So i have this huge SF2 project, which is luckily pretty 'OK' written. Services are there, background jobs are there, no god classes, it's testable--but, i never gotten any further than just unit-testing stuff, so the question is basically, where do i start taking this further.
The project consists of SF2 and all the yada yada, Doctrine2, Beanstalkd, Gaufrette, some other abstractions--its fine.
The one problem it has is some gluecode in controllers here and there, but i don't see it as a big problem since functional tests are going to me the main focus.
The infrastructure is setup pretty ok as well, its covered by docker so CI is going to work out well also.
But it has basically gotten too large to manually test any longer, so i want full functional coverage on short notice, and let the unit-testing grow over time. (Gonna dive into the isolated objects as they need future adjustments and build test for them in due course)
So i got the unit-testing covered, thats going to need to grow over time, but i want to make some steps towards the functional testing to get some quick gains on the testing dep. YESTERDAY.
My plan as of now is use Behat and Mink for this, the tests are going to be huge, so i might as well want to have it set as stories instead of code. Behat also seem to have a extension for Symfony' BrowserKit.
There are plenty of services and external things happening, but they are all isolated by services, so i can mock them through the test environment service config i guess.
Please some advice here if there is as better way
I'm also going to need fixtures, i'm using Alice for generating some fixtures so far, seems nice together with the doctrine extension, don't think there are "better" options on this one.
How should i test external services? Im mocking things as a Facebook service, but i also want to really test it to some test account, is this advisable? I know that this goes beyond its scope, the service has to be mocked and tested in every way possible to "ensure its working" according to the purist. But in the end of the day it still breaks because of some API key or other problem in the connection, which i cant afford really. So please advice here also
All your suggestions to use other tools are welcome ofcourse, and especially if there is a good book that covers my story.
I'm glad you brought up behat, I was going to suggest the same thing.
I would consider starting with your most business critical pieces; unit test the extremely important business logic and use behat on the rest.
For the most part, I would create stubs for your services that have expected output for expected input. That way you can create failures based on specific input. You can override your services in your test config.
Another approach would be to do very thin functional testing where you make GET requests to all of your endpoints and look for 200's. This is a very quick way to make sure that your pages are at least loading. From there, you can start writing tests for your POST endpoints and expanding your suite further with more detailed test cases.
Related
I am new to unit testing. Suppose I am building a web application. How do I know what to test? All the examples that you see are some sort of basic sum function that really has no real value, or at least I've never written a function to add to inputs and then return!
So, my question...on a web application, what are the sort of things that need tested?
I know that this is a broad question but anything will be helpful. I would be interested in links or anything that gives real life examples as opposed to concept examples that don't have any real life usage.
Take a look at your code, especially the bits where you have complex logic with loops, conditionals, etc, and ask yourself: How do I know if this works?
If you need to change the complex logic to take into account other corner cases then how do you know that the changes you introduce don't break the existing cases? This is precisely what unit testing is intended to address.
So, to answer your question about how it applies to web applications: suppose you have some code that lays out the page differently depending on the browser. One of your customers refuses to upgrade from IE6 and insists that you support that. So you unit test your layout code by simulating the connection string from IE6 and checking that the layout is what you expect.
A customer tells you they've found a security hole where using a particular cookie will give you administrator access. How do you know that you've fixed the bug and it doesn't happen again? Create a unit test for it, and run the unit tests on a daily basis so that you get an early warning if it fails.
You discover a bug where users with accents in their names get corrupted in the database. Abstract out the webform input from the database layer and add unit tests to ensure that (eg) UTF8 encoded data is stored in the database correctly and can be retrieved.
You get the idea. Anywhere where part of the process has a well-defined input and output is ideal for unit testing. Anything that doesn't is ideal for refactoring until it is well defined. Take a look at projects such as WebUnit, HTMLUnit, XMLUnit, CSSUnit.
