Related
I'm trying to add unit-test and integration-test for my grails application but I have some trouble how to distinguish between both and when to use unit or integration to test my controllers actions and services.
The tutorial I found online is not very clean. I can't find complete example to follow up.
Can you please share helpful topics?
I follow the following guidelines:
Try writing as many unit tests as you can. They can be written for controllers, services, domain classes or any other groovy classes. The idea is that unit tests are friends for developers. Writing enough unit tests will
make sure that the developer makes lesser mistakes. As they execute
quickly, this means quick verification. But unit tests cannot test the following:
Criteria queries, HQL queries
Actual database Interactions (queries, transactional behaviour, updates, db constraints etc.)
Inter modular interactions
So we write the Integration tests as well
Integration tests take longer to execute. Writing Integration tests often need bootstrapping data. But they really are helpful to test functionalities end to end (excluding the actual user interactions through UI for which functional tests are written). So Integration Tests can be written for:
Testing all database interactions as unit tests actually do not test the database interactions. This also includes testing criteria, hql etc.,
Testing transactional behaviour (which is dependent on db)
Testing implementations end to end. So this will also test how two independently created modules interact with each other and make sure we have created them correctly.
One problem with integration tests is their speed. For me, integration tests take 15+ seconds to start up. In that time, certain things do slip out of mind focus.
I prefer to go with unit tests that start in no more then 2 sec and can be run several times in those 15 seconds.
One more argument for unit tests is they force you to decouple your code. Integration tests always tempt you to just rely on some other component existing and initialized.
Important links:
http://spockframework.org/spock/docs/1.0/interaction_based_testing.html
http://docs.grails.org/latest/guide/testing.html
Unfortunately it is not just a matter preference or speed. It is a huge subject, but I can give you some advice based on my experience.
If you expect to be covering your database access code (queries, transactional behaviour) by using unit tests, you are deluding yourself. You are testing how your queries comply with the in-memory implementation of GORM. Not hibernate, not your database.
I usually have two types of tests. Unit and functional tests. The functional tests will perform a full test, running against a real database, and stimulating the system like a user would (if it is a web site via Geb, if it is a REST api, via a REST client).
The functional tests will set up a startup state by executing some kind of fixture code first. This can be registering a user and logging them in, for example. Then the test will run, and then the postconditions are checked. Here, you can check the postconditions either by accessing the database through the GORM API, or by using production API calls (danger of covering a bug with another bug).
Sometimes, your system will interact with a third system. Here, if you can, you can mock the implementation of the third system, by injecting a mock implementation into the system under test.
You have also tools like Spring Cloud Contract, that allow you to create bock a mock server for your system under test, and a specification for your third-party system. See https://cloud.spring.io/spring-cloud-contract/spring-cloud-contract.html
The unit tests, I use to thoroughly test all execution paths of a given class. I will try to trigger all exception states, all secondary scenarios, to make sure that everything is covered. I don't think it is realistic to have 100% coverage by using functional or integration tests.
Q1: When is it ideal to run unit test? Should it be ran before each time I go to debug the app? Should they be ran before I commit changes to svn? I think if an app only has a couple of unit test it should be ran each time the app is about to debug. But lets say we hundreds of unit test that can take a bit of time to complete, not sure if this is ideal or not. I think then it would be better to just run them before committing or deploying.
Q2: In my app Im using a repository pattern with a service layer. I've done some research on how to test a service when the service is calling a repository and the repository is querying db. So in order for it to be a true unit test and not an integration test, I have to find a way to test without touching the database. I found people are using Moq to mock their repository. Here's where I have a problem, to me it seems if I mock a repository then I'm changing the behavior of how the method is suppose to work and to me seems like a pointless unit test. It doesn't seem you are actually testing your code. Am I completley wrong about this? Thanks for any advice.
Let me take a shot.
A1: When you refactor existing code, you should execute the corresponding unit tests (not all) and see if anything is broken by your changes. For new functionality you should implement new unit tests in parallel using TDD. You should never execute all the unit tests by your own but should use or rely on continuous integration.
A2: I had a same opinion like you. But now, I am convinced that unit testing for service layer is required. Whatever that can be covered using unit testing should be covered. At this point, the core of your services might just be a delegation to repositories but services evolves. The services takes up the responsibility of parameter validation, authorization, logging, transactions, batch-support API etc. Then, it is not only data-access but many more things. If I were in your place, I would go for unit testing of services by mocking repositories. Sometimes, services provide convenient methods on top of the repository.
