Flashback to 2012. When I arrived at Village as a 19-year-old young man with a lot to learn*, I would have broadly categorized myself as a "hacker" (this once caused Johnny to visibly grimace, which – in hindsight – I can understand). I liked to sit at a computer and start writing the features. The design flowed from my fingers.
Unit tests, when explained to me, created a kind of physical revulsion; "Here is code that you have to write to prove that your code works"... but who tests the test tests?
I was introduced to "mocks" at the same time, which appeared to be a way of saying that "because it's impossible to run unit tests with real data, we must see how your code-which-tests-code runs on data which is not the real data". This did not seem like a useful thing to do.
The trifecta of testing pain was completed by attempts to encourage Test-Driven Development (TDD), which is to say "you may only write code which is either a failing unit test, or which makes a failing unit test pass" - i.e. write all of your unit tests up-front and then write the implementations.
These elements created such a confusion and sadness within me that I didn't do much (successful) unit testing in my early days of professional software development.
To me, programming was, and forever should be fun! Software development is like construction, except with unlimited undo, unlimited materials, X-Ray vision, and tools made of unobtainium – you can make whatever you want in the blink of an eye and change it whenever you like. Programming is expressive, joyful, and satisfying. Unit testing, I believed, robbed me of these joys.
So how is it that today, unit testing is part of the fun for me?
*Sadly, the amount I have left to learn has only increased since that time
My first unit testing success
It's 2015. I was writing a game in my spare time for my own entertainment. In this game, spacecraft could form and disband fleets, but this feature was a mess. In playtesting, the fleets would fail to form, fail to disband, grow and shrink by accident... I needed some way to comprehensively test these code paths without playing through every option myself with a scientific rigour. It dawned on me that unit tests were actually the answer.
I had tasted the usefulness of unit tests. In this process, I even wrote a simple kind of mock; something that would provide objects for me to work with instead of user-entered data. Testing this project was a happy, easy experience because:
- My project only worked with plain old .Net objects (no database connections or weird dependencies)
- The classes under test had clear responsibilities
Testing showed loads of flaws in my implementation which I never would have caught by hours of manual testing. Suddenly, the code was clean, clear and under control! I also realised that my game logic was tightly-coupled to the user interface; tests wouldn't finish because they were waiting for user input. So I refactored the game object to accept a delegate for progressing the game; while the real game would use Console.Readline(), the tests could pass in a do-nothing delegate. I had unwittingly encountered and implemented inversion-of-control. Thanks testing!
Turning up the heat
Lifted by success with unit testing in the personal arena, I set about introducing tests to a troublesome project at Village. This project had code quality issues which the team was struggling to conquer.
We instituted a policy where anytime you fixed a bug, you had to write a unit test to prove that it was fixed and stays fixed! This was not always possible because we were integrating with Microsoft Office, and some of the office objects are very difficult to mock. But this encouraged us to:
- Separate business logic from front-end-integration logic
- Test all possible business logic
- Make clearer class responsibilities
This project now has about 300 unit tests, and is a successful project which is in users' hands daily! This was a great chance to get more of our quickly expanding team on board with the benefits of unit testing.
Making it cool
Around this time, I also noticed that the cool kids on GitHub who had hundreds of NPM packages would proudly display automatically-generated badges on the front page of each project, proclaiming "___% coverage". They were game-ifying the proportion of lines of code covered by unit tests, and that appealed to me a lot!
Suddenly, unit testing was not just useful, it was cool.
Unit Tests Imbuing Beauty
Lately, we built a project which searches the contents of many different file types. The different search components were built in isolation and it wasn't practical to run a full-breadth test of the system with any regularity. This was an ideal place for unit testing, and the project came pretty close to Test-Driven Development.
- The search provider follows the Factory pattern, with tests to ensure they always produced the expected search engine for the given file type.
- The search engines follow the Strategy pattern, with tests to ensure that they read sample files correctly.
- The search result models have tests as simple as checking the right defaults are always set on a new object, or that a search creates an appropriate description of what was searched for and how many results there were.
It is truly a thing of beauty.
Making a difference
Somewhere along the road, unit testing stopped being a burden, and started being a joy. What can you do to make this happen?
- Start simple. I was overwhelmed as an enterprise coding newb to be introduced to testing, mocking, and TDD all at once. If you haven't done automated testing before, start with anything. It doesn't matter whether you use black-box or white-box, the right technique, or the right framework. Just test something!
- Own it. Contrive a simple project which you can test. Or if you are an encourager, give such a project to your team for them to muse upon. Make it fun.
- Learn structure. Unit testing goes hand-in-hand with object-oriented principles. These take time and experience, but as you improve in one, you improve in the other. One Big Subroutine is not testable at all, but a solution which follows object principles (which often begin to look like design patterns) will be very testable.
