The most important SDE skill: Ownership

”Without ownership, there can be no leadership." -

This post is about one of the most important leadership skills you can find: Ownership. I see it as a root of all other leadership skills. If you don't feel being an owner, you often don't feel neither responsibility, nor interest or empowerment to bring changes.

What is Ownership

Ownership is “the act, state, or right of possession something.” You can own computer, car or house. And as such, you feel an ownership to those things: you can install new software to you computer, clean it up, fight viruses, upgrade it etc. Same story is with car and house: you feel and are empowered to make changes and in your interest to make changes for better.

“Ownership is about getting something done no matter what. ” -

There is also another definition of ownership. You take ownership when you feel responsibility for the results of your work: finishing up project, taking care of found issues, making future improvements. As an owner, I will get this project done, I will make sure it is tested and properly working, I will make sure that it delivers what my customers expects, and I will make sure that found issues will be resolved.

Ownership in Software Development

Actually, there is nothing special about being owner in software development. Development process is quite well defined: there are phases for gathering requirements, designing and planning, coding and testing, bug fixing and launching. List of artifacts is also well defined: source code, documentation, tests, metrics, list of issues and etc.

Group Ownership

Group ownership is also a shared ownership. Multiple software engineers own codebase, projects and features, specific modules or components. Usually, engineers in a team will have different level of ownership skills:

  • some would just do the work and won’t care much of the result,
  • some would focus on finishing single task successfully and wouldn’t care much of a whole picture
  • others would care mostly about their own feature/component and wouldn’t care of a whole projects
  • others go beyond and focus their attention on a whole project.

The higher ownership skills, the larger area they normally cover. I would call it an “ownership scale”.

Off topic: Ownership and Career Growth

Interesting that you can see a clear match between ownership scale and engineer’s position: junior software engineers are barely understand what is happening and focus on finishing up single task; mid-level engineers are focused on a codebase, features that they work on and, maybe, a few more aspects; senior engineers go beyond that and focus on a whole product or larger part of it.

Ownership level tells what are you focusing on as part of your everyday job and how how successfully you will be able to deliver results.

And based on this, I make a statement that Ownership skill should be an important part of promotion evaluation, same as technical skills are.

Working in a team is always harder than working on your own. Dealing with more people that are owners of the product (just like you) is even harder.

Group ownership requires to take into consideration thoughts and ideas of other owners. There is no a simple way to make a decision now. But luckily you get more than just a headache. Discussion with other owners can help find both consensus and a better way. It is because all owners are focused on improving things and successful delivery, not on own ego satisfaction.

The strategy of “my ownership is better than your ownership” is a lose-lose strategy. Such behavior will kill or suppress ownership attitude in others. As an owner who care about the product, searching for a path to success, you lose like minded people who could help you here. Demotivated ownership might even cause an opposite to ownership behavior. Real owner would grow other owners around, b/c in a team work this is the most effective way to delivery successful product.


Here I’m going to provide a list of different behaviors and try to give my opinion on ownership level.

  • Mark finally finished the project he didn’t like much. And now he is not eager to pick up resolving found issues. I think you would agree with me, if I would say that Mark’s ownership level is not very high. First of all, Mark didn’t like the project and now attempts to skip working on issues that are result of his previous work.
  • Hanna finished working on the project that she was assigned. She didn’t want to work on this project, but business really wanted it. But Hanna took the project and work it through and delivered successfully. Now business loves Hanna and has a new project for her. This is a good example of ownership. Hanna took the project she didn’t want at first, but liked eventually and could deliver it successfully.
  • John was asked to help with task for project X. John was really helpful and could finish task successfully. He also found a fixed a few issues he had found, worked with Sarah to develop analytics module faster. Project X was released on time with John’s help. This is a great example of ownership. John was just asked to help with a task. Instead, he take a responsibility to fix issues and help Sarah with her work on the project. Don’t be like Mark, be like John.
  • Lisa works only on the tasks that she was assigned. She doesn’t spend much time learning to do her work better. Lisa also doesn’t spend time to see how she could improve the project. Most of the time she spends on tasks added by others. Whenever she finishes with task, she moves next without a necessary testing. I’m not sure that I see any ownership here. Lisa is not owner: she doesn’t care about results and quality of her work.


In todays world, having a great technical skills is only one important part that makes a successful software engineer. But there is more than it. Ownership skill is another important part. It is important for engineer to get projects done successfully, improve team, processes and software.

If, after so many years improving technically, you still find you need to get better, then switch your focus to improving your Ownership skills.

Iterate Quickly

That's what others recommend

Recently I've being reading 2 different texts, and they both mentioned how high-velocity iterations are important and better than high-quality iterations.

