So I'm quite inexperienced with testing but I'm working on it. One of the things I read was that a test should not really care how the method does what it does but check the expected outcome.
With this in mind, I'm not sure if I'm testing my repositories in a useful manner. As I read in this SO answer the way I'm doing it, is actually almost writing the code twice.
Consider the following code:
public function getUserCart($userId)
{
return $this->shoppingcarts->whereUserId($userId)->first();
}
With the following test:
public function testGetUserCart()
{
$shoppingcartMock = $this->mock('Shoppingcart');
$shoppingcartMock->shouldReceive('whereUserId')->once()->with('some id')->andReturn($shoppingcartMock);
$shoppingcartMock->shouldReceive('first')->once()->andReturn('cart');
$repo = App::make('EloquentShoppingcartRepository');
$this->assertEquals('cart', $repo->getUserCart('some id'));
}
My test passes and I have code coverage but if I were to change $this->shoppingcarts->whereUserId($userId)->first() with $this->shoppingcarts->where('user_id', $userId)->first() the test fails of course.
The code performs just the same and in my opinion a good test should not really care what exact method i'm using as long as the outcome is as expected.
My question is twofold. Is it useful to test repositories? And if so, what approach should I take?
Related
[EDIT]: Click here for the question on the appropriate site.
What do you do when you are writing a test and you get to the point where you need to make the test pass and you realize that you need an additional piece of functionality that should be seperated into it's own function? That new function needs to be tested as well, but the TDD cycle says to Make a test fail, make it pass then refactor. If I am on the step where I am trying to make my test pass I'm not supposed to go off and start another failing test to test the new functionality that I need to implement.
For example, I am writing a point class that has a function WillCollideWith(LineSegment):
public class Point {
// Point data and constructor ...
public bool CollidesWithLine(LineSegment lineSegment) {
Vector PointEndOfMovement = new Vector(Position.X + Velocity.X,
Position.Y + Velocity.Y);
LineSegment pointPath = new LineSegment(Position, PointEndOfMovement);
if (lineSegment.Intersects(pointPath)) return true;
return false;
}
}
I was writing a test for CollidesWithLine when I realized that I would need a LineSegment.Intersects(LineSegment) function. But, should I just stop what I am doing on my test cycle to go create this new functionality? That seems to break the "Red, Green, Refactor" principle.
Should I just write the code that detects that lineSegments Intersect inside of the CollidesWithLine function and refactor it after it is working? That would work in this case since I can access the data from LineSegment, but what about in cases where that kind of data is private?
If you follow TDD to the letter as per how Kent Beck defines it in his book, when you come across something that you will also need to test, make a note of it on a piece of paper (he refers to this as a test list) and then focus on the current test. Kent suggests you should work on one test at a time.
From a test first perspective you should focus on making the test pass, which has several options:
Write the implementation of Intersects inline in the current method. "Green" means working, not pretty. Once working, refactor both the code AND tests.
Stub it out. Pass in a test double (mock) into the method that can simulate the contract.
Fake it. When you come across a method you need, make a note for other tests, then write a basic implementation (eg "return true")
I suggest your best option is to mock it, that way you stay in your workflow and you also test a limited amount of code at a time.
I like to use [Ignore] attribute to mark tests which require attention (e.g. when it is not completed). Such tests will not run. Ignored tests are highlighted in test-runners (usually yellow or orange). Even if all other tests are passed, you will not see green line while there any ignored tests. This insures that tests will not be forgotten.
I've read tons of articles, seen tons of screencasts about TDD, but I'm still struggling with using it in real world project. My main issue is I don't know where to start, what test should be the first one.
Suppose I have to write client library calling external system's methods (e.g. notification).
I want this client to work as follows
NotificationClient client = new NotificationClient("abcd1234"); // client ID
Response code = client.notifyOnEvent(Event.LIMIT_REACHED, 100); // some params of call
There is some translation and message format preparation behind the scenes, so I'd like to hide it from my client apps.
I don't know where and how to start.
Should I make up some rough classes set for this library?
Should I start with testing NotificationClient as below
public void testClientSendInvalidEventCommand() {
NotificationClient client = new NotificationClient(...);
Response code = client.notifyOnEvent(Event.WRONG_EVENT);
assertEquals(1223, code.codeValue());
}
If so, with such test I'm forced to write complete working implementation at once, with no baby steps as TDD states. I can mock out sosmething in Client but then I have to know this thing to be mocked upfront, so I need some upfront desing to be made.
Maybe I should start from the bottom, test this message formatting component first and then use it in right client test?
What way is the right one to go?
Should we always start from top (how to deal with this huge step required)?
