There are a variety of workflows that docassemble developers can use. Which one is best for you will depend on your circumstances.
If you are new to docassemble, we recommend that you start by
installing docassemble on your personal laptop or desktop using
Docker. Then you can access docassemble at
You can log in using the default username of
[email protected] and the
default password of
password. After you change your password, you
can use the menu in the upper-right hand corner to navigate to the
User List, where you can click “Edit” next to the
user and change its e-mail address to a real e-mail address. Then you
can use the menu to go to the Playground, where you can try
modifying the default interview, or go through the steps of the
The Playground allows you to edit your interview in the browser and then immediately test the interview by pressing “Save and Run.”
Even when you are in the middle of testing an interview, you can make
changes to the interview source, reload the screen in the tab of your
web browser containing your test interview, and immediately see the
effect of your changes. (Note, however, that there are some
circumstances when you will need to backtrack or restart your
interview to see changes, for example if you change a
block that your interview has already processed.)
If you are using DOCX templates and you are making frequent changes to your DOCX template, you may find it cumbersome to repetitively save and upload the template. You can make this process faster by configuring Google Drive integration. That way, you can see all of the files in your Playground in your Google Drive folder on your hard drive, and can edit them there. Then, when you are ready to test your interview, press the “Sync” button to synchronize your Playground with your Google Drive.
As you continue to use docassemble, you will probably want to take advantage of updates to the software. To see what version you are running, go to “Configuration” from the menu. You can find the current version of docassemble on the PyPI page or the GitHub page.
Most docassemble software upgrades can be accomplished by going to “Package Management” from the menu and clicking the “Upgrade” button.
However, sometimes new versions of the docassemble software require an update to the whole system. You will see a notification on the screen if the underlying system needs an upgrade. The problem with doing an update to the underyling system is that if your user profiles and Playground data are stored in the docassemble Docker container, then removing and reinstalling the container will delete all that data.
You can back up your Playground data by creating a package containing all of your work product, then downloading that package as a ZIP file. You can then stop and remove the Docker container, pull the latest version, run a new version of docassemble, and upload that ZIP file into the Playground on the new system. This will restore your Playground work product, but it will not keep your user profiles or any data from interview sessions.
- You can sign up with Amazon Web Services and create an S3 bucket to store the contents of your Playground, so that the contents persist “in the cloud” after you remove the docassemble container. This requires figuring out how AWS and its access keys work. AWS is a bit complicated, but this is a good learning curve to climb, because AWS is used in many different contexts. A big advantage of transitioning to S3 storage is that you can continue to use your personal laptop or desktop, but when you want to transition your docassemble server to the cloud, the process of transitioning will be seamless.
- Instead of using S3, you could use Azure blob storage, another cloud storage service.
- Instead of storing your information in the cloud, you could store it in a Docker volume on the same computer that runs your Docker container. The disadvantage is that the data will be located in a hard-to-find directory on the computer’s hard drive, and if you want to move docassemble to a different server, you will need to manually move this directory.
To transition to using S3 for persistent storage, you need to create
a bucket on S3, add an
s3 directive to your configuration
that refers to the bucket, and then immediately stop the container
and start it again. Similarly, to transition to
Azure blob storage, you need to create a container on the
Azure Portal, add an
azure directive to your configuration
that refers to the container, and then immediately stop the
container and start it again.
Transitioning to using a Docker volume for persistent storage is not as seamless. Start by creating a package in your Playground containing all of the work you have developed so far. Then download this package as a ZIP file. This will back up your work. Then you can stop and remove the container, pull the new docassemble image from Docker Hub, and run it with the configuration necessary to use one of the above data storage techniques. Then, log in to the Playground, go to the packages folder, and upload the ZIP file. You will need to recreate your user accounts on the new system.
Once you set up persistent storage, all you need to do to upgrade the full system is stop your Docker container, remove it, pull the new image from Docker Hub, and run the new image. Your user profiles, Playground data, and installed packages will automatically appear in the new container.
Manual testing of interviews should be part of your workflow. Automated testing is also important – there is a separate section on that – but you need to put yourself in your user’s shoes to see how your interview operates. People other than yourself should also try out the interviews, because they will likely use the system in a different way than you do and thereby uncover problems that you would not encounter.
If your development server is accessible over the network, you can involve testers in your interview while it is still in the Playground. Every interview in the Playground is accessible at a hyperlink. To get this hyperlink, right-click on the “ Share” button in the Playground, copy the URL to your clipboard, then paste the URL into an e-mail to your testers.
If your development server is your desktop computer, and you access it
in your browser at
http://localhost, other users will not be able to
run your interviews by going to
http://localhost. However, if you
can figure out your computer name, and if your computer’s firewall
does not block access to the HTTP port (port 80), then other people
should be able to access docassemble at a URL like
If you have testers who do not have access to your local area network, you should consider putting your development server on a server on the internet. If you run docassemble on your desktop computer, you could configure your firewall to direct traffic from an external IP address to your desktop, but for security reasons this is probably not a good idea. It is better to put your docassemble server on a dedicated machine (or virtual machine) that is connected to the internet. When you do so, you should enable HTTPS so that passwords are encrypted.
If you are using a local machine for hosting but using S3 or Azure
blob storage for storage, moving from a local server to a cloud
server is relatively easy because your configuration and data is
already in the cloud. You just need to stop your local Docker
container and then start a Docker container on the cloud server
using environment variables that point to your persistent storage in
the cloud (e.g.,
If you are not using cloud storage or Docker volumes, you can move your server from your local machine to a machine in the cloud using Docker tools. You will need to stop your container, commit your container to an image, save the image as a file, move the file to the new server, load the file on the new server to create the image there, and then run the image.