The first part of testing is to write testable applications. Separate out as much functionality as possible from the UI. Refactor into smaller methods. Learn about dependency injection, and try using that to create methods that can take simple, throw-away input that produces known (and therefor testable) results. Look at mocking tools.
Infrastructure and data layer code is easiest to test.
Look at behavior-driven testing as well as test-driven design. For my money, behavior testing is better than pure unit testing; you can follow use-cases, so that tests match against expected usage patterns.
Unit testing means testing any unit of work, the smallest units of work are methods and functions., The art of unit testing is to define tests for a function that cannot just be checked by inspection, what unit test aims at is to test every possible functional requirement of a method.
Consider for example you have a login function, then there could be following tests that you could write for failures:
1. Does the function fail on empty username and password
2. Does the function fail on the correct username but the wrong password
3. Does the function fail on the correct password but the wrong username
The you would also write tests that the function would pass:
1. Does the function pass on correct username and password
This is just a basic example but this is what unit testing attempts to achieve, testing out things that may have been overlooked during development.
Then there is a purist approach too where a developer is first supposed to write tests and then the code to pass those tests (aka test driven development).
Resources:
http://devzone.zend.com/article/2772
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-mocktest.html
If you're new to TDD, may I suggest a quick trip into the world of BDD? My experience is that the language really helps people pick up TDD more quickly. Particularly, I point you at this article, in which Dan North suggests "what to test":
http://blog.dannorth.net/introducing-bdd/
Note for transparency: I may be heavily involved in the BDD movement.
Regarding the classes to unit test in a web-app, I'd consider starting with controllers, domain objects if they have complex behaviour, and anything called "service", "manager", "helper" or "util". Please also try renaming any classes like this so that they are less generic and actually say what they do. Classes called "calculator" or "converter" are also good candidates, and you'll probably find more in the same package / folder.
There are a couple of good books which could help you too:
Martin Fowler, "Refactoring"
Michael Feathers, "Working Effectively with Legacy Code"
Good luck!
If you start out saying, "How do I test my web app?" that is biting off a lot at once, and it's going to be hard to see unit testing as providing any kind of benefit. I got into unit testing by starting with small pieces that were isolated, then writing libraries test-first, and only then building whole applications that were testable.
Generally a web app has a domain model, it has data access objects that do queries on a database and return domain objects, it has services that call the data access objects, and it has controllers that accept http requests and call the services.
Tests for the controllers will check that they call the right service method with the right parameters. Service objects can be mocks injected during test setup.
Tests for the services will check that they call the right data access objects and perform whatever logic they need to be performing. Data access objects can be mocks injected during test setup.
Tests for the data access objects will check that they perform the right database operation (query or update or whatever) by checking the contents of the database before and after. For dao tests you'll need a database, and a tool like DBUnit to pre-populate it before the test. Also your domain objects' getters and setters will get exercised with this test so you won't need a separate test for them.
Tests for the domain model will check that whatever domain logic you have encoded in them works (Sometimes you may not have any). If you design your domain model so it is not coupled to the database then the more logic you put in the domain model the better because it's easy to test. You shouldn't need any mocks for these tests.
For a web app the kind of tests you need to do are slightly different. Unit tests are tests which test a particular component of your program. For a web app, you would need to test that forms accept/reject the right inputs, that all links point to the right place, that it can cope with unexpected inputs etc. I'd have a look at Selenium if I were you, I've used it extensively in testing a number of sites: Selenium HQ
I don't have experience of testing web apps, but speaking generally: you unit test the smallest 'chunks' of your program possible. That means you test each function on an individual basis. Anything on a larger scale becomes an integration test.
Of course, there are going to be methods so simple that its not worth your time to write a test for them, but on the whole aim to test as great a proportion of your code as possible.
A rule of thumb is that if it is not worth testing it is not worth writing.
However, some things are very difficult to test, so you have the do some cost benefit analysis on what you test. If you initially aim for 70% code coverage, you will be on the right track.
I'm writing an upload function for ColdFusion of Wheels and need to unit test it once it's finished. The problem I'm having though is that I have no idea on how to create a mock multi-part form post in ColdFusion that I can use in my unit tests.
