Related
I've joined a new team, and I've had a problem understanding how they are doing unit tests. When I asked where the unit tests are written, they explained they don't do their unit tests that way.
They explained that what they're calling unit tests is when they actually check the code they wrote locally, and that all of the points are being connected. To me, this is integration testing and just testing your code locally.
I was under the impression that unit tests are code written to verify behavior in a small section of a code. For example, you may write a unit test to make sure it returns the right value, and make the appropriate calls to the database. use a framework like NUnit or MbUnit to help you out in your assertions.
Unit testing to me is supposed to be fast and quick. To me, you want these so you can automate it, and have a huge suite of tests for your application to make sure that it behaves AS YOU EXPECT.
Can someone provide clarification in my or their misunderstandings?
I have worked places that did testing that way and called it unit testing. It reminded me of a quote attributed to Abe Lincoln:
Lincoln: How many legs does a dog have?
Other Guy: 4.
Lincoln: What if we called the tail a leg?
Other Guy: Well, then it would have 5.
Lincoln: No, the answer is still 4. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.
They explained that what they're calling unit tests is when they
actually check the code they wrote locally, and that all of the points
are being connected.
That is not a unit test. That is a code review. Code reviews are good, but without actual unit tests things will break.
Unit tests involve writing code. Specifically, a unit test operate on one unit, which is just a class or component of your software.
If a class under test depends on another class, and you test both classes together, you have an integration test. Integration tests are good. Depending on the language/framework you might use the same testing framework (e.g. junit for java) for both unit and integration tests. If you have a dependency but mock or stub that dependency, then you have a pure unit test.
Unit testing to me is supposed to be fast and quick. To me, you want
these so you can automate it, and have a huge suite of tests for your
application to make sure that it behaves AS YOU EXPECT.
That is essentially correct. How 'fast and quick' developing unit tests is depends on the complexity of what is being tested and the skill of the developer writing the test. You definitely want to build up a suite of tests over time, so you know when something breaks as a codebase becomes more complex. That is how testing makes your codebase more maintainable, by telling you what ceases to function as you make changes.
Your team-mates are not doing unit testing. They are doing "fly by the seat of your pants" development.
Your assumptions are correct.
Doing a project without unit-tests (as they do, don't be fooled) might seem nice for the first few weeks: less code to write, less architecture to think about, less problems to worry about. And you can see the code is working correctly, right?
But as soon as someone (someone else, or even the original coder) comes back to an existing piece of code to modify it, add feature, or simply understand how it worked and what it exactly did, things will become a lot more problematic. And before you realize it, you'll spend your nights browsing through log files and debugging what seemed like a small feature just because it needs to integrate with other code that nobody knows exactly how it works. ANd you'll hate your job.
If it's not worth testing it (with actual unit-tests), then it's not worth writing the code in the first place. Everyone who tried coding without and with unit tests know that. Please, please, make them change their mind. Every time a piece of untested code is checked in somewhere, a puppy dies horribly.
Also, I should say, it's a lot (A LOT) harder to add tests later to a project that was done without testing in mind, than to build the test and production code side-to-side from the very start. Testing not only help you make sure your code works fine, it improves your code quality by forcing you to make good decisions (i.e. coding on interfaces, loose coupling, inversion of control, etc.)
"Unit testing" != "unit tests".
Writing unit tests is one specific method of performing unit testing. It is a very good one, and if your unit tests are written well, it can give you good value over a long time. But what they're doing is indeed unit testing. It's just the kind of unit testing that doesn't help you at all the next time you need to carve on the same code. And that's wasteful.
To add my two cents, yes, that is indeed not Unit testing. IMHO, the main features of unit tests are that it should be fast, automated and isolated. You can using a mocking framework such as RhinoMocks to isolate external dependencies.
Unit tests also have to be very simple and short. Ideally no more than a screen length. It is also one of the few places in software engineering where copy and pasting code might be a better solution than creating highly reusable and highly abstract functions. The reason simplicity is given such a high priority is to avoid the "Who watches the Watchers" problem. You really don't want to be in a situation where you have complex bugs in your unit tests, because they themselves aren't being tested. Here you are relying on the extreme simplicity and tiny size of the tests to avoid bugs.
The names of the unit tests also should be very descriptive, again following the simplicity and self documenting paradigm. I should be able to read the name of the test method and know exactly what it is doing. A quick glance at the code should show me exactly what functionality is being tested and if any external dependencies are being mocked.
The descriptive test names also make you think about the application as a whole. If I look at the entire test run, ideally just by looking at the names of all the tests that were run, I should have a fairly good idea of what the application does.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Is Unit Testing worth the effort?
I know what is the purpose of unit tests generally speaking, but I found some things that bother me.
1)
Purpose of tests early bug discovery. So, in some of later iterations, if I make some changes in code, automated test have to alarm me and tell me that I've screwed up some long ago forgotten piece of my software.
But, say that I have class A and say that is interact with some others class' instance, call it class B.
When one writes unit test for class A, he has to mock class B.