If end users are using your interviews, you will need to make sure that they are reliable, so that your users do not encounter the types of problems that tend to appear unexpectedly in a development environment.
Therefore, it is recommended that you run two servers:
- a development server; and
- a production server.
On your development server, you will make sure your interviews run as
intended, and then you will put your interview into a package and
save that package somewhere: on PyPI, on Github, or in a ZIP file.
You will then install that package on the production server by
logging into the production server as an administrator and going to
“Package Management” from the menu. Your users will access the
interviews at links like
docassemble.example.com is the address of your production
docassemble.bankruptcy is the name of your package, and
chapter7.yml is the main YAML file of your interview.
This way, your users will always see a “stable” version of your software. When you are actively developing an interview, you never know when a change that you make might have unanticipated side effects.
To minimize the risk that your end users will see errors, you should make sure the development server and the production server are as similar as possible. Ideally, they should both be running the same version of docassemble, they should both have the same configuration, except for minor differences like server name, and they should both have the same set of Python packages installed, with the same version numbers for each package. This protects against the risk that an interview will fail on your production server when it works without a problem on your development server.
For example, if you forget to specify a Python package as a dependency in your docassemble extension package, your package will still work on the development server even though it will fail on the production server. Problems could also occur if your interview depends on a configuration setting that exists on your development server but not on your production server. There could be other, hard-to-predict reasons why an interview might work on one server but not on another. If you ensure that your development server is virtually identical to your production server, you will protect against these types of problems.
It is also important to separate the development server and the production server because there is a risk that the process of developing a new interview could interfere with the operation of existing interviews. A docassemble user who has developer privileges can run any arbitrary Python code on the server, can install any Python package, and can change the contents of many files on which docassemble depends for its stable operation. A user who has administrator privileges can edit the configuration, and it is possible to edit the configuration in such a way that the system will crash.
Since a development server is often used for experimentation, it can be difficult to keep its configuration matched with that of the production server. It may be easier to use three servers:
- a development server where you develop interviews using the Playground,
- a production server; and
- a testing server which is virtually identical to the production server and exists primarily to test the installation of your interview packages to make sure they work as intended before you install them on the production server.
It is a good idea to use the
metadata block or the README area
of your package to make a note about where the original development
files are located. For convenience, you may find yourself using
multiple servers for development and experimentation, and if time
passes, you may forget where the authoritative version of the package
Since docassemble sessions can be saved and resumed later, it is possible that a user could start an interview in January, log out, and then you upgrade the software behind that interview in February, and then the user logs back in again in March.
This could lead to problems. Suppose that in the first version of
your interview, you had a variable named
recieved_income. But in
the second version of the interview, you changed the name of the
received_income. If the user had already answered the
question that defined
recieved_income, then when they log in and use
the second version of the interview, they may be asked the same
question again, since
received_income is not defined in their
Or, if the user started an interview in December, and then resumed it in January, but in the meantime an applicable law changed, the interview may have made legal determinations that are now outdated and need to be reconsidered.
So if you will be upgrading your software as your users are using it, you will need to be careful about ensuring that your changes are “backwards-compatible.”
There are a variety of techniques that you can use to prevent problems caused by software updates.
- You could include a version number in your package. So if users
start using the interview
docasemble.bankruptcy102:data/questions/controversy.yml, you can upgrade your software by publishing
docasemble.bankruptcy103:data/questions/controversy.yml, and the users with existing sessions will continue to use version 102.
- When you upgrade, you can add a
mandatorycode block early on in your interview that performs upgrade-related functions, like renaming the variable
- In every version of your interview, you can include a
mandatorycode block that sets a variable like
interview_versionto whatever the current interview version is. Then, if the user resumes an old session, your code can be aware of the fact that the session was started under the old version.
If you are working as part of a team of developers on a single interview, you can use Google Drive integration so that all members of the team share the same Playground, even though you log in under different accounts. One developer would set up Google Drive integration, and then share his or her “docassemble” folder with the other developers. The other developers would each create a “shortcut” from the root of their Google Drive to the shared folder. They would then set up Google Drive integration and select the shared folder (the shortcut to it) as the folder to use.
If more than one developer tries to edit the same file at the same time, there will be problems; one developer’s synchronization may overwrite files another developer was editing. However, if the interview is split up into separate files, and each developer works only on designated files, this should not be a problem.
It is important that developers use different docassemble accounts to log into the Playground. If two web browsers use the Playground at the same time, there is a danger that one developer’s changes could be erased by another developer’s activity.
As you work on interview development, you should use version control to track your changes.
If you enable the GitHub integration feature, you will have a “GitHub” button on your packages folder page. Every time you want to take a snapshot of your code, press the “GitHub” button, type a “commit message” that describes what changed in the latest snapshot, and then press “Commit.” Your changes will be “committed” to your package’s repository on GitHub.
This enables a workflow like the following (assuming you know how to use git):
- Start a package in the Playground.
- Push the package to GitHub using the “GitHub” button in the packages folder.
- On your computer, clone the GitHub repository and make changes
to the package by editing files with a text editor, by copying
files into the
datafolders, or other means.
- When you want to use the Playground again for testing, push your changes to GitHub, and then go into the packages folder and use the “Pull” button to bring the updated package files into the Playground.
This also facilitates collaboration:
- You could do all your development in the Playground, while committing snapshots to GitHub as you go.