- Make it cool. Yeah, this is a bit of an unknown. But let the advocates advocate. Let the culture bearers in your organisation pass this on as a fun enhancement, not as a burden. Don't hammer it home, but create an atmosphere where provable quality is rewarded, and if possible, gameified!
I hope this helps to encourage you about the benefits and accessibility of automated testing, particularly unit testing. If you have any questions or comments, hit me up on twitter @SteGriff, and if you want to take on an expert org to work with you or your project, talk to us @VillageSoftware!
Syndicated from Village Software
Top comments (31)
In college, I always heard about unit testing and how important it was, but it wasn't taught.
In my first job as a software engineer, we had an extremely Legacy system and the company didn't want to "waste" time on going back and making tests for things.
At my second one, a startup, I constantly asked for it (since I honestly didn't know what it actually was, I was afraid to just.... Do it), and was told to leave it on the back burner until we got the product out.
At both jobs, I know that we constantly ran into the same bugs, that would've easily gotten caught. I knew there was a solution, but didn't feel I had the permission or knowledge to make it happen.
Recently I've been working on my own project and wanted to tackle the daunting task of Unit Tests. It is extremely easy to get lost in the weeds. You start by seeing a tutorial with the most basic of tests, like
assert.equals(1+1, 2), and you think you can handle it all. And then you do a little more research and see people talking about mocks, spies, stubs, test runners vs test frameworks. It's so easy to get overwhelmed and want to give up.Truly, starting simple is extremely important. There are SO many things that you can sufficiently test with a basic
assert.equals(myVar, 5). Let all of the bells and whistles come as they're needed.Sadly common story. I tried for several years to unsuccessfully convince the leadership at a consulting agency that they didn't need to sell unit tests separately, but they were a core feature of the development itself and that we should always write it them for all our code.
But no, to this day (10+ years after I started, 5 years after I left) that company still considers unit tests to be an extra, something people do at other places.
Gladly at the next place there were some unit tests, but still at a poor level. People didn't think of them at all, most of them were actually not unit tests but massively slow monsters. They pretended their SOLID principles were all that were needed to make code easily testable, and .. it wasn't. More like the opposite in many cases.
Nowadays there's little I do without unit tests, and require them in all projects I'm working with. I consider it more like you don't really know your stuff works before you can prove it with unit tests. You don't always need a lot of them, but you still need to have them.
The recent trends in unit testing tools and methods getting better are just amazing, with Python the
mocklibrary is simply incredible and most dbs and such come with mocking libraries too, and things like snapshot testing are making so many things easier to test.Unfortunately still there are still several common areas that are annoyingly difficult to test, you'd think that by now websites were super easy to test but often this is not the case. Also in the gamedev world you will find automated tests to be almost non-existent, but the gamedev world tends to move quite slowly overall so it's not that surprising.
I bet this is a common story. I had the same exact thing happen to me. Jobs where tests weren't of any importance so I just never learned. I had to force myself and be the example for the team.
Same story here with at the end not being able to use TDD.
I used to develop naturally close to the TDD way. I would create a function, test every scenario manually and once it worked, move on to the next bits of code.
When TDD became popular and I heard of it (many years ago), I was super excited and wanted to try that, only to be told we could not do that.
At the time, processes and technologies were strictly controlled in the industry I worked in (finance).
I gave up pushing for it.
Then, a few years later, I became tech support in a different company and industry and I saw they were using unit tests so at least I can say I've read test units, even if I've never created them.
I'm starting to develop a few tools for my company and I'm getting into it and that's true that's it's so easy to get lost and it's better to start small.
But I would say it is the same as everything in programming.
After a few years not following what's new in Javascript, I'm learning all about Node.js, Express, Vue, React, Graphql, Apollo etc ...
And that's only related to javascript!
One of the frictions to unit tests is the language and environment.
Unit testing in C++ is not fun. I don't think it will ever be fun.
Unit testing in C# using Visual Studio, NUnit (or xUnit.net), and NCrunch was joy wrapped in "squeee!" of delight.
Unit testing in D is superfluous, since D has proper contract programming. (Unit tests are nothing more than contract programming for languages that lack contract programming constructs as part of the core language.)
And then there is always the danger of someone sticking integration tests into the unit test mix. Integration tests have their place, too... but not commingled in with the unit tests. Unit tests are like working with quarks, hadrons, leptons, and atoms. Whereas integration tests are like working with girders, bricks, mortar, electrical wiring, plumbing.
When building smaller APIs, I sometimes find that my end-to-end tests and unit tests for my controllers tend to overlap a lot. Since I usually don't have many middlewares, or the middlewares are out-of-the-box from libraries which are already well-tested, the two different kinds of tests usually end up doing the same thing which is a lot of duplication and mocking of services.
Am I assuming something wrong here or is the duplication really good/necessary?
It's quite likely your controllers are doing too much stuff.