So, in some future, if one makes some changes in class B, and that causes some bugs, they will reflect only in class B's unit test, not in A's ('cause A's test doesn't use real class B, but it's mock with fixed inputs and outputs).
So, I can't see how could unit test do early notifying of made bugs that one isn't aware of? I'm aware of possible bugs in class that I'm changing, I do not need unit test for it, I need test to alarm me of consequences of my changes that makes bug in some "forgotten" class, and that isn't possible with unit tests. Or am I wrong?
2)
When writing mocks and right expectations of calling methods, their inputs and returning values, one has to know how class-under-test is going to be implemented.
And I think that that contradicts with test driven development. In TDD one writes tests first, and, driven by them, one writes a code.
But I can't write right expectations (and tests in general) unless I write code that has to be tested. That contradicts with TDD, right?
Both of those problems could be solved if I used real objects instead of mocks. But that isn't unit testing then, right? In unit test class-under-test has to be isolated form the rest of the system, not using real classes but mocks.
I'm sure that I'm wrong somewhere, but I cannot find where. I've been reading and reading and I can't find what have I understood wrong.
I have just implemented TDD and unit testing for the first time. I think its great, and I have never used it in a contiguous integration environment, where I imagine its even more valuable.
My process:
Create the skeleton of class where business logic will go (be it a
serivce layer, or domain object, etc).
Write the test, and define the
method names and required functionaility in the test - which then prompts my
ide to write the skelton method (a small but nice plus)
Then write the actual class methods being tested.
Run tests, debug.
I can now no longer write code without first writing its test, it really does aid develop. You catch bugs straight away, and it really helps you mentally order your code and development in a structured simple manner. And of course, any code that breaks existing functionality is caught straightaway.
I have not needed to use mock objects yet (using spring I can get away with calling service layer, and controller methods directly).
Strictly speaking, you spend more time in writing unit test rather than concentrating on the actual code.
there is no way you can achieve 100% code coverage. I do unit test my application, but I feel its not worth it. But not every one agrees with it.
If you change a piece of code, your unit test fail and figure out why its failing but for me its not worth it.
I am not big fan of Unit testing... You mock everything but mocking is big task..........
But now a days companies are trying for TDD approach.
Simple answer: Yes, they are useful for real.
TDD is nice and all in theory but I've hardly ever seen seen it done in practice. Unittests are not bound to tdd, however. You can always write unittests for code that works to make sure it still works after changes. This usage of unittests have saved me countless hours of bugfixing because the tests immediately pointed out what went wrong.
I tend to avoid mocks. In most cases, they're not worth it in my opinion. Not using mocks might make my unittest a little more of an integrationtest but it gets the job done. To make sure, your classes work as designed.
Unit Tests itself aren't stupid, it depends of your project.
I think Unit Tests are good, not just in TDD development but in any kind of project. The real pro for me is that if you wrap crucial code in your project with Unit Tests, there's a way to know if what you meant with it is still working or not.
For me, the real problem is that if someone is messing your code, there should be a way for him/her to know if the tests are still succedding, but not by making them run manually. For instance, lets take Eclipse + Java + Maven example. If you use Unit tests on your Maven Java Project, each time anyone build it, the tests run automatically. So, if someone messed your code, the next time he build it, he'll get a "BUILD FAILED" Console error, pointing that some Unit Tests failed.
So my point is: Unit Tests are good, but people should know that they're screwing things up without running tests each time they change code.
0) No, it doesn't. Sound stupid, I mean. It is a perfectly valid question.
The sad fact is that ours is an industry riddled with silver bullets and slick with snake oil, and if something doesn't make sense then you are right to question it. Any technique, any approach to any part of engineering is only ever applicable in certain circumstances. These are typically poorly documented at best, and so it all tends to deteriorate into utterly pointless my-method-is-better-than-yours arguments.
I have had successes and failures with unit testing, and in my experience it can be very useful indeed, when correctly applied.
It is not a good technique when you're doing a massive from-scratch development effort, because everything is changing too rapidly for the unit tests to keep up. It is an excellent technique when in a maintenance phase, because you're changing a small part of a larger whole which still needs to work the way it's supposed to.
To me, unit testing is not about test-driven development but design-by-contract: the unit test checks that the interface has not been violated. From this, it's pretty easy to see that the same person should not be writing a unit and its corresponding unit test, so for very small-scale stuff, like my own pet projects, I never use it. In larger projects, I advocate it - but only if design-by-contract is employed and the project recognizes interface specifications as important artefacts.
Unit testing as a technique is also sensitive to the unit size. It is not necessarily the case that a class is testable on its own, and in my experience the class is generally too small for unit testing. You don't want to test a class per se, you want to test a unit of functionality. Individually deployable (installable) binaries, eg jars or DLLs, make better candidates in my book, or packages if you're in a Java-style language.
I tried looking through all the pages about unit tests and could not find this question. If this is a duplicate, please let me know and I will delete it.
I was recently tasked to help implement unit testing at my company. I realized that I could unit test all the Oracle PL/SQL code, Java code, HTML, JavaScript, XML, XSLT, and more.
Is there such a thing as too much unit testing? Should I write unit tests for everything above or is that overkill?