- If another person has an idea for a change to your package, he or she could open a pull request on the GitHub repository for your package.
- If you like the changes that person made, you could merge the pull request on GitHub, and then to bring the changes into your Playground, you could press the “Pull” button.
Developers can work independently while still working collaboratively.
The open-source software community does this all the time: for
example, one Python developer will create a package, and then other
developers will make that package a “dependency” for their own
import it into their code. The initial developer can
continue to make improvements to the software package, and the other
developers can take advantage of these changes. Every time the
developers reinstall their own packages, Python downloads and
installs the latest version of the dependencies. The other developers
can use the first developer’s code without needing to copy and paste
it, or even look at it.
- Developer One creates an interview, packages it, and presses the
“PyPI” button to upload the package to PyPI as
- Developer Two, using a different docassemble server, goes to
“Package Management” from the menu and installs the
docassemble.bankruptcypackage from PyPI.
- Developer Two then develops an interview file that makes reference
to files in the
docassemble.bankruptcypackage. For example, the interview might
docassemble.bankruptcy:data/questions/common_questions.yml, a file that contains some standard
questions that might be asked of a debtor.
- Developer Two then goes to the packages folder of the
Playground, creates a package called
debtconsult, and makes
docassemble.bankruptcya dependency of that package.
- Developer Two then presses the “PyPI” button to upload the package
to PyPI as
- Months later, Developer Three, using yet another docassemble
server, goes to “Package Management” from the menu and installs the
docassemble.debtconsultpackage from PyPI. This will cause the latest versions of both
docassemble.debtconsultto be installed.
In order to facilitate collaboration, Developer One should prepare
interview files in a “modular” way, putting general purpose
code blocks in separate YAML files that are
special-purpose interview files.
If you want to keep your docassemble extension package in a private GitHub repository, you can still use the Playground.
Create the repository on GitHub, give it a name that follows the
standard naming convention (
docassemble-debtconsult), and mark it as
Then, on your docassemble development server, set up GitHub
integration so that
your Playground can access the private repositories that your GitHub
account can access. Then, using the “Packages” folder, you can create
a package called, e.g.,
debtconsult, and when you save it, you will
see that the Playground recognizes that the package is already
installed on GitHub. When you use the Commit button, you will commit
to the private repository.
You can also “Pull” your private repository into your Playground.
When you click “Pull,” it asks for a GitHub URL. For public
repositories, this is usually something like
https://github.com/jsmith/docassemble-debtconsult, for private
repositories you can use the SSH form of the repository, which is
When it comes time to install your private repository on a production
server, you will not be able to use SSH authentication, so you will
need a GitHub URL that embeds an “OAuth” code. You can create these
codes on the GitHub web site. Within your “Settings,” go to
“Developer settings” and go to the “Personal access tokens” tab.
Click “Generate new token.” You can set the “Token description” to
whatever you like (e.g. “docassemble”). Check the “repo” checkbox, so
that all of the capabilities under “repo” are selected. Then click
“Generate token.” Copy the “personal access token” and keep it in a
safe place. If your token is
e8cc02bec7061de98ba4851263638d7483f63d41, your GitHub username is
jsmith, and your package is called
docassemble-debtconsult, then you can access your private
repository at this URL:
This functions just like a URL to a public repository. For example, you could do:
Within docassemble, you can go to “Package Management” and enter
this URL into the “GitHub URL”. This will install the package on your
server. Any time you wanted to update the package, you could visit
/updatepackage?action=update&package=docassemble.debtconsult on your
Note that the URL cannot have a trailing slash.
The Playground is designed for people who are just getting started with docassemble. Once you start creating packages, it can be more useful to work on your interview files on your local machine, so that you can use all of the features of command-line git.
If you already have an interview working in the Playground, you can
use the “Packages” folder of the Playground to create a package
(e.g., called “custody”) and then download it as
docassemble-custody.zip. When you uncompress the ZIP file, you will
have a directory called
docassemble-custody. Your YAML files are in
If your interview is packaged and on GitHub, you can install git
on your personal computer and then run
git clone to copy the
package. This has the advantage that
git will already be configured
inside the directory.
You can also download a dummy package to serve as the shell for your
own package. Make sure to replace the word
dummy with your own
package name, and make other changes as appropriate, to the following
files and directories:
To test your interview, you should use the
utility, which is part of the
docassemblecli Python package.
Then, to install your package on a remote server, just run:
If you haven’t made any changes to module files, you can run it as:
Without a restart, a package will install in about 5.5 seconds. Installing a package without a restart only works if the server is a single machine rather than a cluster.
By default, when you run
dainstall, it installs the package on the
server itself, not in the Playground on the server. So in order to
test the interview you would visit, e.g.,
If you want to install the package into the Playground, call
The interview files are available almost immediately when installing into the Playground.
You can also use the
dawatchinstall shell script to run
automatically when any file in a directory changes:
dawatchinstall script calls
default, except when a
.py file is changed, in which case
--norestart is omitted.
For more information about these commands, consult the README for the
docassemblecli Python package.
If you want to make changes to the docassemble code, clone the GitHub repository:
The source code of docassemble will be in the
In order to test your changes, it helps to have a convenient workflow
for installing your changed code. Theoretically, your workflow could
docker build to build a Docker container, but
that would probably be overkill. Most of the time, you will make
changes to Python code, rather than system files. To test your
code, you will only need to install the Python packages and then
restart the three services that use those packages (the web server,
Celery server, and web sockets server).