What I would like to be able to do is create the mock request simulating a file being uploaded that cffile could then process and I could check against.
I saw in the online ColdFusion help, an example of creating such a request using cfhttp, however it has to post to another page which kind of defeats that whole purpose.
Great question rip. For what it's worth, I contribute to MXUnit (wrote the eclipse plugin) and this scenario came up in a presentation I did at cfobjective this year on writing easier-to-test code (http://mxunit.org/doc/zip/marc_esher_cfobjective_2009_designing_for_easy_testability.zip).
In this scenario, I'd suggest NOT testing the upload. I believe we shouldn't spend time testing stuff that's not our code. The likelihood that we'll catch a bug or other oddity is sufficiently low for me to justify leaving it untested. I believe we should be testing "our" code, however.
In your scenario, you have two behaviors: 1) the upload and 2) the post-upload behavior. I'd test the post-upload behavior.
This now frees your unit test to not care about the source of the file. Notice how this actually results in a decoupling of the upload logic from the "what do I do with the file?" logic. Taken to its conclusion, this at least creates the potential (theoretically) to reuse this post-upload logic for stuff other than just uploads.
This keeps your test much easier, because now you can just test against some file that you put somewhere in the setUp of the unit test itself.
So your component changes from
<cfffunction name="uploadAndDoStuff">
to
<cffunction name="upload">
and then
<cffunction name="handleUpload">
or "handleFile" or "doSomethingWithFile" or "processNetworkFile" or some other thing. and in your unit test, you leave upload() untested and just test your post-upload handler. For example, if I were doing this at work, and my requirements were: "Upload file; move file to queue for virus scanning; create thumbnails if image or jpg; add stuff to database; etc" then I'd keep each of those steps as separate functions, and I'd test them in isolation, because I know that "upload file" already works since it's worked since CF1.0 (or whatever). Make sense?
Better yet, leave the "upload" out of the component entirely. nothing wrong with keeping it in a CFM file since there's kind of not much point (as far as I can see) in attempting to genericize it. there might be benefits where mocking is concerned, but that's a different topic altogether.
I did a quick search for MXUnit testing a form upload and came up with this google groups thread : Testing a file upload
Its a discussion between Peter Bell and Bob Silverberg - the outcome of which is that testing a file upload is actually part of acceptance testing as opposed to a unit test.
I know that doesn't strictly answer your question, but I hope it helps.
Strictly speaking you are right. If you have to go out to make a call to an external resource do test something ( database, web service, file uploader) it does defeat the purpose of unit testing. The best general advice is to mock out behaviours of external resources and assume they function or are covered by their own unit tests.
Pragmatism can alter this though, on the Model-Glue framework codebase, we have a number of unit tests that call out to external resources, like for persisting values across a redirect, connecting the AbstractRemotingService functionality and so on. These were deemed important enough features to unit test and we chose to make external dependencies of our unit tests to ensure good coverage. After all, in framework code, there IS NOT acceptance tests. Those are done by our users and users of a framework expect flawless code, as they should.
So there are cases where you want to test a vital external resource and you want it handled by an automated function, it can make sense to add it to your unit tests. Just know you are deviating away from a best practice that is there for a reason.
Dan Wilson
i have project in .net , i want to test it.
But i dont know anything about testing and its method.
how can i go ahead with testing.
which method is better for me for begining?
Is there anything to decide which testing method is taken into account for better result?
There is no "right" or "wrong" in testing. Testing is an art and what you should choose and how well it works out for you depends a lot from project to project and your experience.
But as a professional Tester Expert my suggestion is that you have a healthy mix of automated and manual testing.
