control

Testing strategies

Repository

United Kingdom

Bus factor

Presence of transition plan

Use of version control

Testing strategies

Repository

United States

Bus factor

Presence of transition plan

Use of version control

Testing strategies

Repository

World

Bus factor

Presence of transition plan

Use of version control

Testing strategies

Repository