The first complication is that the machine on which it is convenient for you to edit files may not be the machine where you are running docassemble. You may wish to edit the files on your laptop, but you have docassemble running in a Docker container on your laptop, or on another machine entirely.
There are a variety of ways to get around this problem. If your local
machine uses Linux, you can follow the installation instructions and
run docassemble without Docker. Then your source code will be
on the same machine as your server, and you can run
pip directly on
your source files.
Another alternative is to fork the docassemble GitHub repository
and use GitHub as a means of transmitting all of your code changes
from your local machine to your server. You can use
git push on your local machine to publish a change, and
then, on the server, you can use
git clone to make a copy of your
repository on the remote machine (and use
git pull to update it).
Then on the server you can run
pip to install the updated versions
of your packages.
If you are using Docker on your local machine, you can use a Docker
volume to share your code with your container. If you cloned the
docassemble GitHub repository, then from the directory in which the
docassemble directory is located, launch your Docker container by
running something like:
Then you can
docker exec into the container and run
/tmp/docassemble to go to the directory in which the docassemble
source code is located.
The second complication is that you need to install the Python
packages in the right place, using the right file permissions. On
your server, your docassemble server will be running in a Python
virtual environment located in
you significantly deviated from the standard installation procedures).
The files in this folder will all be owned by
www-data. The uWSGI
web server process that runs the docassemble code runs as this
user. The files in the virtual environment are owned by
that you can use the web application to install and upgrade Python
packages. If you change the ownership of any of the files in
root or another user, you may get
errors in the web application. When using
pip from the command line
to install your own version of the docassemble packages, you need
to first become
www-data by running
su www-data as root. Then you
need to tell
pip that you are using a specific Python virtual
environment by running
/usr/share/docassemble/local3.8/bin/activate. Then, you can run
to install your altered version of the docassemble code. This
line will install all the packages:
--no-index flags speed up the installation
process because they cause
pip not to go on the internet to update
all the dependency packages.
After you run
pip, you need to restart the services that use the
Python code. If you are only going to test your code using the web
server, and you aren’t going to use background tasks, it is enough to
touch /usr/share/docassemble/webapp/docassemble.wsgi as the
www-data user. This updates the timestamp on the root file of the
web application. Updating the timestamp causes the web server to
recompile the Python code from scratch. Restarting the uWSGI
service also does that, but it is slower.
If you want to ensure that all the code on your server uses the new
versions of the Python packages, you can run the following as
This will do
and will also restart Celery and the web sockets server.
Then you can test your changes.
These are significant barriers to a smooth workflow of testing changes to docassemble code, but with the help of shell scripts, you should be able to make the process painless.
Here is one set of scripts that could be used. You can run the script
compile.sh as yourself. It will ask you for the
and then it will run the second script,
www-data after switching into the Python virtual environment.
Here are the contents of
Here are the contents of
compile.sh runs, it will leave you logged in as
the virtual environment. It also populates the shell history so that
pip again and reset the web server, all you need to do is
press “up arrow” followed by “enter.” This is then the process for
re-installing your changes to the docassemble Python code.
These scripts might not work for you in your specific situation, but some variation on them may be helpful.
How can you ensure that a docassemble interview is high quality?
A common mindset is that the way you produce a web application is to hire a developer for a “project.” The developer writes code over a period of time and then provides a “deliverable” that meets your specifications. The developer then goes away and works on other projects. After you publish the application on the internet, your expectation is that it will work perfectly and operate indefinitely. Over time, it may need to be tweaked because of changing circumstances, so you may hire someone to make minor changes to the application. But otherwise, you consider the application “done” when the developer delivers it to you. If quality problems emerge after the developer has moved on to other things, you are annoyed. You wish that you had hired a better developer, or that you had done a better job communicating your requirements. You feel like you shouldn’t have to be bothered with bugs; the application should just work, and should require minimal maintenance. Maybe after a few years, your annoyance reaches a point where you take the application down and hire a different developer to produce a new version of the application.
This mindset can be present even when you are a computer programmer yourself. After you have “finished” the application, you want to be able to move on and do other things. Making changes to an application is something you feel like you don’t have time to do. Even if you budgeted time for “maintenance,” because you expected there was a finite probability that something would need to be fixed, you would still like to minimize the time you spend fixing bugs.
Another aspect of the common mindset is to think of web applications as falling under the “information technology” umbrella. If there are quality problems, people think it’s an “IT issue” that needs to be delegated to a person with computer skills, even when the quality issues are actually related to poor communication or poor substantive design, neither of which are information technology problems.
These ways of thinking are bound to result in low-quality web applications.
Managers of technology “projects” need to understand that quality assurance is not simply a technology problem; like all problems, it involves “people, process, and technology.” All three need to be considered when planning for quality assurance.
Who are the people who should ensure that a guided interview is high-quality? What skill sets are necessary? Do interviews need to be developed by individuals who have subject matter expertise as well as technical skills? Or can subject matter experts without technical skills work together with people who have technical skills? Should someone take on a managerial role to coordinate developers and subject matter experts? If subject matter experts work on the project, should their role be to “look things over” and be available for questions, or should they play an active role in the design?
Which subject matter experts should be involved? Even if a subject matter expert knows the subject matter very well, that doesn’t mean they are good at communicating about that subject matter through the medium of an app. In litigation, by analogy, lawyer A who has written briefs for 20 years may understand the law as well as lawyer B who has tried cases in court for 20 years, but that doesn’t mean that lawyer A is capable of standing up in court and persuading the jury to favor his or her client. One lawyer may be very good at litigating contract disputes, but not good at drafting contracts so that they are concise and anticipate every possible scenario that may develop.