Hope it might be of some help to you.
A1. When making changes to your code the more often you run the unit tests the faster you will get feedback on whether the behavior they were written to assert has been affected, so the more often the better! Unit tests should be very fast and running several hundred should only take a couple of minutes at most, but it might be worth looking into infinitest (if working with java, i expect an alternative will exist for .net etc) it is a plugin to eclipse and automatically runs your unit tests when eclipse builds your project. It is clever enough to run only the tests that have been affected since the last time it ran, e.g. if you update a test, or if you update some "application" code that is covered by some unit tests the specific tests will be executed.
A2. Unit tests will cover many different scenarios that will call your services + daos many times, using "real" services will make it difficult to guarantee the results of each call (and setting up the data for each test can be painful), but also the results can be slow. It's usually better when unit testing to mock these services and testing them independently with integration tests.
I used TDD as a development style on some projects in the past two years, but I always get stuck on the same point: how can I test the integration of the various parts of my program?
What I am currently doing is writing a testcase per class (this is my rule of thumb: a "unit" is a class, and each class has one or more testcases). I try to resolve dependencies by using mocks and stubs and this works really well as each class can be tested independently. After some coding, all important classes are tested. I then "wire" them together using an IoC container. And here I am stuck: How to test if the wiring was successfull and the objects interact the way I want?
An example: Think of a web application. There is a controller class which takes an array of ids, uses a repository to fetch the records based on these ids and then iterates over the records and writes them as a string to an outfile.
To make it simple, there would be three classes: Controller, Repository, OutfileWriter. Each of them is tested in isolation.
What I would do in order to test the "real" application: making the http request (either manually or automated) with some ids from the database and then look in the filesystem if the file was written. Of course this process could be automated, but still: doesn´t that duplicate the test-logic? Is this what is called an "integration test"? In a book i recently read about Unit Testing it seemed to me that integration testing was more of an anti-pattern?
IMO, and I have no literature to back me on this, but the key difference between our various forms of testing is scope,
Unit testing is testing isolated pieces of functionality [typically a method or stateful class]
Integration testing is testing the interaction of two or more dependent pieces [typically a service and consumer, or even a database connection, or connection to some other remote service]
System integration testing is testing of a system end to end [a special case of integration testing]
If you are familiar with unit testing, then it should come as no surprise that there is no such thing as a perfect or 'magic-bullet' test. Integration and system integration testing is very much like unit testing, in that each is a suite of tests set to verify a certain kind of behavior.
For each test, you set the scope which then dictates the input and expected output. You then execute the test, and evaluate the actual to the expected.
In practice, you may have a good idea how the system works, and so writing typical positive and negative path tests will come naturally. However, for any application of sufficient complexity, it is unreasonable to expect total coverage of every possible scenario.
Unfortunately, this means unexpected scenarios will crop up in Quality Assurance [QA], PreProduction [PP], and Production [Prod] cycles. At which point, your attempts to replicate these scenarios in dev should make their way into your integration and system integration suites as automated tests.
Hope this helps, :)
ps: pet-peeve #1: managers or devs calling integration and system integration tests "unit tests" simply because nUnit or MsTest was used to automate it ...
What you describe is indeed integration testing (more or less). And no, it is not an antipattern, but a necessary part of the sw development lifecycle.
Any reasonably complicated program is more than the sum of its parts. So however well you unit test it, you still have not much clue about whether the whole system is going to work as expected.
There are several aspects of why it is so:
unit tests are performed in an isolated environment, so they can't say anything about how the parts of the program are working together in real life
the "unit tester hat" easily limits one's view, so there are whole classes of factors which the developers simply don't recognize as something that needs to be tested*
even if they do, there are things which can't be reasonably tested in unit tests - e.g. how do you test whether your app server survives under high load, or if the DB connection goes down in the middle of a request?
* One example I just read from Luke Hohmann's book Beyond Software Architecture: in an app which applied strong antipiracy defense by creating and maintaining a "snapshot" of the IDs of HW components in the actual machine, the developers had the code very well covered with unit tests. Then QA managed to crash the app in 10 minutes by trying it out on a machine without a network card. As it turned out, since the developers were working on Macs, they took it for granted that the machine has a network card whose MAC address can be incorporated into the snapshot...
What I would do in order to test the
"real" application: making the http
request (either manually or automated)
with some ids from the database and
then look in the filesystem if the
file was written. Of course this
process could be automated, but still:
doesn´t that duplicate the test-logic?
