Badger Academy - Week 10

Badger Time Retro

This week Joe introduced us to the concept of Agile Retrospectives. This is an opportunity to look back at the project so far and review how everything is going. What do we want to start doing? Continue doing more of? Stop doing? It’s a good way of opening up communication about what we think we need to improve on, and come up with specific ways this can be achieved.

We decided that the easiest way of tracking this was by Trello board. We’ve got 4 columns:

- To improve
- Improving/Monitor
- Improved
- N/A - (this is for if we later decide that a card is no longer relevant, but doesn’t fit in the improved column)

We created a card for each thing we want to improve on, and labelled it STOP, START or CONTINUE. These were all placed in the 'To improve' column. We then went through them all and discussed how they could be implemented, or if any of them needed to be reworded to make them more SMART.

A few examples:

START: Descriptive pull requests for every card currently in development, with a task list.
CONTINUE: Tracking possible enhancements as GitHub issues.
START: Using blockers (as a marker) for stories that can’t be worked on for some external reason (or because you’re stuck).
START: When pairing, make sure to swap around who’s writing and who’s reviewing.

I’d not come across the practice of a retrospective in this form before, but think it’s a really great method to open up dialogues about things you want to do differently. We’ve been using it for a few weeks now and are really seeing the benefits. Communication has improved, and coaches and cubs alike are able to see who’s been working on what, and how things are going. At regular intervals we revisit the retro board and discuss our progress. It's a good way to track improvements, as we move cards from one column to another, and ensure that we continue to think and talk about other improvements we'd like to make.


We added in the functionality to edit a resource on the front end and back end. However, because a resource can be linked to a role, which has days associated with it, changing a resource cost could potentially affect the costs on a number of days and therefore projects as a whole.

So on the front end we needed to provide some options as to what editing a resource would actually affect.

Affected projects

- No bookings - no previous bookings would be affected by the new cost, it will only be applied to future bookings
- Bookings from - allows the user to choose a date and any booked days from that date onwards will have the new cost applied
- All bookings - All previous bookings will be updated with the new cost

So that the user can see exactly what they’re doing, we needed to flag up the projects and phases that would be affected by any changes they made. However, because a resource isn’t directly associated with a project, but via a role, that belongs to a phase, that belongs to a project it was a bit tricky.

project associations

As you can see from the diagram above, editing Resource 1 would affect Project 1, and both its phases (via Roles 1 and 3). Editing Resource 2 will only impact on Phase 1 (via Role 2), but still affect Project 1 as a whole.

We needed to go through all the roles linked to the current resource id, and in turn go through all the phases associated with those roles, and the projects associated with those phases to build up a list of affected phases and projects. Several phases from the same project could be associated with the same resource, so we needed to make sure that the projects didn’t get repeated.

To filter by a from date, we needed to add in an extra step to turn the string from the date input field into a date object. We then went through all the roles linked to the current resource id and filtered out those that have a day with a date greater than or equal to the from-date. Then pass in the list of roles to the same filtering process as above.

At one point we got a bit stuck trying to do a nested filter to get the roles that belonged to the resource, and find the days that belonged to those same roles. Viktor pointed out using a second ‘filter’ returns an array to the first filter when it’s expecting a boolean. So we changed it to ‘any’ which does return true or false and everything worked!

Sign up to Badger News