What processes should be used to ensure that an interview is high-quality? Should the development work be seen as part of a time-limited “project,” or rather as a long-term commitment to deliver a “product” or “service” to users? Should the output of the interview be reviewed by a human before it is provided to the user? Should users have access to customer support while using the interview? Should someone be staffed with observing users as they use the application in order to figure out why users are getting stuck? Is testing a process that is started shortly before the interview goes live, or integrated into the development process from the beginning? How intensive should the testing be? Should the testing process be informal (“try it out, click around, see if it breaks”) or formal (“Try scenario A to completion, then scenario B to completion”)? Should a process of continuous quality improvement be followed, in which information is collected from user surveys or customer service requests and used as the basis for improvements? Should metrics be collected and reviewed? Should team meetings be held to brainstorm improvements? Should testing be conducted every time a new version is published? Should this testing process test new features only, or also test features that used to work without a problem? After an interview goes live, should a subject matter expert review it periodically to make sure the logic is not out of date? Should the interview be tested in some way every day to make sure the site hasn’t crashed without sending a notification?
Lastly, how can technology assist the people who implement these processes? It is important to view technology for quality assurance in this context. Think about the role of technology after you think about what people and processes are optimal.
Before thinking about how you wish to provide quality assurance, it may be helpful to read about various approaches to software development as a whole (such as the difference between waterfall and Agile lifecycles, and the DevOps methodology) and specifically about different approaches to software testing. The approaches that have been used in the past are not necessarily “best practices.” However, reading about other people’s approaches may help you realize that your initial ideas about how to handle quality assurance may not make sense.
In particular, think about breaking out of the project-oriented, time-limited development paradigm. Do what is right for your users, not what other people do. Don’t imitate big corporations; corporations that charge a lot of money still produce low-quality products. When it comes to guided interviews, “building the airplane while flying it” is not an absurdity; it may even be advisable. It may be better to spread development resources out over the course of your product’s lifetime than to invest them all at the beginning and hope that your “specification” was perfect. If you develop a minimum viable product, let users use it, study the pain points, and adapt your product incrementally to address the actual concerns of actual users, perhaps your product will be higher quality than anything you could have pre-envisioned while sitting in meetings talking about what “requirements” to give to a vendor. Is it the end of the world if a user encounters a bug? Perhaps the user will not mind about the bug if you communicate with them immediately, demonstrate that you care, and fix the bug promptly. In fact, if the user sees that there are real people behind the application, and that those people truly respect the users, their opinion of your application may increase after they encounter a bug.
Think of every event in the software lifecycle as good, important, and worthy of allocation of resources. Did you discover a flaw in your software after it went live? Good, fix it; now your product is more robust than it was yesterday. Did your code break because a dependency changed? Great, make changes to adapt; now your code is more up-to-date. If you concentrate all your energy on preventing, insuring against, or hiding from low-probability events, rather being resilient when those events happen, your software will stop evolving. When your software stops evolving, it will start being “legacy.”
You might think, “I don’t have the resources to pay developers to continually improve a product.” First, maybe the resources necessary are not as expensive as you think. Maybe how you are managing the development of the software is the problem, not the money you are spending. For example, maybe instead of spending hundreds of hours of staff time developing a custom color scheme, you could allocate those hours toward something that matters more, like developing a continuous quality improvement process that ensures the application does what it is supposed to do. Second, maybe you do have the necessary resources, but you are not allocating them to software development because you have a preconceived notion of how you should be allocating those resources. Are you actually thinking about return on investment, or do you just assume that software development is only worth a small amount of money? Third, if you truly lack the resources to produce a quality software application, that’s fine; in that case, instead of putting a low-quality product on-line, maybe you should allocate resources to something more worthwhile.
People who are involved in the development of a web application but lack technology skills often feel a lack of agency over the way the application operates. Sometimes this is because the engineers do not allow them to have such agency. Other times, the non-technical people do have agency, but do not exercise it because of “learned helplessness”; they know that problem-solving is difficult, and they can avoid it by telling themselves that the task of problem-solving is someone else’s responsibility, namely, the “IT people.”
How should subject matter experts be involved, and what can be expected of them?
There are different levels of subject matter expert engagement in a guided interview project. Many experts may view working on a guided interview project as an “extra credit” responsibility, which they can take on when they already have a day job without decreasing their existing work load. They may see their role as reviewing the work of others, spotting substantive mistakes, and suggesting improvements.
At the other end of the spectrum, the subject matter expert could see their role as that of a tech startup founder, who wants to build a great guided interview that thoroughly implements their subject matter expertise. They see their role as ensuring excellence, and will give the development process their full attention.
Since an expertise automation “industry” does not really exist yet, there is no clearly defined role for the expert. How much should the expert be expected to understand the technology? How much should the technologists be expected to understand the subject matter?
For purposes of comparison, consider the film industry. Is the role of the subject matter expert like that of the screenwriter, who has a clear vision for the end result and does much of the creative work? Or is it like that of a film critic, who critiques the film after-the-fact and suggests ways that it could have been better?
Or consider the construction industry. Is the role of the subject matter expert like that of the architect, who creates the blueprints, or like that of a municipal agency that approves building permits?