First one, is article by Jeff Atwood, where author writes about “Boyd’s Law of Iteration”. Article is quite interesting. It introduces us into the history behind the Boyd's law of iteration. Article as well emphasizes the law itself: speed of iteration beats quality of iteration.

Second one, is latest annual later by Jeff Bezos to shareholders. In section "High-Velocity Decision Making", author also emphasizes superiority of high-velocity decisions over high-quality decisions. Interesting that Jeff Bezos finds that 70% of useful information is usually enough to make a decision. Waiting for another 20% or 30% of data might take too much time, and might be not as much beneficial.

In both cases, authors notice that making quick decisions and iterating fast can only work well if there is enough information available originally. And feedback is used to correct the course continuously during quick iterations.

In book The 5 Elements of Effective Thinking, authors also emphasize the importance to start fast. In section dedicated to making mistakes, authors encourage to not be afraid to start with mistake (if you don't know where to start), but continuously iterate incorporating received feedback and new knowledge.

Iterate Quickly in Software Development

What does it mean to iterate quickly in software development. I'm going to throw a few ideas, even though they are quite obvious:
  1. Plan smaller and deliverables for each milestone:
    • define list of milestones
    • know deliverables for each milestone
    • plan time to receive and incorporate received feedback
    • follow the feedback, not the original plan: course-correcting is the right way to go.
  2. Start testing faster:
    • write unit tests
    • write functional and integration tests
    • use staging for deploying latest versions
  3. Deliver features faster:
    • if can't deliver a complete feature, then deliver part of it
    • if can't deliver to all customers, then deliver to some only, like internal or beta users
  4. Sprint should take less time:
    • 1 month sprint is too slow in most cases
    • don't forget to make sprint retrospectives
  5. Collect feedback from users continuously.

Why I am Not Sure that TDD is the Only Right Thing

Let's say you have a project to deliver feature XYZ. After analysis, design and planning, you came up with a term of 2 months: 2 weeks for scoping a work, 4 weeks for coding and 2 weeks for testing. Sounds great.

As anything else, testing has multiple perspectives. The most obvious one is verifying results of your work and keeping quality under control. The other one, less obvious, is minimizing the risks caused by numerous bugs. Third one is related to previous two: minimizing the cost of software development and support. The earlier you test, the easier it is to fix and less bugs you have later.

Lets look at two possible scenarios:

Scenario 1: No unit tests

So you don't believe in unit tests or you just don't have a time to write them. You'll better test everything manually during 2 weeks of test phase.

You have finished with your code, and now it is time to wire everything up and start testing. Oops. You found a small bug, where you just had forgotten to add "!" in your if statement. Quick fix. Easy peasy. You make a change. Your favorite build tool picks your last commit and makes a new build. After 10 minutes you have a binary. Another 5-10 minutes and you have it deployed and ready for testing.

You test it again, and... Oops. You found a small bug. Looks like you actually need to call that method first, otherwise you get NPE. Damn. What a stupid mistake?! Quick fix. Easy peasy. You make a change. Your favorite build tool picks you last commit and makes a new build. After 10 minutes you have a binary.

You test it again, and... Oops. You found a small bug. Well, I guess you see where I'm heading. 2 small stupid bugs, you already spent 1 hour. You have only 2 weeks, but you can’t even get it working for happy case, don’t mention for all other dozens of test cases.

And nothing prevents you from regressions during bug fixing.

You probably see now, what is wrong with this scenario. You think you've saved time during coding, but actually you didn't.


Unit tests are a convenient way to spread testing work throughout development phase. So you'd need to do less during testing phase, where fixing bug is already an expensive thing.

I rarely find bugs when I write unit tests. Maybe 1 in 20 tests that I had actually found and fixed a bug. But, man, this is so fast to fix a problem at this time. Everything is locally on my machine in my IDE. I don’t need to build and deploy change, neither others are blocked by me. Found, fixed, done! A tad of time here, saves hours later!

Scenario 2: Write unit tests during coding

So by now you've decided to try out writing unit tests. Maybe this will help to avoid the hell you've had during Scenario 1. You start writing unit tests for most of the code you produce. It has been really hard at first, but later became easier. You use mocking a lot and thus unit testing becomes almost painless. Actually, you can't imagine now how to write new code without tests, but time to time you skip writing tests for less important parts.

You've finished you coding by now, and ready to start testing. And you find that there are not that much bugs now. And when you find a bug, you know how quickly to fix it and verify with unit tests. Thus, you don't need to go through tedious fix-build-deploy-verify cycle as you used to do during Scenario 1.


As result, you spend more time during coding phase, as you need to write unit tests. You however spend less time during testing phase, as you can iterate bug-fixing faster.

Of course, you still spend a tad more time than planned: but it is because you need to learn how to estimate better!