Your controllers really only aught to be
If they do more, you probably should be refactoring logic out of your controller. Note how if you have a broad "service" later injected into your controller, you only need to mock the one thing
Another possibility is your end to end tests are too exhaustive. Google for Martin Fowler's test pyramid, the number of e2es should be small. Test the key business cases and then unit test everything else. This should give you enough confidence your system works and keeps your test suite from taking a long time to execute.
Another thing to mention here: if something goes wrong in your application which (obviously) wasn't covered by any test then try to add a unit test for this particular case. If that isn't an option then you may write an integration test. If that isn't viable either than you are allowed to write and e2e test.
Why? Because unit tests are the cheapest tests you can run. Everything else is exepnsive in various ways.
You should keep in mind that if writing a unit test seems to be really hard your code may need some refactoring. This of course always sounds trivial but it's sometimes a hard thing to grasp at first. But it will pay off because you'll learn a lot. Just try!
That's a great point Ravern, and I feel you - I've had the same thing. I think that you don't need to unit test things that are:
But anything in your solution which is unique or original could be unit tested. For example:
Straightforward API projects often do some of the above.
That said, unit testing is a helper, not a law! Test what it's helpful to test. Your end-to-end testing sounds like it provides a lot of value, and perhaps in many cases that's all you need!
Good read, I had some laughs :)
I actually JUST recently had that same "saw the light" moment with unit tests so now I feel good about writing them.
Refactoring 3x duplicated code across our app into one class and unit testing every code path. A job well done :)
Integration tests are always better than unit tests. It cover much larger code-base chunk (except corner cases, where is to hard to reproduce some logic) and yes, they're more expensive, but it's in our duty to make it cheaper with modern instruments like Testcontainers and similar.
So I think only viable case for unit-tests is corner cases.
blog.usejournal.com/lean-testing-o...
In my early young career, I had not the chance to do unit tests and back then it was not a trending skill. After a return in school, Ill have a class this semester that covers unit tests and I can't wait to learn more about it. I too find it overwhelming, hopefully that course will help me.
During my last internship in a big corp, they had many IT solution and despite their gigantic size, their wasn't a single unit test. While waiting to learn about unit tests, I am reading "Building Maintainable Software" published at O'Reilly. There is a lot of useful tips on how to make consistant and short unit of codes so you can better test them and maintain them. I highly recommend this reading.
I'm gonna try and keep it brief...
At the time of writing this, I can say I wholeheartedly share the same sentiment as you when it comes to writing tests. A few years ago, my arrogance and lack of knowledge made me perceive writing unit/integration tests as a way to confine yourself from future changes and extremely difficult to do, due to the level of verbosity you need to get to your coverage goals.
Fast-forward to last year: Since then I had matured as a developer and had embraced ES6, and had the fortunate luck of building components that are used by thousands of ppl every day.
With that ego-boost, I set a wild coverage target (100%) for a couple of those components and, needless to say, your ego begins to fade and flaws surface as you write your test cases. What I thought would take a week to test fully (just one of the components) actually turned into a sleepless month-long refactoring, modularizing, and testing exercise. More importantly, writing those tests taught me more about JS and my own writing style than anything else.
Obviously, my opinion on authoring tests code has completed changed since then, and your post really resonated with me, so thanks for that.
Btw, check out the testing time on this: reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/9bl...
Nice read, thanks for sharing. I will need to break up my big subroutines but don't see how yet... who wants to have a look at my python code? 🤓
Great! Maybe you could post it on codereview.stackexchange.com/ or perhaps in a new post here? Let us know!
I used to be a big contributor to that community. It warms my heart to see a link to it out in the wild.
Thanks for the tip! I'll craft a demo of the code I currently use because I would reveal too much personal information. Once posted I'll add the link here!
hi there I posted a code review question but it's about logging, not unit testing :) codereview.stackexchange.com/quest...
Great post ! It illustrates the fact that TDD is first & foremost a DESIGN tool, not a testing tool ! Testing is only a happy consequence. 🙂
Nice article.
I totally agree with you, and I unit test my side projects, always, because I know how much you get having them! Especially when you do refactoring.
But, the sad thing is that at work, in my company, we don't write unit tests, because everything is about the money and time, because time is money, and unit tests takes time. I worked on many projects, and every time I ask "Should I write unit tests", the answer is "No", or "We'l decide later", or similar. We are working for clients, that care more about when the product will be completed, then about the quality of the product.
In my opinion, the main problem of unit tests is that people can not see the result of them at the beginning (and clients can't see why they are important at all). At the end, unit tests save money and time, and clients should know it!
At my workplace I have been unsuccessful in convincing people to unit test and it is not about getting product out the door. It is a resistance to change. Overcoming the "I've been programming for 15 years without it" is difficult. Even when I wrote the infrastructure, gave training, pages examples etc just getting people to write a spec can be exasperating.