Because there is no existing expertise automation “industry,” there are no existing expectations of what roles are necessary to create a high-quality guided interview. In the film industry, there are producers, screenwriters, directors, cinematographers, lighting directors, and more, who are acknowledged to be practitioners of a craft. In the construction industry, there is an understanding that architects, structural engineers, and builders work together to get buildings constructed and make sure they don’t fall down. Each of these roles is acknowledged to be a special skill, the development of which depends on talent, education, and experience.
In the guided interview industry, by contrast, there is a popular belief that expertise automation is inherently “easy,” and that a subject matter expert from any background just needs to sit down in front of a computer, use some user-friendly software, and produce a high-quality app by themselves in a short period of time. Others assume that guided interviews are an “IT thing,” and some “smart techie” can do all the work if there is a subject matter expert who makes themselves available to answer questions. Others assume that a guided interview project simply needs a project manager who communicates specifications to contracted developers who work offsite.
Whether expertise automation is inherently “easy” depends on the complexity of the expertise automation process being attempted. At one end of the spectrum there are “form-filling” projects that simply involve asking a question for each field in a PDF form, with a little bit of logic, and delivering a PDF form. At the other end of the spectrum there are guided interviews that ask the same question multiple times from different angles, reconcile API-gathered information with user-gathered information, allow the user to spot-edit information while ensuring logical correctness, allow administrators to have special back-door access to investigate and resolve problems, and contain safeguards to allow incorrect information to be identified and corrected. Whether the development of complex guided interview systems can be made “easy” with technology is doubtful. When it is difficult to even figure out what you want the system to do, the computer is not going to be able to read your mind.
While a typical subject-matter expert may be able to figure out how to use TypeForm and WebMerge, they may not be able to envision the most elegant data structure for collecting nested information, or envision what to do in every circumstance where a call to an API might fail. Nor may they know the right way to communicate effectively with a user through the medium of a guided interview.
Is “guided interview developer” a profession? The problem with professions is that it is very difficult to determine in advance whether a professional would add value over what you could do yourself with the right tools, or just extract a fee. However, just because you can go to Ikea and get a nice piece of furniture that you can assemble yourself with a screwdriver does not mean that there is never a good reason to hire an experienced cabinet maker. If you have a firm belief that building beautiful, functional, and durable custom furniture should be as easy and quick as assembling Ikea furniture, and you think tech companies just need to hurry up and build DIY tools for this, you’re probably going to be waiting a long time. Although the profession of “guided interview developer” does not really exist yet, it is likely that over time, it will be acknowledged to be a skilled profession that is necessary in situations of greater complexity.
A good developer does not just deliver the deliverable, but will figure out a way to do so in the simplest way possible. Simplicity means maintainability; it means that the code base will not need to be scrapped just because the person who created it gets a job elsewhere. If the project is implemented in the simplest way possible, another developer will be able to step in and build on the work of the prior developer. However, if that prior work is inscrutable, the new developer will have not choice but to redo it.
Maintaining simplicity sometimes means pushing back against feature requests. Even if the developer could implement a feature, if there is a high maintainability cost to adding the feature (a cost which is usually invisible to everyone except the developer), it may make sense to modify the feature or not implement it at all. In many cases, if the feature that someone wants cannot be implemented without harming maintainability, it might be a bad feature anyway. When a feature cannot be implemented elegantly, this is often because it diverges from standards. Features that adhere to standards tend to be easier to implement and often result in a better product for the end user because they are similar to features the user has seen in other products. Often, the only person who knows enough to advocate for standards is the developer who is asked to implement a feature, since the non-developers who request features may not be aware of what the standards are.
Other skills sets that are necessary for a guided interview project include user experience design. User experience is more than a matter of CSS; it’s about making sure the flow through the interview is intuitive.
A related skill set is plain language communication. How do you ask a question in a way that is concise and readable and yet conveys the correct meaning?
There is no reason to expect that any given subject matter expert or a software developer will have all of these skills. Subject matter experts whose professional life involves communicating with other experts in the same subject matter typically have a difficult time writing in plain language. Maybe subject matter experts and developers could acquire these skills over time, but if you want your guided interview to be good, these skills need to be on the team. Someone needs to be able to look at the product objectively, with empathy for the wide variety of users who might use the guided interview, and envision ways that it can be better. The designer does not need to be able to write code to indicate how they think an interview could be re-designed; they could convey it on paper. The coder then needs to be able to figure out ways to implement what the designer suggests without breaking with standards or making the interview unmaintainable.
All of the people contributing to the project are “guided interview developers,” just like producers, screenwriters, directors, cinematographers, lighting directors are all “movie developers.” All the people involved in guided interview developed should think of themselves as artists producing a masterpiece; none of them should think that “development” is something someone else is doing; they are all “developing.”
Automated testing of software is useful because when you have a rapidly changing code base, unexpected changes may occur at any time. If you can automatically run acceptance tests to ensure that the software behaves the way you and your subject matter experts think it should behave, you can detect not only obvious bugs and also the stealthy bugs that most people won’t notice or report.
The idea behind “Behavior-Driven Development” is for development and management teams to work together write acceptance tests in a human-readable domain-specific language that can also be interpreted by the computer in order to test the software. In Cucumber and Aloe, this human-readable language is a plain text file written in the Gherkin format. docassemble allows interview developers to write Gherkin scripts that look like this:
Technology for web browser automation exists that allows you to “record” keystrokes and button clicks and then “play” it back at a later time. By comparison, it may seem time time consuming to write out English language sentences. However, the advantage is that English language sentences are human-readable. The Gherkin scripts themselves can be reviewed by a subject matter expert for validity, and can easily be edited when the underlying interview changes.