This depends on the project and its tolerance for failure. There is no single answer. If you can risk a bug, then don't test everything.
When you have tons of tests, it is also likely you will have bugs in your tests. Adding to your headaches.
test what needs testing, leave what does not which often leaves the fairly simple stuff.
Is there such as thing as too much unit testing?
Sure. The problem is finding the right balance between enough unit testing to cover the important areas of functionality, and focusing effort on creating new value for your customers in the terms of system functionality.
Unit testing code vs. leaving code uncovered by tests both have a cost.
The cost of excluding code from unit testing may include (but aren't limited to):
Increased development time due to fixing issues you can't automatically test
Fixing problems discovered during QA testing
Fixing problems discovered when the code reaches your customers
Loss of revenue due to customer dissatisfaction with defects that made it through testing
The costs of writing a unit test include (but aren't limited to):
Writing the original unit test
Maintaining the unit test as your system evolves
Refining the unit test to cover more conditions as you discover them in testing or production
Refactoring unit tests as the underlying code under test is refactored
Lost revenue when it takes longer for you application to reach enter the market
The opportunity cost of implementing features that could drive sales
You have to make your best judgement about what these costs are likely to be, and what your tolerance is for absorbing such costs.
In general, unit testing costs are mostly absorbed during the development phase of a system - and somewhat during it's maintenance. If you spend too much time writing unit tests you may miss a valuable window of opportunity to get your product to market. This could cost you sales or even long-term revenue if you operate in a competitive industry.
The cost of defects is absorbed during the entire lifetime of your system in production - up until the point the defect is corrected. And potentially, even beyond that, if they defect is significant enough that it affects your company's reputation or market position.
Kent Beck of JUnit and JUnitMax fame answered a similar question of mine.
The question has slightly different semantics but the answer is definitely relevant
The purpose of Unit tests is generally to make it possibly to refector or change with greater assurance that you did not break anything. If a change is scary because you do not know if you will break anything, you probably need to add a test. If a change is tedious because it will break a lot of tests, you probably have too many test (or too fragile a test).
The most obvious case is the UI. What makes a UI look good is something that is hard to test, and using a master example tends to be fragile. So the layer of the UI involving the look of something tends not to be tested.
The other times it might not be worth it is if the test is very hard to write and the safety it gives is minimal.
For HTML I tended to check that the data I wanted was there (using XPath queries), but did not test the entire HTML. Similarly for XSLT and XML. In JavaScript, when I could I tested libraries but left the main page alone (except that I moved most code into libraries). If the JavaScript is particularly complicated I would test more. For databases I would look into testing stored procedures and possibly views; the rest is more declarative.
However, in your case first start with the stuff that worries you the most or is about to change, especially if it is not too difficult to test. Check the book Working Effectively with Legacy Code for more help.
Yes, there is such a thing as too much unit testing. One example would be unit testing in a whitebox manner, such that you're effectively testing the specific implementation; such testing would effectively slow down progress and refactoring by requiring compliant code to need new unit tests (because the tests were dependent upon specific implementation details).
I suggest that in some situations you might want automated testing, but no 'unit' testing at all (Should one test internal implementation, or only test public behaviour?), and that any time spent writing unit tests would be better spent writing system tests.
While more tests is usually better (I have yet to be on a project that actually had too many tests), there's a point at which the ROI bottoms out, and you should move on. I'm assuming you have finite time to work on this project, by the way. ;)
Adding unit tests has some amount of diminishing returns -- after a certain point (Code Complete has some theories), you're better off spending your finite amount of time on something else. That may be more testing/quality activities like refactoring and code review, usability testing with real human users, etc., or it could be spent on other things like new features, or user experience polish.
As EJD said, you can't verify the absence of errors.
This means there are always more tests you could write. Any of these could be useful.
What you need to understand is that unit-testing (and other types of automated testing you use for development purposes) can help with development, but should never be viewed as a replacement for formal QA.
Some tests are much more valuable than others.
There are parts of your code that change a lot more frequently, are more prone to break, etc. These are the most economical tests.
You need to balance out the amount of testing you agree to take on as a developer. You can easily overburden yourself with unmaintainable tests. IMO, unmaintainable tests are worse than no tests because they:
Turn others off from trying to maintain a test suite or write new tests.
Detract from you adding new, meaningful functionality. If automated testing is not a net-positive result, you should ditch it like other engineering practices.
What should I test?
Test the "Happy Path" - this ensures that you get interactions right, and that things are wired together properly. But you don't adequately test a bridge by driving down it on a sunny day with no traffic.
Pragmatic Unit Testing recommends you use Right-BICEP to figure out what to test. "Right" for the happy path, then Boundary conditions, check any Inverse relationships, use another method (if it exists) to Cross-check results, force Error conditions, and finally take into account any Performance considerations that should be verified. I'd say if you are thinking about tests to write in this way, you're most likely figure out how to get to an adequate level of testing. You'll be able to figure out which ones are more useful and when. See the book for much more info.