AUTOMATED TESTING
Unit Testing
Use NUnit to test your classes, functions and interaction between them.
http://www.nunit.org/index.php
Automated Functional Testing
If it's possible you should automate a lot of the functional testing. Some frame works have functional testing built into them. Otherwise you have to use a tool for it. If you are developing web sites/applications you might want to look at Selenium.
http://www.peterkrantz.com/2005/selenium-for-aspnet/
Continuous Integration
Use CI to make sure all your automated tests run every time someone in your team makes a commit to the project.
http://martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html
MANUAL TESTING
As much as I love automated testing it is, IMHO, not a substitute for manual testing. The main reason being that an automated can only do what it is told and only verify what it has been informed to view as pass/fail. A human can use it's intelligence to find faults and raise questions that appear while testing something else.
Exploratory Testing
ET is a very low cost and effective way to find defects in a project. It take advantage of the intelligence of a human being and a teaches the testers/developers more about the project than any other testing technique i know of. Doing an ET session aimed at every feature deployed in the test environment is not only an effective way to find problems fast, but also a good way to learn and fun!
http://www.satisfice.com/articles/et-article.pdf
Since it is not clear about the scale of the project you have, all you need to do is make sure:
Your tests are trustworthy - you should know they are telling u the truth.
Repeatable
Consistent - If you repeat test with same test data it should provide same output.
Proves you are covering all the problem areas.
To get this you can use:
Standard way : NUnit, MbUnit (myFav) or xUnit (havent got around to working with it) or MSTest
Quick and Dirty : Console app (not cool, not so flexible)
If you are using .Net, I'd recommend checking out NUnit. It's a great testing framework to use.
As far as learning about the "testing method", there are many different ways to test an application. When using a tool like NUnit, for example, you are writing automated tests which run without user interaction. In these types of tests, you typically write tests for each of the public methods in your application, and you ensure that given known inputs, these methods produce the expected outputs. Over time as the application changes (via enhancements, bug fixes, etc.) you have a core set of tests that you can re-run to ensure nothing breaks as a result of the changes. You can also do failure testing to ensure that given an invalid set of inputs to a method, it throws the proper exceptions, etc.
Besides automated testing with a tool like NUnit, it's also important to ensure that your end users test the product. "End users" here could be a Quality Assurance group in your company, or it could be the actual customer. The point is that you need to ensure that someone actually uses your application to make sure it works as expected, because no matter how good the automated tests are, there will still be many things you won't think of that your users will discover. One way to approach this type of testing is to write test scenarios, and have your users execute them to make sure the scenario results in the correct behavior.
I think the best testing approach combines both of the above, namely automated testing and user testing (with documented test scenarios).
Ok, maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see the point of Selenium. What is the point of opening the browser using code, clicking buttons using code, and checking for text using code? I read the website and I see how in theory it would be good to automatically unit test your web applications, but in the end doesn't it just take much more time to write all this code rather than just clicking around and visually verifying things work?
I don't get it...
It allows you to write functional tests in your "unit" testing framework (the issue is the naming of the later).
When you are testing your application through the browser you are usually testing the system fully integrated. Consider you already have to test your changes before committing them (smoke tests), you don't want to test it manually over and over.
Something really nice, is that you can automate your smoke tests, and QA can augment those. Pretty effective, as it reduces duplication of efforts and gets the whole team closer.
Ps as any practice that you are using the first time it has a learning curve, so it usually takes longer the first times. I also suggest you look at the Page Object pattern, it helps on keeping the tests clean.
Update 1: Notice that the tests will also run javascript on the pages, which helps testing highly dynamic pages. Also note that you can run it with different browsers, so you can check cross-browser issues(at least on the functional side, as you still need to check the visual).
Also note that as the amount of pages covered by tests builds up, you can create tests with complete cycles of interactions quickly. Using the Page Object pattern they look like:
LastPage aPage = somePage
.SomeAction()
.AnotherActionWithParams("somevalue")
//... other actions
.AnotherOneThatKeepsYouOnthePage();
// add some asserts using methods that give you info
// on LastPage (or that check the info is there).
// you can of course break the statements to add additional
// asserts on the multi-steps story.
