I finished some lecture notes on how to use git and GitHub yesterday, and since I had them all written up in Markdown I could translate them into a booklet at the click of a button—which I did—and then put the booklet on Amazon.
I had planned to put it up as a free book, but apparently I am not allowed to do that. They have a minimum price of $0.99 for all books, and books that are larger than 10Mb have a minimum price of $2.99. Since my booklet is full of screenshots it makes it just above 10Mb—so no option of giving the book away. At least, not unless I make it available somewhere else, but I don’t really have the infrastructure for that, and Leanpub would cost me $124 if I wanted to give it away there.
I could, however, enrol it in Amazon’s Kindle Select. It gives Amazon exclusive rights to the book but also enables some promotion options—including making the book free for a limited time. I have chosen that, and from tomorrow and five days on you can get The Beginner’s Guide to GitHub for free. I will re-enrol it in the free promotion again afterward, but I don’t know if there is a grace period between promotions. If there is, you just have to be patient. It will be free again later. But why wait, you might as well get it tomorrow. After all, if it is free, you can just delete it if you don’t like it.
This is my first experience with Kindle Select. My other books have been available on Leanpub and iBooks as well as Amazon from day one. I’m curious how this system works. I might try it with future books as well—for now I just need it to make this booklet free.
There’s a piece on the GitHub blog about GitHub Classroom. I tried it last year, and I was not really impressed by it. I want to use GitHub in my teaching, but GitHub Classroom is useless, in my opinion, and here is why.
With Classroom you set up a repository that the students can clone. You can set up a number of assignments and then you get URLs that you can give the students.
When they click the URL a new repository is created
But what they get is a clone that is completely decoupled from the repository you set up; worse, it lives in an Organisation space and not in the students’ own list of repositories—which makes the repositories harder for them to find.
Since the new repositories are completely decoupled from the originals, If you make changes to the original repository—for example, you can add some test data or test cases for the students to validate their code after they believe they have solved the problems you give them—these changes are not available for them to merge into their own repositories.
Now, I could see some benefits in being able to amend an assignment by updating a repository. Especially in the—admittedly unlikely—scenario where I have made a mistake in the assignment description or example code. It could also be very useful to be able to add data in a data science projects. Quite often, in real projects, the data you are working on gets updated, which is why it is so important to have automated analysis pipelines.
Just as a learning experience, I would like to be able to tell my students, “right, now you have analysed the data, but I have just changed it, do the analysis again!”. With GitHub Classrooms, I cannot do that.
Even worse, since there is no real connection between the original repository and the students’, you don’t get the review functionality you have for real repositories. You can see a snapshot of what the students have right now, and you can, of course, go back and look over their commits, but if you want to go and comment on what they are doing, you have to do it as individual line comments. You cannot combine a number of comments in a single review.
That is probably what annoyed me the most with using Classroom, and why I gave up on it half-way through the class where I used it. The functionality I’m used to on GitHub simply isn’t there with Classroom.
Using real repositories
I think there are two points to using GitHub in teaching: you teach the students skills they will most likely find use for in the future where they are likely to actually use GitHub, and it makes it a lot easier for me to correct assignments.
First point first. Using a crippled version of GitHub for assignments doesn’t show the students how to actually use GitHub. If you just want to show them how to use version control, it is fine, but for GitHub there is so much more you can do. Much of which you can’t do with Classroom.
You can, of course, still use Issues to have todo-lists of tasks and you have them as a discussion forum if they work in distributed groups—which they didn’t in the class where I used Classroom, but which they often do in other classes I teach. They can also use pull-requests within a group, if they want to, but if everyone in the group can push to the repository there is little need for it.
When you actually use GitHub, pull-requests and reviews are part of the usual workflow. It would only make sense to include it in the workflow used in class.
I realise and appreciate that there is a difference between a real project and a classroom setting, but it takes very little in addition to make the full experience part of class compared to just using GitHub as a version control system.