Test at the right level
As others have mentioned, unit tests are not the only way to write automated tests. Other types of frameworks may be built off of unit tests, but provide mechanisms to do package level, system or integration tests. The best bang for the buck may be at a higher level, and just using unit testing to verify a single component's happy path.
Don't be discouraged
I'm painting a more grim picture here than I expect most developers will find in reality. The bottom line is that you make a commitment to learn how to write tests and write them well. But don't let fear of the unknown scare you into not writing any tests. Unlike production code, tests can be ditched and rewritten without many adverse effects.
Unit test any code that you think might change.
You should only really write unit tests for any code which you have written yourself. There is no need to test the functionality inherently provided to you.
For example, If you've been given a library with an add function, you should not be testing that add(1,2) returns 3. Now if you've WRITTEN that code, then yes, you should be testing it.
Of course, whoever wrote the library may not have tested it and it may not work... in which case you should write it yourself or get a separate one with the same functionality.
Well, you certainly shouldn't unit test everything, but at least the complicated tasks or those that will most likely contain errors/cases you haven't thought of.
The point of unit testing is being able to run a quick set of tests to verify that your code is correct. This lets you verify that your code matches your specification and also lets you make changes and ensure that they don't break anything.
Use your judgement. You don't want to spend all of your time writing unit tests or you won't have any time to write actual code to test.
When you've unit tested your unit tests, thinking you have then provided 200% coverage.
There is a development approach called test-driven development which essentially says that there is no such thing as too much (non-redundant) unit testing. That approach, however, is not a testing approach, but rather a design approach which relies on working code and a more or less complete unit test suite with tests which drive every single decision made about the codebase.
In a non-TDD situation, automated tests should exercise every line of code you write (in particular Branch coverage is good), but even then there are exceptions - you shouldn't be testing vendor-supplied platform or framework code unless you know for certain that there are bugs which will affect you in that platform. You shouldn't be testing thin wrappers (or, equally, if you need to test it, the wrapper is not thin). You should be testing all core business logic, and it is certainly helpful to have some set of tests that exercise your database at some elemental level, although those tests will never work in the common situation where unit tests are run every time you compile.
Specifically with regard to database testing is intrinsically slow, and depending on how much logic is held in your database, quite difficult to get right. Typically things like dbs, HTML/XML documents & templating, and other document-ish aspects of a program are verified moreso than tested. The difference is usually that testing tries to exercise execution paths whereas verification tries to verify inputs and outputs directly.
To learn more about this I would suggest reading up on "Code Coverage". There is a lot of material available if you're curious about this.
G'day,
I am working with a group of offshore developers who have been using the term unit testing quite loosely.
Their QA document talks about writing unit tests and then performing unit testing of the system.
This doesn't line up with my interpretation of what unit testing is at all.
I am used to unit testing being a test or suite of tests that are being used to exercise a single class, usually as a black box. The class under test may require other classes to be included by the implementation but generally it is a single class that is being exercised by the unit test(s).
Then you have system functional testing, intergration testing, acceptance testing, etc.
I want to know is this a bit pedantic on my part? Or is this what you think of when referring to unit tests and unit testing?
Edit: Rob Wells. I need to clarify that approaching such testing from a black box perspective is only one aspect. When using mock objects to verify internal behaviours, you are really testing from a white box perspective because you know what you want to happen inside the box.
Unit tests are generally used by developers to test isolated sections of code. They cover border cases, error cases, and normal cases. They are intended to demonstrate the correctness of a limited segment of code. If all of your unit tests pass, then you have demonstrated that your isolated segments of code do what they are supposed to do.
When you do integration testing, you are looking at end-to-end cases, to see if all the segments that have passed unit testing work together. Functional testing checks to see if the code meets the requirements as specified. Acceptance testing is done by end users to see if they approve of the final product.
I try to implement unit tests to test only a single method. and I make an effort to crete "mock" classes for dependant classes and methods used by the method I am testing...
... so that the exercise of the code in that method does not in fact call code in other methods the unit test is not supposed to be "Testing" (There are other unit tests for those methods) This way, a failure of the unit test reliably indicates a failure of the method the unit test is testing...
Mock classes are designed to "simulate" the interface and behavior of dependant classes so that the method I am testing can call them and they will behave ina standard, well-defined way according to system requirements. In order to make this approach work, calls to such dependant classes and to their methods must be made on a well defined interface, so that the "tester" process can "inject" the Mock version of teh dependant class into the class being tested instead of the actual production version... . This is kinda like a common design pattern referred to as "Dependency Injection", or "Inversion of Control" (IOC)
There are several third party tools on the market to help you implement this kind of pattern. One I have heard of is called "Rhino-Mock" or something like that...
Edit: Rob Wells. #Charles. Thanks for this. I'd forgotten using mock objects to completely replace using other classes except for the one under test.
A couple of other things I've remembered after you mentioning mock objects is that:
they can be used to simulate errors being returned by the included classes.
they can be used to raise specific exceptions to check exception handling in the class under test.
they can be used to simulate items where setup costs are high, e.g. a large SQL DB back end.
they can be used to verify the contents of an incoming request.