TDD vs Plan Ahead

Assume we have 3 approaches:
  1. you follow TDD and write tests first, and then write code to make your tests pass eventually
  2. you take a paper or text file, and you plan ahead by writing a list of test cases that need to be converted to automated test suites; then you code and write test cases during coding or afterwards
  3. you don't plan what test cases you have, you just write a code and cover it sporadically with unit tests
It is probably clear that 3rd approach is the lacking one here. You start writing code without defining what are your expectations. You don't have a plan of what needs to be tested. As result, it is easy to miss many important test cases.

1st and 2nd approaches sound very similar, as they both have the same goal: know and plan what you're going to do before you start coding.

However, 1st approach forces you to build constraints for you and your code before you start coding. Of course, you can refactor those later, again and again. While 2nd approach gives you a flexibility to write the code and refactor it until it fits your vision. You can now create tests during or after you've finished with piece of code.

Both 1st and 2nd approach require self-discipline, but in different ways. TDD needs a discipline to start and keep to using it. 2nd approach needs a discipline to convert test cases on paper to unit tests in code.

Not obvious difference between 1st and 2nd approaches is completeness: it is easy to miss something when you write a code. If you start defining a list of test cases on paper, it is always easier to identify completed list.


Here are some bullet points as a summary from this post:
  • writing unit and functional tests is important to keep quality under control, save time and money
  • it is never too late to write tests for the code, but now is better than later
  • thus, write tests during coding and before commit and code review
  • writing tests before code does not make things cheaper or better, unless you don't have a discipline to cover functionality with tests
  • we need to work on improving our estimation skills.

Structured Aggregated Log


Structured logging is an approach to logging where information is written in a structured form, that later could be read and parsed by machine with minimum efforts. In many cases, it means that immediate readability of the log is reduced, but with a bit of efforts it could have an opposite effect (we’ll see it a bit later).

Such different Structured Logging

This structure can be anything: from comma separate list of values to complex JSON/XML documents.

Structured logging’s another important difference is focusing on logging larger number of information in batches.

For example, you have an application that reads data and passes those through a chain of rules. Each rule can either vote to execute some specific action over those data later or not.

There are a few approached to logging data here. Lets review them.

Unstructured log line. Each class writes a log line with information it currently contains. There is no common structure for log printed by each rule. Thus easy to notice a different ways of saying the same. In logs below, one rule says ‘Voting for action’ while another says ‘action is picked’. Some rules print important information and others don’t. Such logs can be parsed by human but not always by computer.

Structured log line. This is better. At least same approach is used for logging all information. Yes, it is not always easy to read by human, but it is in a state where both human and computer can read and interpret those logs.

Structured aggregated log line. Simple here: you gather all the “execution” data and then output them at the end in a single structured log line. In this case it is preferable to use JSON or XML to structure the information. CSV most probably won’t be the best option here, especially because it doesn’t support nested structures. Pros: you have a single line with all data. Cons: you need to keep those data until final log line is generated and also it is hard to read those without practice or a formatting tool.

Which one is my favorite? – The last one!

Why? – Because it can hold important information in a single line and save me from grepping and parsing multiple log lines.

Structured Aggregated Log Line

For structure aggregated log, there is a little help from most of logging frameworks. So this functionality needs to be built manually.

Main components of structured aggregated log are aggregated log collector, data formatter and logging framework to output.


Lets get deeply into pros and cons of structured aggregated log line.

First start with good things:

  1. You have all information aggregated into single log line
  2. When using JSON or XML, you could benefit from auto-formatting tools
  3. Even better for program to parse and read data from such log line
  4. Better control on output data:
    1. Customize output strategies
    2. De-duplicate data (printing same thing once)
    3. Structure data in usable way that simplifies understanding
  5. De-duplicating log metadata: skip printing duplicate date/time, level and source of logs etc.

There are of course bad things:

  1. Probably is not supported by “your favorite” logging library. So need to be implemented manually
  2. Need to store aggregated data, and also building a JSON/XML document to print
  3. Average log lines become huge and hard to parse by human (however auto-formatting tools help a lot)
  4. Logger should support printing partially populated aggregated data (more on this below.)

I’m going to deep dive into some items mentioned above to explain in details and, if possible, with examples.


This is simple. You found a log line, copied it into auto-formatting tool, pressed the button and you have a well formatted and easier to understand log:


Customized output strategies

This one is quite important. As you have aggregated data and you need to generate your log line, it becomes similar to how you generate a “view” based on “model” in MVC pattern.

You can do many useful things now:

  • generate JSON log line, or XML
  • generate short log line with the most important information for successful use
  • or generate a long log line full of all aggregated data in case error or exception happened
  • filter out unimportant and don’t print them into output log
  • etc.

De-duplicating data

Lets compare examples of unstructured/structured log lines:

They both have a date/time and log level and request id for every log line. We get rid of this duplicate data if we print all data in single line.