Maybe you are duplicated code, but you are not duplicating efforts. Unit tests and integrations tests serve two different purposes, and usually both purposes are desired in the SDLC. If possible factor out code used for both unit/integration tests into a common library. I would also try to have separate projects for your unit/integration tests b/c
your unit tests should be ran separately (fast and no dependencies). Your integration tests will be more brittle and break often so you probably will have a different policy for running/maintaining those tests.
Is this what is called an "integration
test"?
Yes indeed it is.
In an integration test, just as in a unit test you need to validate what happened in the test. In your example you specified an OutfileWriter, You would need some mechanism to verify that the file and data is good. You really want to automate this so you might want to have a:
Class OutFilevalidator {
function isCorrect(fName, dataList) {
// open file read data and
// validation logic
}
You might review "Taming the Beast", a presentation by Markus Clermont and John Thomas about automated testing of AJAX applications.
YouTube Video
Very rough summary of a relevant piece: you want to use the smallest testing technique you can for any specific verification. Spelling the same idea another way, you are trying to minimize the time required to run all of the tests, without sacrificing any information.
The larger tests, therefore are mostly about making sure that the plumbing is right - is Tab A actually in slot A, rather than slot B; do both components agree that length is measured in meters, rather than feet, and so on.
There's going to be duplication in which code paths are executed, and possibly you will reuse some of the setup and verification code, but I wouldn't normally expect your integration tests to include the same level of combinatoric explosion that would happen at a unit level.
Driving your TDD with BDD would cover most of this for you. You can use Cucumber / SpecFlow, with WatiR / WatiN. For each feature it has one or more scenarios, and you work on one scenario (behaviour) at a time, and when it passes, you move onto the next scenario until the feature is complete.
To complete a scenario, you have to use TDD to drive the code necessary to make each step in the current scenario pass. The scenarios are agnostic to your back end implementation, however they verify that your implementation works; if there is something that isn't working in the web app for that feature, the behaviour needs to be in a scenario.
You can of course use integration testing, as others pointed out.
What is the difference between unit tests and functional tests? Can a unit test also test a function?
Unit tests tell a developer that the code is doing things right; functional tests tell a developer that the code is doing the right things.
You can read more at Unit Testing versus Functional Testing
A well explained real-life analogy of unit testing and functional testing can be described as follows,
Many times the development of a system is likened to the building of a house. While this analogy isn't quite correct, we can extend it for the purposes of understanding the difference between unit and functional tests.
Unit testing is analogous to a building inspector visiting a house's construction site. He is focused on the various internal systems of the house, the foundation, framing, electrical, plumbing, and so on. He ensures (tests) that the parts of the house will work correctly and safely, that is, meet the building code.
Functional tests in this scenario are analogous to the homeowner visiting this same construction site. He assumes that the internal systems will behave appropriately, that the building inspector is performing his task. The homeowner is focused on what it will be like to live in this house. He is concerned with how the house looks, are the various rooms a comfortable size, does the house fit the family's needs, are the windows in a good spot to catch the morning sun.
The homeowner is performing functional tests on the house. He has the user's perspective.
The building inspector is performing unit tests on the house. He has the builder's perspective.
As a summary,
Unit Tests are written from a programmers perspective. They are made to ensure that a particular method (or a unit) of a class performs a set of specific tasks.
Functional Tests are written from the user's perspective. They ensure that the system is functioning as users are expecting it to.
Unit Test - testing an individual unit, such as a method (function) in a class, with all dependencies mocked up.
Functional Test - AKA Integration Test, testing a slice of functionality in a system. This will test many methods and may interact with dependencies like Databases or Web Services.
A unit test tests an independent unit of behavior. What is a unit of behavior? It's the smallest piece of the system that can be independently unit tested. (This definition is actually circular, IOW it's really not a definition at all, but it seems to work quite well in practice, because you can sort-of understand it intuitively.)
A functional test tests an independent piece of functionality.
A unit of behavior is very small: while I absolutely dislike this stupid "one unit test per method" mantra, from a size perspective it is about right. A unit of behavior is something between a part of a method and maybe a couple of methods. At most an object, but not more than one.
A piece of functionality usually comprises many methods and cuts across several objects and often through multiple architectural layers.
A unit test would be something like: when I call the validate_country_code() function and pass it the country code 'ZZ' it should return false.
A functional test would be: when I fill out the shipping form with a country code of ZZ, I should be redirected to a help page which allows me to pick my country code out of a menu.
Unit tests are written by developers, for developers, from the developer's perspective.