For more information, have a look at Martin Fowler's paper called "Mocks Aren't Stubs" and The Pragmatic Programmers's article "Mock Objects"
There is no reason why unit tests can't span multiple classes, or even submodules, as long as the test is treating only one consistent business operation. Think about "calculateWage", a method of a BO that uses different strategies to calculate the salary of a person. That's one unit test in my opinion.
I have heard of techniques in which many of the unit tests are done first, and development is done around them. Someone has just commented saying that this is "Test Driven Development" - TDD (Thanks Elie).
But if this is an offshore operation that's possibly going to charge you more money because they're spending time doing these unit tests - then I'd be careful. Get a second opinion from someone, experienced with unit tests who will verify that they're actually doing as they say.
From my understanding, unit testing will add a bit more time to any development project, but of course may offer some quality control. Nonetheless, this is the type of quality control I would want with an in house project. This may just be something the offshore company throws out there to give you a warm fuzzy.
There is a difference between the process you use to test and the technology that is used to support it. The various frameworks used for unit testing are generally very flexible and can be used for testing small units of code, large units and even testing entire processes. This flexibility can lead to confusion.
My recommendation is that whatever specific methodology or process you adopt that you segregate the various Unit Test into distinct assemblies or modules. The exact arrangement depends on your code and your company's organization.
The accumulative effect of using the Unit Test framework is that much of the testing of the code is automated. Adopted correctly developers can evaluate changes to the code code better with out going through a full Q&A process. As for the Q & A Process itself it makes their time more productive as the quality of the code coming out of development should be higher.
Understand it is not THE answer to all quality issues it just a useful tool like the other you use.
Wikipedia would seem to suggest that unit testing is about testing the smallest amount of code which would be a method on a class in the case of OO programming.
Some may have a more general term of what they mean by unit tests, where some may think of some integration tests as being unit tests where the unit is a mixture of components.
there is a traditional view of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_testing as part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering. but i like the idea of an agile unit test: a test is an agile unit test if it is fast enough so that the programmers always run it.
A unit test is the smallest and only piece of confidence you can get yourself on your way to being done. That is what matters, iteratively building a shield against regression and spec deviation, not how you actually integrate it to your Object-Oriented architecture.
This is almost a repeat of the "What is a 'Unit'?" question.
"Unit" can be defined flexibly. If their document doesn't have a definition of "unit", you'll need to clarify that.
It might be that they think of unit as a big assembly of code. Which is not the most desirable definition.
While I agree that you have several layers of testing (unit, module, package, application), I also think that much of this can be done with unit testing tools. Leading to "what is a unit?" questions coming up all the time.
Unit depends on context. For an individual developer, unit must be Class. Sometimes, it will also mean module or package.
For a team, however, their unit may be a package or a complete application.
What does it matter what we think? The issue here is your unhappiness with the terms they use in the document. Why don't you discuss it with them?
Ten years ago, before the current usage of "unit testing" as tests written in code, the same designation was applied to manual tests. I worked for a software development firm with a very formalized software development process. We had to write "unit tests" before writing any code. In that era, the unit tests were written in a text document (such as in Word). They described the exact steps that the user was to follow in using the app. For example, they described the exact input to type on the page to set up a new customer. Or, the user was to search for a particular product, and see that the displayed information matched the test document. So, the test was a script that the tester followed, where they also recorded the results. When the new incarnation of unit testing came along, it was confusing for a while trying to figure out if they meant the old, human tests or the new, coded tests.
I lead a group of offshore team too. Supposely we have a set of unit tests...but it doesn't mean much. :) So we rely much more on the functional and testers for quality. The inherit problem with unit testing is that you have perfect knowledge of the functionals, and you trust the developers. In the real world, that's hard to assume..
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I saw many questions asking 'how' to unit test in a specific language, but no question asking 'what', 'why', and 'when'.
What is it?
What does it do for me?
Why should I use it?
When should I use it (also when not)?
What are some common pitfalls and misconceptions
Unit testing is, roughly speaking, testing bits of your code in isolation with test code. The immediate advantages that come to mind are:
Running the tests becomes automate-able and repeatable
You can test at a much more granular level than point-and-click testing via a GUI
Note that if your test code writes to a file, opens a database connection or does something over the network, it's more appropriately categorized as an integration test. Integration tests are a good thing, but should not be confused with unit tests. Unit test code should be short, sweet and quick to execute.
Another way to look at unit testing is that you write the tests first. This is known as Test-Driven Development (TDD for short). TDD brings additional advantages:
You don't write speculative "I might need this in the future" code -- just enough to make the tests pass
The code you've written is always covered by tests
By writing the test first, you're forced into thinking about how you want to call the code, which usually improves the design of the code in the long run.
If you're not doing unit testing now, I recommend you get started on it. Get a good book, practically any xUnit-book will do because the concepts are very much transferable between them.