Can we start with any class realizing tiny part of desired feature (as Formatter in this example)?
If I'd know where to hit with my tests it'd be a lot easier for me to proceed.
I'd start with this line:
NotificationClient client = new NotificationClient("abcd1234"); // client ID
Sounds like we need a NotificationClient, which needs a client ID. That's an easy thing to test for. My first test might look something like:
public void testNewClientAbcd1234HasClientId() {
NotificationClient client = new NotificationClient("abcd1234");
assertEquals("abcd1234", client.clientId());
}
Of course, it won't compile at first - not until I'd written a NotificationClient class with a constructor that takes a string parameter and a clientId() method that returns a string - but that's part of the TDD cycle.
public class NotificationClient {
public NotificationClient(string clientId) {
}
public string clientId() {
return "";
}
}
At this point, I can run my test and watch it fail (because I've hard-coded clientId()'s return to be an empty string). Once I've got my failing unit test, I write just enough production code (in NotificationClient) to get the test to pass:
public string clientId() {
return "abcd1234";
}
Now all my tests pass, so I can consider what to do next. The obvious (well, obvious to me) next step is to make sure that I can create clients whose ID isn't "abcd1234":
public void testNewClientBcde2345HasClientId() {
NotificationClient client = new NotificationClient("bcde2345");
assertEquals("bcde2345", client.clientId());
}
I run my test suite and observe that testNewClientBcde2345HasClientId() fails while testNewClientAbcd1234HasClientId() passes, and now I've got a good reason to add a member variable to NotificationClient:
public class NotificationClient {
private string _clientId;
public NotificationClient(string clientId) {
_clientId = clientId;
}
public string clientId() {
return _clientId;
}
}
Assuming no typographical errors have snuck in, that'll get all my tests to pass, and I can move on to whatever the next step is. (In your example, it would probably be testing that notifyOnEvent(Event.WRONG_EVENT) returns a Response whose codeValue() equals 1223.)
Does that help any?
Don't confuse acceptance tests that hook into each end of your application, and form an executable specifications with unit tests.
If you are doing 'pure' TDD you write an acceptance test which drives the unit tests that drive the implementation. testClientSendInvalidEventCommand is your acceptance test, but depending on how complicated things are you will delegate the implementation to multiple classes you can unit test separately.
How complicated things get before you have to split them up to test and understand them properly is why it is called Test Driven Design.
You can choose to let tests drive your design from the bottom up or from the top down. Both work well for different developers in different situations. Either approach will force to make some of those "upfront" design decisions but that's a good thing. Making those decisions in order to write your tests is test-driven design!
In your case you have an idea what the high level external interface to the system you are developing should be so let's start there. Write a test for how you think users of your notification client should interact with it and let it fail. This test is the basis for your acceptance or integration tests and they are going to continue failing until the features they describe are finished. That's ok.
Now step down one level. What are the steps which need to occur to provide that high level interface? Can we write an integration or unit test for those steps? Do they have dependencies you had not considered which might cause you to change the notification center interface you have started to define? Keep drilling down depth-first defining behavior with failing tests until you find that you have actually reached a unit test. Now implement enough to pass that unit test and continue. Get unit tests passing until you have built enough to pass an integration test and so on. You'll eventually have completed a depth-first construction of a tree of tests and should have a well tested feature whose design was driven by your tests.
One goal of TDD is that the testing informs the design. So the fact that you need to think about how to implement your NotificationClient is a good thing; it forces you to think of (hopefully) simple abstractions up front.
Also, TDD sort of assumes constant refactoring. Your first solution probably won't be the last; so as you refine your code the tests are there to tell you what breaks, from compile errors to actual runtime issues.
So I would just jump right in and start with the test you suggested. As you create mocks, you will need to create tests for the actual implementations of what you are mocking. You will find things make sense and need to be refactored, so you will need to modify your tests as you go. That's the way it's supposed to work...
I've got a bunch of methods in my application service layer that are doing things like this:
public void Execute(PlaceOrderOnHoldCommand command)
{
var order = _repository.Load(command.OrderId);
order.PlaceOnHold();
_repository.Save(order);
}
And at present, I have a bunch of unit tests like this:
[Test]
public void PlaceOrderOnHold_LoadsOrderFromRepository()
{
var repository = new Mock<IOrderRepository>();
const int orderId = 1;
var order = new Mock<IOrder>();
repository.Setup(r => r.Load(orderId)).Returns(order.Object);
var command = new PlaceOrderOnHoldCommand(orderId);
var service = new OrderService(repository.Object);
service.Execute(command);
repository.Verify(r => r.Load(It.Is<int>(x => x == orderId)), Times.Exactly(1));
}
[Test]
public void PlaceOrderOnHold_CallsPlaceOnHold()
{
/* blah blah */
}
[Test]
public void PlaceOrderOnHold_SavesOrderToRepository()
{
/* blah blah */
}
It seems to be debatable whether these unit tests add value that's worth the effort. I'm quite sure that the application service layer should be integration tested, though.