It is important to understand that you go gradual about this. If it is an already built system, you add tests for features/changes you are working on. Adding more and more coverage along the way. Going manual instead, usually hides what you missed to test, so if you made a change that affects every single page and you will check a subset (as time doesn't allows), you know which ones you actually tested and QA can work from there (hopefully by adding even more tests).
This is a common thing that is said about unit testing in general. "I need to write twice as much code for testing?" The same principles apply here. The payoff is the ability to change your code and know that you aren't breaking anything.
Because you can repeat the SAME test over and over again.
If your application is even 50+ pages and you need to do frequent builds and test it against X number of major browsers it makes a lot of sense.
Imagine you have 50 pages, all with 10 links each, and some with multi-stage forms that require you to go through the forms, putting in about 100 different sets of information to verify that they work properly with all credit card numbers, all addresses in all countries, etc.
That's virtually impossible to test manually. It becomes so prone to human error that you can't guarantee the testing was done right, never mind what the testing proved about the thing being tested.
Moreover, if you follow a modern development model, with many developers all working on the same site in a disconnected, distributed fashion (some working on the site from their laptop while on a plane, for instance), then the human testers won't even be able to access it, much less have the patience to re-test every time a single developer tries something new.
On any decent size of website, tests HAVE to be automated.
The point is the same as for any kind of automated testing: writing the code may take more time than "just clicking around and visually verifying things work", maybe 10 or even 50 times more.
But any nontrivial application will have to be tested far more than 50 times eventually, and manual tests are an annoying chore that will likely be omitted or done shoddily under pressure, which results in bugs remaining undiscovered until just bfore (or after) important deadlines, which results in stressful all-night coding sessions or even outright monetary loss due to contract penalties.
Selenium (along with similar tools, like Watir) lets you run tests against the user interface of your Web app in ways that computers are good at: thousands of times overnight, or within seconds after every source checkin. (Note that there are plenty of other UI testing pieces that humans are much better at, such as noticing that some odd thing not directly related to the test is amiss.)
There are other ways to involve the whole stack of your app by looking at the generated HTML rather than launching a browser to render it, such as Webrat and Mechanize. Most of these don't have a way to interact with JavaScript-heavy UIs; Selenium has you somewhat covered here.
Selenium will record and re-run all of the manual clicking and typing you do to test your web application. Over and over.
Over time studies of myself have shown me that I tend to do fewer tests and start skipping some, or forgetting about them.
Selenium will instead take each test, run it, if it doesn't return what you expect it, it can let you know.
There is an upfront cost of time to record all these tests. I would recommend it like unit tests -- if you don't have it already, start using it with the most complex, touchy, or most updated parts of your code.
And if you save those tests as JUnit classes you can rerun them at your leisure, as part of your automated build, or in a poor man's load test using JMeter.
In a past job we used to unit test our web-app. If the web-app changes its look the tests don't need to be re-written. Record-and-replay type tests would all need to be re-done.
Why do you need Selenium? Because testers are human beings. They go home every day, can't always work weekends, take sickies, take public holidays, go on vacation every now and then, get bored doing repetitive tasks and can't always rely on them being around when you need them.
I'm not saying you should get rid of testers, but an automated UI testing tool complements system testers.
The point is the ability to automate what was before a manual and time consuming test. Yes, it takes time to write the tests, but once written, they can be run as often as the team wishes. Each time they are run, they are verifying that behavior of the web application is consistent. Selenium is not a perfect product, but it is very good at automating realistic user interaction with a browser.
If you do not like the Selenium approach, you can try HtmlUnit, I find it more useful and easy to integrate into existing unit tests.
For applications with rich web interfaces (like many GWT projects) Selenium/Windmill/WebDriver/etc is the way to create acceptance tests. In case of GWT/GXT, the final user interface code is in JavaScript so creating acceptance tests using normal junit test cases is basically out of question. With Selenium you can create test scenarios matching real user actions and expected results.
Based on my experience with Selenium it can reveal bugs in the application logic and user interface (in case your test cases are well written). Dealing with AJAX front ends requires some extra effort but it is still feasible.