Sometimes writing unit tests can be painful. When it gets that way, try to find someone to help you, and resist the temptation to "just write the damn code". Unit testing is a lot like washing the dishes. It's not always pleasant, but it keeps your metaphorical kitchen clean, and you really want it to be clean. :)
Edit: One misconception comes to mind, although I'm not sure if it's so common. I've heard a project manager say that unit tests made the team write all the code twice. If it looks and feels that way, well, you're doing it wrong. Not only does writing the tests usually speed up development, but it also gives you a convenient "now I'm done" indicator that you wouldn't have otherwise.
I don't disagree with Dan (although a better choice may just be not to answer)...but...
Unit testing is the process of writing code to test the behavior and functionality of your system.
Obviously tests improve the quality of your code, but that's just a superficial benefit of unit testing. The real benefits are to:
Make it easier to change the technical implementation while making sure you don't change the behavior (refactoring). Properly unit tested code can be aggressively refactored/cleaned up with little chance of breaking anything without noticing it.
Give developers confidence when adding behavior or making fixes.
Document your code
Indicate areas of your code that are tightly coupled. It's hard to unit test code that's tightly coupled
Provide a means to use your API and look for difficulties early on
Indicates methods and classes that aren't very cohesive
You should unit test because its in your interest to deliver a maintainable and quality product to your client.
I'd suggest you use it for any system, or part of a system, which models real-world behavior. In other words, it's particularly well suited for enterprise development. I would not use it for throw-away/utility programs. I would not use it for parts of a system that are problematic to test (UI is a common example, but that isn't always the case)
The greatest pitfall is that developers test too large a unit, or they consider a method a unit. This is particularly true if you don't understand Inversion of Control - in which case your unit tests will always turn into end-to-end integration testing. Unit test should test individual behaviors - and most methods have many behaviors.
The greatest misconception is that programmers shouldn't test. Only bad or lazy programmers believe that. Should the guy building your roof not test it? Should the doctor replacing a heart valve not test the new valve? Only a programmer can test that his code does what he intended it to do (QA can test edge cases - how code behaves when it's told to do things the programmer didn't intend, and the client can do acceptance test - does the code do what what the client paid for it to do)
The main difference of unit testing, as opposed to "just opening a new project and test this specific code" is that it's automated, thus repeatable.
If you test your code manually, it may convince you that the code is working perfectly - in its current state. But what about a week later, when you made a slight modification in it? Are you willing to retest it again by hand whenever anything changes in your code? Most probably not :-(
But if you can run your tests anytime, with a single click, exactly the same way, within a few seconds, then they will show you immediately whenever something is broken. And if you also integrate the unit tests into your automated build process, they will alert you to bugs even in cases where a seemingly completely unrelated change broke something in a distant part of the codebase - when it would not even occur to you that there is a need to retest that particular functionality.
This is the main advantage of unit tests over hand testing. But wait, there is more:
unit tests shorten the development feedback loop dramatically: with a separate testing department it may take weeks for you to know that there is a bug in your code, by which time you have already forgotten much of the context, thus it may take you hours to find and fix the bug; OTOH with unit tests, the feedback cycle is measured in seconds, and the bug fix process is typically along the lines of an "oh sh*t, I forgot to check for that condition here" :-)
unit tests effectively document (your understanding of) the behaviour of your code
unit testing forces you to reevaluate your design choices, which results in simpler, cleaner design
Unit testing frameworks, in turn, make it easy for you to write and run your tests.
I was never taught unit testing at university, and it took me a while to "get" it. I read about it, went "ah, right, automated testing, that could be cool I guess", and then I forgot about it.
It took quite a bit longer before I really figured out the point: Let's say you're working on a large system and you write a small module. It compiles, you put it through its paces, it works great, you move on to the next task. Nine months down the line and two versions later someone else makes a change to some seemingly unrelated part of the program, and it breaks the module. Worse, they test their changes, and their code works, but they don't test your module; hell, they may not even know your module exists.
And now you've got a problem: broken code is in the trunk and nobody even knows. The best case is an internal tester finds it before you ship, but fixing code that late in the game is expensive. And if no internal tester finds it...well, that can get very expensive indeed.
The solution is unit tests. They'll catch problems when you write code - which is fine - but you could have done that by hand. The real payoff is that they'll catch problems nine months down the line when you're now working on a completely different project, but a summer intern thinks it'll look tidier if those parameters were in alphabetical order - and then the unit test you wrote way back fails, and someone throws things at the intern until he changes the parameter order back. That's the "why" of unit tests. :-)
Chipping in on the philosophical pros of unit testing and TDD here are a few of they key "lightbulb" observations which struck me on my tentative first steps on the road to TDD enlightenment (none original or necessarily news)...
TDD does NOT mean writing twice the amount of code. Test code is typically fairly quick and painless to write and is a key part of your design process and critically.
TDD helps you to realize when to stop coding! Your tests give you confidence that you've done enough for now and can stop tweaking and move on to the next thing.
The tests and the code work together to achieve better code. Your code could be bad / buggy. Your TEST could be bad / buggy. In TDD you are banking on the chances of BOTH being bad / buggy being fairly low. Often its the test that needs fixing but that's still a good outcome.