Functional tests may be user facing, in which case they are written by developers together with users (or maybe with the right tools and right users even by the users themselves), for users, from the user's perspective. Or they may be developer facing (e.g. when they describe some internal piece of functionality that the user doesn't care about), in which case they are written by developers, for developers, but still from the user's perspective.
In the former case, the functional tests may also serve as acceptance tests and as an executable encoding of functional requirements or a functional specification, in the latter case, they may also serve as integration tests.
Unit tests change frequently, functional tests should never change within a major release.
TLDR:
To answer the question: Unit Testing is a subtype of Functional Testing.
There are two big groups: Functional and Non-Functional Testing. The best (non-exhaustive) illustration that I found is this one (source: www.inflectra.com):
(1) Unit Testing: testing of small snippets of code (functions/methods). It may be considered as (white-box) functional testing.
When functions are put together, you create a module = a standalone piece, possibly with a User Interface that can be tested (Module Testing). Once you have at least two separate modules, then you glue them together and then comes:
(2) Integration Testing: when you put two or more pieces of (sub)modules or (sub)systems together and see if they play nicely together.
Then you integrate the 3rd module, then the 4th and 5th in whatever order you or your team see fit, and once all the jigsaw pieces are placed together, comes
(3) System Testing: testing SW as a whole. This is pretty much "Integration testing of all pieces together".
If that's OK, then comes
(4) Acceptance Testing: did we build what the customer asked for actually? Of course, Acceptance Testing should be done throughout the lifecycle, not just at the last stage, where you realise that the customer wanted a sportscar and you built a van.
"Functional test" does not mean you are testing a function (method) in your code. It means, generally, that you are testing system functionality -- when I run foo file.txt at the command line, the lines in file.txt become reversed, perhaps. In contrast, a single unit test generally covers a single case of a single method -- length("hello") should return 5, and length("hi") should return 2.
See also IBM's take on the line between unit testing and functional testing.
According to ISTQB those two are not comparable. Functional testing is not integration testing.
Unit test is one of tests level and functional testing is type of testing.
Basically:
The function of a system (or component) is 'what it does'. This is
typically described in a requirements specification, a functional
specification, or in use cases.
while
Component testing, also known as unit, module and program testing,
searches for defects in, and verifies the functioning of software
(e.g. modules, programs, objects, classes, etc.) that are separately
testable.
According to ISTQB component/unit test can be functional or not-functional:
Component testing may include testing of functionality and specific non-functional characteristics such as resource-behavior (e.g. memory leaks), performance or robustness testing, as well as structural testing (e.g. decision coverage).
Quotes from Foundations of software testing - ISTQB certification
In Rails, the unit folder is meant to hold tests for your models, the functional folder is meant to hold tests for your controllers, and the integration folder is meant to hold tests that involve any number of controllers interacting. Fixtures are a way of organizing test data; they reside in the fixtures folder. The test_helper.rb file holds the default configuration for your tests.
u can visit this.
very simply we can say:
black box: user interface test like functional test
white box: code test like unit test
read more here.
AFAIK, unit testing is NOT functional testing. Let me explain with a small example. You want to test if the login functionality of an email web app is working or not, just as a user would. For that, your functional tests should be like this.
1- existing email, wrong password -> login page should show error "wrong password"!
2- non-existing email, any password -> login page should show error "no such email".
3- existing email, right password -> user should be taken to his inbox page.
4- no #symbol in email, right password -> login page should say "errors in form, please fix them!"
Should our functional tests check if we can login with invalid inputs ? Eg. Email has no # symbol, username has more than one dot (only one dot is permitted), .com appears before # etc. ? Generally, no ! That kind of testing goes into your unit tests.
You can check if invalid inputs are rejected inside unit tests as shown in the tests below.
class LoginInputsValidator
method validate_inputs_values(email, password)
1-If email is not like string.string#myapp.com, then throw error.
2-If email contains abusive words, then throw error.
3-If password is less than 10 chars, throw error.
Notice that the functional test 4 is actually doing what unit test 1 is doing. Sometimes, functional tests can repeat some (not all) of the testing done by unit tests, for different reasons. In our example, we use functional test 4 to check if a particular error message appears on entering invalid input. We don't want to test if all bad inputs are rejected or not. That is the job of unit tests.
The way I think of it is like this: A unit test establishes that the code does what you intended the code to do (e.g. you wanted to add parameter a and b, you in fact add them, and don't subtract them), functional tests test that all of the code works together to get a correct result, so that what you intended the code to do in fact gets the right result in the system.