But that’s not all. In both use cases, TrafficLightIsGreenRule and TrafficLightIsRedRule print traffic light status. Those are independent rules, and traffic light is important for both of them so they both print it. However, in structured aggregated log line, we print traffic light status only once.

Handling errors

Errors happen. So might happen one before you’ve aggregated all the data and printed them into log. How to deal with this? The most important here is to not lose data aggregated for logging: those need to be printed in any case even though they aren’t complete. Those would be invaluable source of information during error investigation.

Often it is possible and recommendable to print exhaustive data into an aggregated log.

Or alternative would be to collect error message and stack trace into the aggregated log data:


As mentioned before, one of the strong benefits of structured aggregated log line is presence of important data in a single line. And this line is in the format that easily understood by machine.

This allows to read data out from the log and do various manipulations. Like generating a better way to present and work with data.

I tried to imagine a way I could get a JSON log line, parse out data from it and convert into readable HTML document, that gives me a better view of data. For sure, this is not very helpful with mine trivial example. But for a larger logs this is more beneficial.


Creating a simple tool where you can paste a log line and get such presentation of data wouldn’t be a big task. But would help to decrease a level of operational load.

Jenkins Pipeline


I believe in simplicity. It means I think things should be simple to work with.
It doesn't mean that it always should be simple inside. It could be complex, sometimes very complex.

At the same time, I distinguish two types of complexity:
  1. complexity caused by indirect and non-obvious relationships between components,
  2. complexity caused by mess within components itself and messy relationships between them
First one means product could be implemented in a very smart way, built on large number of implicit assumptions, often non-obvious.

Second one means product's complexity is exaggerated by very confusing, illogical and messed up relationships between components. Unlike the first one, relationships exists, but they make no sense not because they are so over-smartly designed, but because they are spaghetti-like.

Often those two types could be met together in same product. Hope you'd never had a chance to deal with such.

The way to fix complexity type #1 is to remove implicit assumptions by adding smaller components with visible relationships.

However, to fix complexity type #2, you need to understand it deeply. What if thing is complicated b/c you can't understand it yet at this moment? To be able to answer this question, I always start with research. And my research has some kind of diagram. I believe that visualization is the best way to tackle complexity. At least it always works well for me.

Simply put, visualization is one of the best ways to simplify hard and complex things. Even if this is a very basic diagram, it is still better than nothing. Sometimes, it requires a time to find a correct form of visualization within correct level of abstraction, but once you did it, you are half done.

Continuous Deployment

And this post is about visualization; and how it can help to combine parts into a single simple picture. And more specifically, it is about how visualization can help simplifying continuous delivery.

Continuous delivery is a process of getting you product from source code and into production. It usually happens through a pipeline of jobs: first job is compiling source code and building artifacts, then goes integration testing , deploying to staging environment, and eventually to production. For example, in Jenkins job is usually created for each of these steps, where each job triggers next one once it's finished successfully. Fore example, there would be jobs like 'Build XYZ,' 'Test XYZ,' 'Deploy XYZ to Staging,' 'Deploy XYZ to 1-box' and 'Deploy XYZ to Production'.

Default Jenkins View would present those jobs as a list, with no visible relationships between those. But there are relationships between them. And actually all those jobs are here for the single most important goal: get new version into production for the customers! So relationships play important role, which is hidden from us as users.

You might not even feel it immediately, but this presentation of jobs list brings a complexity. There is a sense behind those jobs, but it is normally hidden from viewer, unless one ready to spend time to understand how things work.

Pipelines in Jenkins

But good thing is Jenkins already allows you to remove this complexity. And it's via visualization of the pipeline of jobs you've created.

This support is brought by "Build Pipeline Plugin". This plugin adds a new "View" type called "Build Pipeline View".

In a next step you would need to pick your first job in the pipeline.

Then pipeline would be created based on jobs dependencies: this pipeline will contain jobs that would be triggered by first job, and also jobs which are triggered by that jobs and so on.

And now once someone makes a change into XYZ source, a new job for "Build XYZ" would be triggered. Once this job is finished successfully, it will trigger "Text XYZ" and so on. As you see no functionality change happened here, but with pipelines it is possible to visualize both dependencies between those jobs and what is a current state of the CD process.

That makes things so simple to work with. You can understand build structure and current state with a single glance.

More to that, Jenkins 2.0 comes with built it support for pipelines.

Blue Ocean

I'd also like to mention the initiative called "Blue Ocean" which sets a goal to build a better visualization of pipelines in Jenkins. I'd be happy to see it in live one day.

Other Products

There are bunch of other products that would help you to create build / deployment pipeline:
  1. AWS CodePipeline -
  2. Concoure CI -
  3. Bitbucket Pipelines -