TDD helps with coding constipation. You know that feeling that you have so much to do you barely know where to start? It's Friday afternoon, if you just procrastinate for a couple more hours... TDD allows you to flesh out very quickly what you think you need to do, and gets your coding moving quickly. Also, like lab rats, I think we all respond to that big green light and work harder to see it again!
In a similar vein, these designer types can SEE what they're working on. They can wander off for a juice / cigarette / iphone break and return to a monitor that immediately gives them a visual cue as to where they got to. TDD gives us something similar. It's easier to see where we got to when life intervenes...
I think it was Fowler who said: "Imperfect tests, run frequently, are much better than perfect tests that are never written at all". I interprete this as giving me permission to write tests where I think they'll be most useful even if the rest of my code coverage is woefully incomplete.
TDD helps in all kinds of surprising ways down the line. Good unit tests can help document what something is supposed to do, they can help you migrate code from one project to another and give you an unwarranted feeling of superiority over your non-testing colleagues :)
This presentation is an excellent introduction to all the yummy goodness testing entails.
I would like to recommend the xUnit Testing Patterns book by Gerard Meszaros. It's large but is a great resource on unit testing. Here is a link to his web site where he discusses the basics of unit testing. http://xunitpatterns.com/XUnitBasics.html
I use unit tests to save time.
When building business logic (or data access) testing functionality can often involve typing stuff into a lot of screens that may or may not be finished yet. Automating these tests saves time.
For me unit tests are a kind of modularised test harness. There is usually at least one test per public function. I write additional tests to cover various behaviours.
All the special cases that you thought of when developing the code can be recorded in the code in the unit tests. The unit tests also become a source of examples on how to use the code.
It is a lot faster for me to discover that my new code breaks something in my unit tests then to check in the code and have some front-end developer find a problem.
For data access testing I try to write tests that either have no change or clean up after themselves.
Unit tests aren’t going to be able to solve all the testing requirements. They will be able to save development time and test core parts of the application.
This is my take on it. I would say unit testing is the practice of writing software tests to verify that your real software does what it is meant to. This started with jUnit in the Java world and has become a best practice in PHP as well with SimpleTest and phpUnit. It's a core practice of Extreme Programming and helps you to be sure that your software still works as intended after editing. If you have sufficient test coverage, you can do major refactoring, bug fixing or add features rapidly with much less fear of introducing other problems.
It's most effective when all unit tests can be run automatically.
Unit testing is generally associated with OO development. The basic idea is to create a script which sets up the environment for your code and then exercises it; you write assertions, specify the intended output that you should receive and then execute your test script using a framework such as those mentioned above.
The framework will run all the tests against your code and then report back success or failure of each test. phpUnit is run from the Linux command line by default, though there are HTTP interfaces available for it. SimpleTest is web-based by nature and is much easier to get up and running, IMO. In combination with xDebug, phpUnit can give you automated statistics for code coverage which some people find very useful.
Some teams write hooks from their subversion repository so that unit tests are run automatically whenever you commit changes.
It's good practice to keep your unit tests in the same repository as your application.
LibrarIES like NUnit, xUnit or JUnit are just mandatory if you want to develop your projects using the TDD approach popularized by Kent Beck:
You can read Introduction to Test Driven Development (TDD) or Kent Beck's book Test Driven Development: By Example.
Then, if you want to be sure your tests cover a "good" part of your code, you can use software like NCover, JCover, PartCover or whatever. They'll tell you the coverage percentage of your code. Depending on how much you're adept at TDD, you'll know if you've practiced it well enough :)
Unit-testing is the testing of a unit of code (e.g. a single function) without the need for the infrastructure that that unit of code relies on. i.e. test it in isolation.
If, for example, the function that you're testing connects to a database and does an update, in a unit test you might not want to do that update. You would if it were an integration test but in this case it's not.
So a unit test would exercise the functionality enclosed in the "function" you're testing without side effects of the database update.
Say your function retrieved some numbers from a database and then performed a standard deviation calculation. What are you trying to test here? That the standard deviation is calculated correctly or that the data is returned from the database?
In a unit test you just want to test that the standard deviation is calculated correctly. In an integration test you want to test the standard deviation calculation and the database retrieval.
Unit testing is about writing code that tests your application code.
The Unit part of the name is about the intention to test small units of code (one method for example) at a time.
xUnit is there to help with this testing - they are frameworks that assist with this. Part of that is automated test runners that tell you what test fail and which ones pass.
They also have facilities to setup common code that you need in each test before hand and tear it down when all tests have finished.
You can have a test to check that an expected exception has been thrown, without having to write the whole try catch block yourself.
I think the point that you don't understand is that unit testing frameworks like NUnit (and the like) will help you in automating small to medium-sized tests. Usually you can run the tests in a GUI (that's the case with NUnit, for instance) by simply clicking a button and then - hopefully - see the progress bar stay green. If it turns red, the framework shows you which test failed and what exactly went wrong. In a normal unit test, you often use assertions, e.g. Assert.AreEqual(expectedValue, actualValue, "some description") - so if the two values are unequal you will see an error saying "some description: expected <expectedValue> but was <actualValue>".