If, instead of using Classroom, you make a repository that the students fork, you have your repository and the students’ repositories connected. You can make changes to the repository and they can pull them. More importantly, if hand-ins are done as pull-requests, they get experience with that, and you can use the review features to correct the hand-ins.
You have the hand-ins as pull-requests; you can go in and compare changes from the forked version or since your last review; and you have a built-in discussion forum where you can discuss the code, either commenting directly on individual lines or give overall feedback.
This is an active document. If they make changes after a review, they become part of the pull-request, so you can keep track of their progress. And you can directly see what they changed since the last review, so you don’t have to read through the entire code base to see what the modified.
If they get stuck, you can even jump to their pull-request branch, fix an error for them, and push it back to them (for example as a pull-request to their own repository), after which they can continue.
Even better, you can set up automatic checks of their hand-ins using e.g. Travis. If you set up a suite of tests, the students get immediate feedback on how they are doing with solving the problem, and you can check at a glance—by the green tick-marks on the pull-requests—whether they have actually solved the problem they are supposed to.
You cannot set up a complete unit-test suite of their code, of course; you can only check that their code passes a specification you have made. You can, however, set up a code coverage check and keep track of how much they are testing their own code. Again, this is a way for yourself to see how they are doing at a glance and a way for them to get immediate feedback for themselves.
Setting up tests and coverage statistics is, of course, also something they could set up themselves for their own Classroom repositories, but that would require them to get familiar with those tools in addition to GitHub. At some point they probably should learn those tools, but if you set it up in the original repository they don’t have to before they earn the benefits of them—which might motivate them more to learn the tools later.
You can even set up automatic code reviews using codacy if the students are using a programming language supported there—unfortunately for my R classes, it doesn’t seem to support R.
By and large, having the students fork a repository seems, to me, a much better approach to using GitHub in the classroom that using GitHub Classroom is.
One remaining issue
The only thing that really bugs me with using GitHub and pull-requests in class is that I cannot easily include the pull-request merging in the workflow. At least, I haven’t figured out a good way of doing it yet.
There is nothing inherently wrong with just having an open pull-request per student group, but I would like to be able to merge these pull-requests as the way of accepting the hand-ins. It would be the right kind of closure to finishing an exercise.
It would also make it a lot easier for me to keep track of which groups have finished an assignment and which are still working on it.
The problem with just merging pull-requests is, of course, that if they all make pull-requests to the same branch, then you can’t merge them all.
One solution I’ve been playing with is to have separate branches per group. If they make pull-requests to separate branches, then these can easily be merged and everything is fine. This just requires that I set up branches for each group before they make pull-requests—and that they actually make pull-requests to the right branches—but it is a solution that would work. It just requires a little more work.
It’s not a problem for me to have to set up the branches for each group. What worries me is that there is just that little extra work involved for the students in making the pull-request, especially if they use a GUI like GitHub Desktop. There, you can make pull-requests very easily, but for the branch solution to work, you would have to remember to pick the right branch to make the pull request to.
Not impossible to remember, but a little extra to keep track of while they are learning to use a new tool.
I don’t know if there is any way to change the “to”-branch of a pull-request. I don’t think so. If there were, that would definitely be the way to go.
I haven’t been writing the last two days since I was in Herning for a family birthday but I have been thinking about my Object-oriented programming in R book. Specifically, I have been thinking about algorithmic programming and object-orientation.
Most books I have read on object-oriented programming, and the classes I have taken on object-oriented programming, have centred on object-oriented modelling and software design. There, the focus is on how object-orientation can be used to structure how you think about your software and how the software can reflect physical or conceptual aspects of the world that you try to model in your software. If, for instance, you implement software for dealing with accountance you would model accounts as objects with operations for inserting and withdrawing money. You would try to, as much as possible, mapping concepts from the problem domain to software as directly as possible.
This is a powerful approach to designing your software, but there are always aspects of software that does not readily fit into such modelling. Especially when it comes to algorithmic programming and design of data structures. Search trees and sorting algorithms, for instance, are usually not reflecting anything concrete in a problem domain.