Acceptance testing using the Behavior-Driven Development model requires management and development teams to envision different scenarios and precisely specify the expected outputs that result from particular inputs. As the interview changes, the Gherkin scripts will need to be changed in parallel. This is a significant commitment of time. However, the strictness of the testing scripts helps to uncover unexpected bugs. When an interview passes a test at one time and then fails it later due to a subtle change, that subtlety can be the tip of the iceberg of a more systemic problem.
The downside of the Behavior-Driven Development model is that it is not feasible to envision and test every possible scenario. For example, if an interview has five multiple-choice questions with five choices each, that means there are 3,125 possible scenarios. It would be too much work to envision and separately test that many scenarios. While there may be a latent bug lurking in one of those 3,125 combinations of answers, in practice, Behavior-Driven Development teams will only have the resources to conduct acceptance testing on a handful of those scenarios. If these scenarios are diverse, they will catch a lot of bugs, but they won’t catch all the bugs.
Another way to test interviews is use docassemble’s API, which allows an interview session to be driven with a computer program. Using the API, an interview can be repeatedly tested with random multiple-choice selections and random input values. If a random combination of inputs results in an error screen, the test fails, and the developer will know that there is a bug in the interview.
An example of such a script is the
random-test.py file in the
docassemble.demo package. This is a general-purpose script for
testing any interview, but you will likely need to tweak it to work
appropriately with any of your own interviews. For example, it does
not adapt to questions that use the
show if feature to conceal
Repeatedly testing a web application with random data can uncover bugs that result in the user seeing an error message, but it cannot identify substantive errors, such as situations where the user is asked an inappropriate question or given inappropriate information.
Another approach for testing a docassemble interview without using Behavior-Driven Development is to manually populate a full set of interview answers and then inspect the “output” of the interview to ensure it correctly corresponds to the input. This procedure bypasses the information-gathering process of the interview and tests only the end-result logic.
One way to do this is to add blocks to your interview like:
If the user is not a developer or an administrator, the
runs to completion and is never run again. But if the user is a
developer or administrator, the interview will start with a screen
that the user can use to select a scenario. The
value() function to seek a definition of
scenario_two_defined. Once the scenario
is defined, the
mandatory block runs to completion and the interview
proceeds normally. The next screen that is shown is whatever screen
would be shown to a user who had input the information listed in the
You can use this technique to “fast forward” to a part of the interview you want to test, or to “fast forward” to the very end.
You could use “sub-scenarios” so that you can mix-and-match different
collections of variables. For example, your
block could seek the definition of
scenario_high_tax_bracket, while your
could seek the definition of
scenario_high_tax_bracket. This will allow you to avoid having to
copy and paste code.
You could then have a Aloe script that starts with:
These few lines effectively “stand in” for many lines of Gherkin sentences you would otherwise have to write to simulate the user typing in information. A Aloe script like this is easier to maintain than one that you have to modify every time you make a change to the language or order of your information-gathering screens.
Since there can be bugs in the logic of the information-gathering process, this procedure is not as thorough as a Behavior-Driven Development approach that goes through all of the information-gathering screens.
docassemble also supports the technique of testing components of an interview in isolation (“unit testing”). Unit testing is feasible when the legal logic of an interview is written in the form of Python classes, methods, and functions. For example, the interview might have an algorithm that determines jurisdiction:
This method could be tested on a variety of inputs to ensure that the legally correct answer is given:
It may seem like a waste of time to write a computer program to test two scenarios when it would be much faster to simply test the two scenarios manually, and if they work right, conclude that the feature works and will continue to work. However, writing out the test scripts is worthwhile because test scripts can then be run in the future in an automated fashion to prevent “regression.” Very often, bugs in software come from features that used to work but that stop working for hard-to-predict reasons. Something that used to work might suddenly stop working because of a change in the code of a dependency, such as a software library written by someone else. Code may also stop working because changes you made elsewhere in your package have unanticipated long-distance effects.
Legal logic algorithms can also be “unit tested” using brief test
interviews that are separate from the main interview and exist only
for testing purposes. These test interviews could be operated by
subject matter experts manually, who could manually try out various
possibilities in to make sure the algorithm produces the legally
correct response. These same interviews could also be tested in an
automated fashion with Aloe scripts. For example, a test
test-jurisdiction.yml, might look like this:
The corresponding Aloe script would look like this:
You could have a number of testing scripts like these, which you could run to ensure that the legal logic of your interview is proper. Unlike Aloe scripts that test your actual interview, these scripts will not need to be changed whenever you make stylistic modifications to your interview. In that way, they are much easier to maintain.
You might think it is inefficient to write 40 lines of YAML and Gherkin to test an algorithm that is five lines long. But there is no logical basis for assuming that the the algorithm itself should take up less space than its testing code. Nor is there a logical basis for assuming that the task of writing the algorithm should take longer than testing the algorithm (or writing documentation for the algorithm). All of this work is important.
You do not need to develop a rigid habit of writing test scripts for
every piece of code you write. If you have a
code block that
capitalizes a word, for example, it is reasonable to “test” it by
“eyeballing” it or testing it incidentally as part of a
whole-interview Aloe script. But if you have mission-critical
algorithms that do somewhat tricky things, spending a lot of time on
test code will yield a good return on investment.
The next section provides a practical explanation of how to use Aloe to test docassemble interviews.
To install Aloe, do:
You will then need a “driver” that will control your web browser. If
you use Chrome, you need to install chromedriver first. Then you
will need to edit
terrain.py so that it contains the appropriate
reference to the location where the
chromedriver file can be found.