So as a conclusion unit testing will make testing faster and a lot more comfortable for developers. You can run all the unit tests before committing new code so that you don't break the build process of other developers on the same project.
Use Testivus. All you need to know is right there :)
Unit testing is a practice to make sure that the function or module which you are going to implement is going to behave as expected (requirements) and also to make sure how it behaves in scenarios like boundary conditions, and invalid input.
xUnit, NUnit, mbUnit, etc. are tools which help you in writing the tests.
Test Driven Development has sort of taken over the term Unit Test. As an old timer I will mention the more generic definition of it.
Unit Test also means testing a single component in a larger system. This single component could be a dll, exe, class library, etc. It could even be a single system in a multi-system application. So ultimately Unit Test ends up being the testing of whatever you want to call a single piece of a larger system.
You would then move up to integrated or system testing by testing how all the components work together.
First of all, whether speaking about Unit testing or any other kinds of automated testing (Integration, Load, UI testing etc.), the key difference from what you suggest is that it is automated, repeatable and it doesn't require any human resources to be consumed (= nobody has to perform the tests, they usually run at a press of a button).
I went to a presentation on unit testing at FoxForward 2007 and was told never to unit test anything that works with data. After all, if you test on live data, the results are unpredictable, and if you don't test on live data, you're not actually testing the code you wrote. Unfortunately, that's most of the coding I do these days. :-)
I did take a shot at TDD recently when I was writing a routine to save and restore settings. First, I verified that I could create the storage object. Then, that it had the method I needed to call. Then, that I could call it. Then, that I could pass it parameters. Then, that I could pass it specific parameters. And so on, until I was finally verifying that it would save the specified setting, allow me to change it, and then restore it, for several different syntaxes.
I didn't get to the end, because I needed-the-routine-now-dammit, but it was a good exercise.
What do you do if you are given a pile of crap and seem like you are stuck in a perpetual state of cleanup that you know with the addition of any new feature or code can break the current set because the current software is like a house of cards?
How can we do unit testing then?
You start small. The project I just got into had no unit testing until a few months ago. When coverage was that low, we would simply pick a file that had no coverage and click "add tests".
Right now we're up to over 40%, and we've managed to pick off most of the low-hanging fruit.
(The best part is that even at this low level of coverage, we've already run into many instances of the code doing the wrong thing, and the testing caught it. That's a huge motivator to push people to add more testing.)
This answers why you should be doing unit testing.
The 3 videos below cover unit testing in javascript but the general principles apply across most languages.
Unit Testing: Minutes Now Will Save Hours Later - Eric Mann - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UmmaPe8Bzc
JS Unit Testing (very good) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IYqgx8JxlU
Writing Testable JavaScript - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzjogCFO4Zo
Now I'm just learning about the subject so I may not be 100% correct and there's more to it than what I'm describing here but my basic understanding of unit testing is that you write some test code (which is kept separate from your main code) that calls a function in your main code with input (arguments) that the function requires and the code then checks if it gets back a valid return value. If it does get back a valid value the unit testing framework that you're using to run the tests shows a green light (all good) if the value is invalid you get a red light and you then can fix the problem straight away before you release the new code to production, without testing you may actually not have caught the error.
So you write tests for you current code and create the code so that it passes the test. Months later you or someone else need to modify the function in your main code, because earlier you had already written test code for that function you now run again and the test may fail because the coder introduced a logic error in the function or return something completely different than what that function is supposed to return. Again without the test in place that error might be hard to track down as it can possibly affect other code as well and will go unnoticed.
Also the fact that you have a computer program that runs through your code and tests it instead of you manually doing it in the browser page by page saves time (unit testing for javascript). Let's say that you modify a function that is used by some script on a web page and it works all well and good for its new intended purpose. But, let's also say for arguments sake that there is another function you have somewhere else in your code that depends on that newly modified function for it to operate properly. This dependent function may now stop working because of the changes that you've made to the first function, however without tests in place that are run automatically by your computer you will not notice that there's a problem with that function until it is actually executed and you'll have to manually navigate to a web page that includes the script which executes the dependent function, only then you notice that there's a bug because of the change that you made to the first function.
To reiterate, having tests that are run while developing your application will catch these kinds of problems as you're coding. Not having the tests in place you'd have to manually go through your whole application and even then it can be hard to spot the bug, naively you send it out into production and after a while a kind user sends you a bug report (which won't be as good as your error messages in a testing framework).
It's quite confusing when you first hear of the subject and you think to yourself, am I not already testing my code? And the code that you've written is working like it is supposed to already, "why do I need another framework?"... Yes you are already testing your code but a computer is better at doing it. You just have to write good enough tests for a function/unit of code once and the rest is taken care of for you by the mighty cpu instead of you having to manually check that all of your code is still working when you make a change to your code.
Also, you don't have to unit test your code if you don't want to but it pays off as your project/code base starts to grow larger as the chances of introducing bugs increases.
Unit-testing and TDD in general enables you to have shorter feedback cycles about the software you are writing. Instead of having a large test phase at the very end of the implementation, you incrementally test everything you write. This increases code quality very much, as you immediately see, where you might have bugs.