I use it to test multi page forms as this takes the burden out of typing the same thing over and over again. And having the ability to check if certain elements are present is great. Again, using the form as an example your final selenium test could check if something like say "Thanks Mr. Rogers for ordering..." appears at the end of the ordering process.
Unit testing and ASP.NET web applications are an ambiguous point in my group. More often than not, good testing practices fall through the cracks and web applications end up going live for several years with no tests.
The cause of this pain point generally revolves around the hassle of writing UI automation mid-development.
How do you or your organization integrate best TDD practices with web application development?
Unit testing will be achievable if you separate your layers appropriately. As Rob Cooper implied, don't put any logic in your WebForm other than logic to manage your presentation. All other stuff logic and persistence layers should be kept in separate classes and then you can test those individually.
To test the GUI some people like selenium. Others complain that is a pain to set up.
I layer out the application and at least unit test from the presenter/controller (whichever is your preference, mvc/mvp) to the data layer. That way I have good test coverage over most of the code that is written.
I have looked at FitNesse, Watin and Selenium as options to automate the UI testing but I haven't got around to using these on any projects yet, so we stick with human testing. FitNesse was the one I was leaning toward but I couldn't introduce this as well as introducing TDD (does that make me bad? I hope not!).
This is a good question, one that I will be subscribing too :)
I am still relatively new to web dev, and I too am looking at a lot of code that is largely untested.
For me, I keep the UI as light as possible (normally only a few lines of code) and test the crap out of everything else. At least I can then have some confidence that everything that makes it to the UI is as correct as it can be.
Is it perfect? Perhaps not, but at least it as still quite highly automated and the core code (where most of the "magic" happens) still has pretty good coverage..
I would generally avoid testing that involves relying on UI elements. I favor integration testing, which tests everything from your database layer up to the view layer (but not the actual layout).
Try to start a test suite before writing a line of actual code in a new project, since it's harder to write tests later.
Choose carefully what you test - don't mindlessly write tests for everything. Sometimes it's a boring task, so don't make it harder. If you write too many tests, you risk abandoning that task under the weight of time-consuming maintenance.
Try to bundle as much functionality as possible into a single test. That way, if something goes wrong, the errors will propagate anyway. For example, if you have a digest-generating class - test the actual output, not every single helper function.
Don't trust yourself. Assume that you will always make mistakes, and so you write tests to make your life easier, not harder.
If you are not feeling good about writing tests, you are probably doing it wrong ;)
A common practice is to move all the code you can out of the codebehind and into an object you can test in isolation. Such code will usually follow the MVP or MVC design patterns. If you search on "Rhino Igloo" you will probably find the link to its Subversion repository. That code is worth a study, as it demonstrate one of the best MVP implementations on Web Forms that I have seen.
Your codebehind will, when following this pattern, do two things:
Transit all user actions to the presenter.
Render data provided by the presenter.
Unit testing the presenter should be trivial.
Update: Rhino Igloo can be found here: https://svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/rhino-tools/trunk/rhino-igloo/
There have been tries on getting Microsoft's free UI Automation (included in .NET Framework 3.0) to work with web applications (ASP.NET). A german company called Artiso happens to have written a blog entry that explains how to achieve that (link).
However, their blogpost also links an MSDN Webcasts that explains the UI Automation Framework with winforms and after I had a look at this, I noticed you need the AutomationId to get a reference to the respecting controls. However, in web applications, the controls do not have an AutomationId.
I asked Thomas Schissler (Artiso) about this and he explained that this was a major drawback on InternetExplorer. He referenced an older technology of Microsoft (MSAA) and was hoping himself that IE8 will do this better.
However, I was also giving Watin a try and it seems to work pretty well. I even liked Wax, which allows to implement simple testcases via Microsoft Excel worksheets.
Ivonna can unit test your views. I'd still recommend moving most of the code to other parts. However, some code just belongs there, like references to controls or control event handlers.