UNIT TESTING
Unit testing includes testing of smallest unit of code which usually are functions or methods. Unit testing is mostly done by developer of unit/method/function, because they understand the core of a function. The main goal of the developer is to cover code by unit tests.
It has a limitation that some functions cannot be tested through unit tests. Even after the successful completion of all the unit tests; it does not guarantee correct operation of the product. The same function can be used in few parts of the system while the unit test was written only for one usage.
FUNCTIONAL TESTING
It is a type of Black Box testing where testing will be done on the functional aspects of a product without looking into the code. Functional testing is mostly done by a dedicated Software tester. It will include positive, negative and BVA techniques using un standardized data for testing the specified functionality of product. Test coverage is conducted in an improved manner by functional tests than by unit tests. It uses application GUI for testing, so it’s easier to determine what exactly a specific part of the interface is responsible for rather to determine what a code is function responsible for.
Test types
Unit testing - In Procedural programming unit is a procedure, in Object oriented programming unit is a class. Unit is isolated and reflects a developer perspective
Functional testing - more than Unit. User perspective, which describes a feature, use case, story...
Integration testing - check if all separately developed components work together. It can be other application, service, library, database, network etc.
Narrow integration test - double[About] is used. The main purpose is to check if component is configured in a right way
Broad integration test (End to End test, System test) - live version. The main purpose is to check if all components are configured in a right way
UI testing - checks if user input triggers a correct action and the UI is changed when some actions are happened
...
Non functional testing - other cases
Performance testing - calculate a speed and other metrics
Usability testing - UX
...
[iOS tests]
[Android tests]
Unit Test:-
Unit testing is particularly used to test the product component by component specially while the product is under development.
Junit and Nunit type of tools will also help you to test the product as per the Unit.
**Rather than solving the issues after the Integration it is always comfortable to get it resolved early in the development.
Functional Testing:-
As for as the Testing is concerned there are two main types of Testing as
1.Functional Test
2.Non-Functional Test.
Non-Functional Test is a test where a Tester will test that The product will perform all those quality attributes that customer doesn't mention but those quality attributes should be there.
Like:-Performance,Usability,Security,Load,Stress etc.
but in the Functional Test:- The customer is already present with his requirements and those are properly documented,The testers task is to Cross check that whether the Application Functionality is performing according to the Proposed System or not.
For that purpose Tester should test for the Implemented functionality with the proposed System.
Unit testing is usually done by developers. The objective of doing the same is to make sure their code works properly. General rule of thumb is to cover all the paths in code using unit testing.
Functional Testing: This is a good reference. Functional Testing Explanation
(Leaving aside hair-splitting about if this is integration-testing or unit-testing.)
I would rather first test at the large scale. If my app writes a VRML file that is the same as the reference one then the VRML exporter works, I don't then have to run unit tests on every single statement in the code. I would also like to use this do some level of poor-man gui testing by comparing screenshots.
Is there a unit test framework (for C++ ideally) that integrates this sort of testing - or at least makes it easy to integrate with unit tests?
edit. It seems a better term is approval testing. So are there any other unit test frameworks that incorporate Approval Testing ?
Have a look at Approval Tests, written by a couple of friends of mine. Not C++, but it's the general idea of what you're after, also known as Golden Master tests. Good stuff, whether it's unit tests or not.
Kitware, for VTK, uses CDash to do most of its testing. Many of its tests are similar in nature to this - they write out an image of the rendered model, and compare it to a reference image.
In addition, they have code in there to specifically handle very subtle differences to the reference image due to different graphics card drivers/manufacturers/etc. The tests can be written in a way to compare the reference image with some tolerance.
Okay, I think you're making an incorrect assumption about the nature of unit test code; your statement that
If my app writes a VRML file that is
the same as the reference one then the
VRML exporter works, I don't then have
to run unit tests on every single
statement in the code.
is strictly correct if you're looking to do a validation test on your code, but note that this type of test is strictly different than what a unit test actually is. Unit tests are for testing individual units of code; they do not exist for verification purposes. Depending on your environment, you may not need unit tests at all, but please keep in mind that validation tests (testing the validity of the overall program output) and unit tests (testing that the individual code units work as expected) are completely different things.
(Note that I'm really not trying to be nitpicky about this; also, you can use plenty of unit test frameworks to achieve this result; keep in mind, though, that what you're writing aren't really "Unit Tests", despite running them in a Unit Test framework.)