If your docassemble extension package is in the directory
/home/jsmith/docassemble-lt, then you would do:
Of course, you first need to create a
tests directory and create the
appropriate directory structure within it,
This directory structure needs to be as follows:
__init__.py files are empty placeholder files. The file
MyTest.feature can be called anything, and you can have more than
.feature file. When you run
aloe, all of the feature files
will be used.
docassemble.py files are the Python modules
that perform the web browser automation. Versions of these files are
available in the docassemble GitHub repository, but you may need
to edit these modules to get your tests to work.
A starting point for the
terrain.py module is available here:
A starting point for the
docassemble.py module (which is imported
terrain.py) is available here:
The test file itself, which is called
MyTest.feature above, would
look something like this:
One useful feature is the “step” invoked by “I wait forever.” If you run this step, the browser will stay open and you can use it. This can be helpful if you want to use Aloe to bring you to a particular step in your interview, without you having to re-do all of the steps by hand.
For more information about how automated testing works, read the documentation for Aloe. You may also wish to read about the Behavior-Driven Development concept in general before starting to use Aloe.
One barrier to involving non-programmers in the development of guided interviews is that guided interviews are technologically complex.
It is commonly believed that “code” is the barrier that locks out non-programmers from being involved in the development process, and if only we had a user friendly UI, non-programmers could develop applications just as well as programmers. However, this may not be the case. For example, a non-programmer can conceptually understand what a list is and what a dictionary is, but if you ask a non-programmer “what’s the optimal data structure for gathering information about witnesses, their current employer, and their past employers,” a non-programmer is going to struggle with that question. It can even be a difficult question for a programmer. The barrier for the non-programmer is not that they don’t know whether a semicolon goes at the end of the line or what brackets to use to specify a dictionary. The programmer’s advantage in answering the question is not that they have memorized the syntax of coding. Experience with coding leads to a way of thinking; it develops problem-solving skills in the technical domain.
Therefore, it is unlikely that you will be able to develop a maintainable, elegant software product without involving a skilled computer programmer to figure out issues of logic and data structure. However, there are ways that non-programmers can and should be deeply involved in the development of guided interviews.
Notice the popularity of the DevOps methodology in software development, which breaks down the silos of “operations” engineers and “development” engineers. Your non-technical people who know the subject matter of your interview may not think of themselves as “engineers,” but they are similar in many ways to the “operations” side of DevOps.
You can involve a non-technical person on the team who knows how to communicate in writing with succinct phrases, who knows when the text is too short and too long, knows when to hide information behind a hyperlink, and knows when to include it in the main page. A non-technical person may not know how to figure out tricky logic problems, but they can envision what the end result should be, and express that to the developers. When the developers implement it imperfectly, the non-technical person can see the imperfections and clean them up.
A non-technical person can be an advocate for the users against the developers, who may tend to make decisions in a way that makes life easier for themselves at the expense of the user. For example, the non-technical person could say, “we are asking the user if they lived outside the state in the last five years, but we already asked them when they moved to their current address, and if they gave a date that was before five years ago, we don’t need to ask them that question.” The developers might say, “well, that would be complicated for us because of x, y, and z.” And the non-technical person could say, “That’s nice, I am sure you can figure it out.” Then the developers will begrudgingly figure it out, and the interview will be improved.
When an application is live, non-technical people can provide customer service to users. They can learn about users’ difficulties, prioritize the changes that are most important, and communicate with the developers so that the difficulties are minimized in the future.
Non-technical people can also get involved in reading and writing code. They can express what they want to see in a guided interview by writing and editing Gherkin scripts, which the developers can clean up for syntax and use as a basis for implementing changes. Non-technical people can review Gherkin scripts to make sure they make sense from a substantive perspective. They can edit them to add additional conditions so that the Aloe tests are more comprehensive.
It is possible to structure YAML interview files so that they are readable and editable by non-technical people. To facilitate this, developers can:
- Use the
includefeature and split up the YAML in such a way that complicated blocks are isolated in YAML files that non-technical people never see, while
questions and easy-to-read
codeblocks are put in files that non-technical people can review and edit.
templateblocks. That way, the YAML will primarily contain content that non-technical people can read and edit.
- Teach non-technical people to edit YAML using GitHub. Since it is possible that non-technical people will introduce errors when editing the content of YAML files, the developers should always review the changes and make corrections as necessary. But by having the power to read, search, and edit the YAML, non-technical people will be able to have a greater deal of control. Non-technical people should be about to figure out Markdown and much of Mako with enough confidence to draft questions and make edits.
comments into the YAML to explain what the different blocks do, and arrange the blocks in a relatively sensible order. Non-technical people may not be able to learn the system sufficiently to write flawless code themselves, but they can at least understand the big picture.
If non-technical people are going to be effective members of the team, they need to adapt as well. They need to challenge themselves to learn new things every day. The process of learning is not difficult if they are willing to try. Learning how things works involves typing unusual words and phrases into Google (and the docassemble web site, and the GitHub web site) and reading what comes up.
Sometimes, the non-technical members of a team are viewed as “subject matter experts” because they have an expert knowledge of the subject matter of the guided interview. These experts can be important members of a team if they devote significant time to the work. But if their involvement in the work is in addition to a full time job, they will not be very helpful except as consultants to call for answers to specific questions. It is better to have a dedicated staff member who knows a little about the subject matter than to have a distracted staff member who knows a lot about the subject matter.