Should the application service layer be tested to this level of granularity, or are integration tests sufficient?
I'd write a unit test despite there also being an integration test. However, I'd likely make the test much simpler by eliminating the mocking framework, writing my own simple mock, and then combining all those tests to check that the the order in the mock repository was on hold.
[Test]
public void PlaceOrderOnHold_LoadsOrderFromRepository()
{
const int orderId = 1;
var repository = new MyMockRepository();
repository.save(new MyMockOrder(orderId));
var command = new PlaceOrderOnHoldCommand(orderId);
var service = new OrderService(repository);
service.Execute(command);
Assert.IsTrue(repository.getOrder(orderId).isOnHold());
}
There's really no need to check to be sure that load and/or save is called. Instead I'd just make sure that the only way that MyMockRepository will return the updated order is if load and save are called.
This kind of simplification is one of the reasons that I usually don't use mocking frameworks. It seems to me that you have much better control over your tests, and a much easier time writing them, if you write your own mocks.
Exactly: it's debatable! It's really good that you are weighing the expense/effort of writing and maintaining your test against the value it will bring you - and that's exactly the consideration you should make for every test you write. Often I see tests written for the sake of testing and thereby only adding ballast to the code base.
As a guideline I usually take that I want a full integration test of every important successful scenario/use case. Other tests I'll write are for parts of the code that are likely to break with future changes, or have broken in the past. And that is definitely not all code. That's where your judgement and insight in the system and requirements comes into play.
Assuming that you have an (integration) test for service.Execute(placeOrderOnHoldCommand), I'm not really sure if it adds value to test if the service loads an order from the repository exactly once. But it could be! For instance when your service previously had a nasty bug that would hit the repository ten times for a single order, causing performance issues (just making it up). In that case, I'd rename the test to PlaceOrderOnHold_LoadsOrderFromRepositoryExactlyOnce().
So for each and every test you have to decide for yourself ... hope that helps.
Notes:
The tests you show can be perfectly valid and look well written.
Your test sequence methods seems to be inspired on the way the Execute(...) method is currently implemented. When you structure your test this way, it could be that you are tying yourself to a specific implementation. This way, tests can actually make it harder to change - make sure you're only testing the important external behavior of your class.
I usually write a single integration test of the primary scenario. By primary scenario i mean the successful path of all the code being tested. Then I write unit tests of all the other scenarios like checking all the cases in a switch, testing exception and so forth.
I think it is important to have both and yes it is possible to test it all with integration tests only, but that makes your tests long running and harder to debug. In average I think I have 10 unit tests per integration test.
I don't bother to test methods with one-liners unless something bussines logic-like happens in that line.
Update: Just to make it clear, cause I'm doing test-driven development I always write the unit tests first and typically do the integration test at the end.
This is my doubt on what we regard as a "unit" while unit-testing.
say I have a method like this,
public String myBigMethod()
{
String resultOne = moduleOneObject.someOperation();
String resultTwo = moduleTwoObject.someOtherOperation(resultOne);
return resultTwo;
}
( I have unit-tests written for someOperation() and someOtherOperation() seperately )
and this myBigMethod() kinda integrates ModuleOne and ModuleTwo by using them as above,
then, is the method "myBigMethod()" still considered as a "unit" ?
Should I be writing a test for this "myBigMethod()" ?
Say I have written a test for myBigMethod()... If testSomeOperation() fails, it would also result in testMyBigMethod() to fail... Now testMyBigMethod()'s failure might show a not-so-correct-location of the bug.
One-Cause causing two tests to fail doesn't look so good to me. But donno if there's any better way...? Is there ?
Thanks !
You want to test the logic of myBigMethod without testing the dependencies.
It looks like the specification of myBigMethod is:
Call moduleOneObject.someOperation
Pass the result into moduleTwoObject.someOtherOperation
Return the result
The key to testing just this behavior is to break the dependencies on moduleOneObject and moduleTwoObject. Typically this is done by passing the dependencies into the class under test in the constructor (constructor injection) or setting them via properties (setter injection).
The question isn't just academic because in practice moduleOneObject and moduleTwoObject could go out and hit external systems such as a database. A true unit test doesn't hit external systems as that would make it an "integration test".