Object-oriented programming, however, is also a very powerful tool to use when designing algorithms and data structures. The way I was taught programming, algorithms and data structures were covered in separate classes from where I was taught object-orientation. Combining object-orientation and algorithmic programming was something I had to teach myself by writing software. I think this was a pity since the two really fit together well.
Polymorphism, a cornerstone of object-oriented programming, lends itself readily to developing flexible algorithms and to combining different concrete implementations of abstract data types to tailor abstract algorithms to concrete problems.
To which degree you would call this object-oriented programming I don’t know. It is more the polymorphism that is important — and polymorphic code is found in many other programming paradigms — but this book seems like as good a place as any to include topics like polymorphic code in designing algorithms and data structures.
When data structures and algorithms a taught in separate classes from, say, functional programming and object-oriented programming, you have to figure out how it all fits together yourself. In actual use, you have to fit it all together.
I don’t know if I am able to write about this in a way that makes the puzzle pieces fit together, but I will at least try to give it a go.
For my Data Science (programming) class the students have to make an R package for Bayesian linear regression. The plan right now is that they fork a GitHub repository, this one, and then follow the instructions there for making a pull request per student.
From that pull request I can see everything they push to their fork and I can comment and even modify their solutions.
All the weekly exercises are made using GitHub Classrooms, but I think this mix of forks and pull requests might be a better solution overall.
I will try both in the coming class and then pick the best solution for the string algorithms class in the spring…
Just because Blackboard is so absolutely horrible, I am desperate for an alternative solution to my classes. I am not really supposed to use something else — they want us all to use Blackboard so the students have a single interface to all their classes — but I just cannot get myself to use it any longer. It is so incredibly dreadful.
So, it is of course a good idea that the students have a single interface to their classes, but if I can minimise my use of Blackboard somehow I will look for ways to do just that. I cannot get out of putting the key material and the schedule for classes there, but I will stick to the absolute minimum.
I have written all my lecture notes as a textbook so I don’t have to put any material up on Blackboard — trying to do that is one of the reasons I decided to write the book in the first place; formatting code on Blackboard is impossible. So for the material I just have a link to the book. Well, I have uploaded the book and linked to that. You need to edit the raw HTML to insert links on Blackboard, but you can link to uploaded files via the GUI. (While the GUI lets you insert a link to files on your own computer, as far as I can see it doesn’t upload them afterwards, so you need to upload the files first and then link to them… but it is doable).
For the exercises I tried to use Blackboard, but this is where it gets completely crazy. It uses some unorthodox ways of showing you that there is an assignment you can upload answers to, to put it mildly, and for the teaching you have the worst GUI known to man to show you the handins. I mean, it is so unbelievably stupid you wouldn’t believe me if I described it to you, so I won’t even attempt to.
To save what little sanity I have left, I need a different solution. So I have played around with GitHub Clasroom. From what I can tell, all it does is let you create assignments, which are really just ways of creating repositories from a template under an organisation. It lets you keep track of which repositories have been made, so I can use it to keep track of the progress my students make on exercises. With a little more work I could set up unit tests and such from the template code, and I probably will in the future, but for now I am just making repositories for all the weekly exercises.
These repositories are completely independent. Although they are all based on a template they are not actually forks of the template so there is no easy way to make pull requests or for me to update the student’s repositories if there is an error in the templates. I guess that is okay for weekly exercises, but I also want to teach my students the workflow you use when forking and making pull-requests, so I will set up a project repository they can fork from and make the project hand-ins pull requests. I haven’t gotten there yet, but I will play around with it a bit tonight.
All this setup will be used in my class that starts on Tuesday next week. In that class I am teaching things like version control and GitHub anyway, so it is the perfect test ground for this approach. And I will use the class to experiment a little to figure out how best to use GitHub as a substitute (to the degree I can get away with) for Blackboard.