The test for myBigMethod() should test the combination of the results of the other two methods called. So, yes it should fail if either of the methods it depends on fails, but it should be testing more. There should be some case where someOperation() and someOtherOperation() work correctly, but myBigMethod() can still fail. If that's not possible, then there's no need to test myBigMethod().
I'm writing some NUnit tests for database operations. Obviously, if Add() fails, then Get() will fail as well. However, it looks deceiving when both Add() and Get() fail because it looks like there's two problems instead of just one.
Is there a way to specify an 'order' for tests to run in, in that if the first test fails, the following tests are ignored?
In the same line, is there a way to order the unit test classes themselves? For example, I would like to run my tests for basic database operations first before the tests for round-tripping data from the UI.
Note: This is a little different than having tests depend on each other, it's more like ensuring that something works first before running a bunch of tests. It's a waste of time to, for example, run a bunch of database operations if you can't get a connection to the database in the first place.
Edit: It seems that some people are missing the point. I'm not doing this:
[Test]
public void AddTest()
{
db.Add(someData);
}
[Test]
public void GetTest()
{
db.Get(someData);
Assert.That(data was retrieved successfully);
}
Rather, I'm doing this:
[Test]
public void AddTest()
{
db.Add(someData);
}
[Test]
public void GetTest()
{
// need some way here to ensure that db.Add() can actually be performed successfully
db.Add(someData);
db.Get(somedata);
Assert.That(data was retrieved successfully);
}
In other words, I want to ensure that the data can be added in the first place before I can test whether it can be retrieved. People are assuming I'm using data from the first test to pass the second test when this is not the case. I'm trying to ensure that one operation is possible before attempting another that depends on it.
As I said already, you need to ensure you can get a connection to the database before running database operations. Or that you can open a file before performing file operations. Or connect to a server before testing API calls. Or...you get the point.
NUnit supports an "Assume.That" syntax for validating setup. This is documented as part of the Theory (thanks clairestreb). In the NUnit.Framework namespace is a class Assume. To quote the documentation:
/// Provides static methods to express the assumptions
/// that must be met for a test to give a meaningful
/// result. If an assumption is not met, the test
/// should produce an inconclusive result.
So in context:
public void TestGet() {
MyList sut = new MyList()
Object expecting = new Object();
sut.Put(expecting);
Assume.That(sut.size(), Is(1));
Assert.That(sut.Get(), Is(expecting));
}
Tests should never depend on each other. You just found out why. Tests that depend on each other are fragile by definition. If you need the data in the DB for the test for Get(), put it there in the setup step.
I think the problem is that you're using NUnit to run something other than the sort of Unit Tests that NUnit was made to run.
Essentially, you want AddTest to run before GetTest, and you want NUnit to stop executing tests if AddTest fails.
The problem is that that's antithetical to unit testing - tests are supposed to be completely independent and run in any order.
The standard concept of Unit Testing is that if you have a test around the 'Add' functionality, then you can use the 'Add' functionality in the 'Get' test and not worry about if 'Add' works within the 'Get' test. You know 'Add' works - you have a test for it.
The 'FIRST' principle (http://agileinaflash.blogspot.com/2009/02/first.html) describes how Unit tests should behave. The test you want to write violates both 'I' (Isolated) and 'R' (Repeatable).
If you're concerned about the database connection dropping between your two tests, I would recommend that rather than connect to a real database during the test, your code should use some sort of a data interface, and for the test, you should be using a mock interface. If the point of the test is to exercise the database connection, then you may simply be using the wrong tool for the job - that's not really a Unit test.
I don't think that's possible out-of-box.
Anyway, your test class design as you described will make the test code very fragile.
MbUnit seems to have a DependsOnAttribute that would allow you to do what you want.
If the other test fixture or test
method fails then this test will not
run. Moreover, the dependency forces
this test to run after those it
depends upon.
Don't know anything about NUnit though.
You can't assume any order of test fixture execution, so any prerequisites have to be checked for within your test classes.
Segregate your Add test into one test-class e.g. AddTests, and put the Get test(s) into another test-class, e.g. class GetTests.
In the [TestFixtureSetUp] method of the GetTests class, check that you have working database access (e.g. that Add's work), and if not, Assert.Ignore or Inconclusive, as you deem appropriate.
This will abort the GetTests test fixture when its prerequisites aren't met, and skip trying to run any of the unit tests it contains.
(I think! I'm an nUnit newbie.)
Create a global variable and return in the test for Get unless Add set it to true (do this in the last line of Add):
public boolean addFailed = false;
public void testAdd () {
try {
... old test code ...
} catch (Throwable t) { // Catch all errors
addFailed = true;
throw t; // Don't forget to rethrow
}
}
public void testGet () {
if (addFailed) return;
... old test code ...
}