In my daily unit test coding with Xcode, I only use XCTestCase. There are also these other classes that don't seem to get used much such as: XCTestSuite, XCTest, XCTestRun.
What are XCTestSuite, XCTest, XCTestRun for? When do you use them?
Also, XCTestCase header has a few methods such as:
defaultTestSuite
invokeTest
testCaseWithInvocation:
testCaseWithSelector:
How and when to use the above?
I am having trouble finding documentation on the above XCTest-classes and methods.
Well, this question is pretty good and I just wondering why this question is being ignored.
As the document saying:
XCTestCase is a concrete subclass of XCTest that should be the override point for
most developers creating tests for their projects. A test case subclass can have
multiple test methods and supports setup and tear down that executes for every test
method as well as class level setup and tear down.
On the other hand, this is what XCTestSuite defined:
A concrete subclass of XCTest, XCTestSuite is a collection of test cases. Alternatively, a test suite can extract the tests to be run automatically.
Well, with XCTestSuite, you can construct your own test suite for specific subset of test cases, instead of the default suite ( [XCTestCase defaultTestSuite] ), which as all test cases.
Actually, the default XCTestSuite is composed of every test case found in the runtime environment - all methods with no parameters, returning no value, and prefixed with ‘test’ in all subclasses of XCTestCase.
What about the XCTestRun class?
A test run collects information about the execution of a test. Failures in explicit
test assertions are classified as "expected", while failures from unrelated or
uncaught exceptions are classified as "unexpected".
With XCTestRun, you can record information likes startDate, totalDuration, failureCount etc when the test is starting, or somethings like hasSucceeded when done, and therefore you got the result of running a test. XCTestRun gives you controlability to focus what is happening or happened about the test.
Back to XCTestCase, you will notice that there are methods named testCaseWithInvocation: and testCaseWithSelector: if you read source code. And I recommend you to do for more digging.
How do they work together ?
I've found that there is an awesome explanation in Quick's QuickSpec source file.
XCTest automatically compiles a list of XCTestCase subclasses included
in the test target. It iterates over each class in that list, and creates
a new instance of that class for each test method. It then creates an
"invocation" to execute that test method. The invocation is an instance of
NSInvocation, which represents a single message send in Objective-C.
The invocation is set on the XCTestCase instance, and the test is run.
Some links:
http://modocache.io/probing-sentestingkit
https://github.com/Quick/Quick/blob/master/Sources/Quick/QuickSpec.swift
https://developer.apple.com/reference/xctest/xctest?language=objc
Launch your Xcode, and use cmd + shift + O to open the quickly open dialog, just type 'XCTest' and you will find some related files, such as XCTest.h, XCTestCase.h ... You need to go inside this file to check out the interfaces they offer.
There is a good website about XCTest: http://iosunittesting.com/xctest-assertions/
Related
Ideally, a test class is written for every class in the production code. In test class, all the test methods may not require the same preconditions. How do we solve this problem?
Do we create separate test classes for these?
I suggest creating separate methods wrapping necessary precondition setup. Do not confuse this approach with traditional test setup. As an example, assume you wrote tests for receipt provider, which searches repository and depending on some validation steps, returns receipt. We might end-up with:
receipt doesn't exist in repository: return null
receipt exists, but doesn't match validator date: return null
receipt exists, matches validator date, but was not fully committed (i.e. was not processed by some external system): return null
We have several conditions here: receipt exists/doesn't exist, receipt is invalid date-wise, receipt is not commited. Our happy path is the default setup (for example done via traditional test setup). Then, happy path test would be as simple as (some C# pseudo-code):
[Test]
public void GetReceipt_ReturnsReceipt()
{
receiptProvider.GetReceipt("701").IsNotNull();
}
Now, for the special condition cases we simply write tiny, dedicated methods that would arrange our test environment (eg. setup dependencies) so that conditions are met:
[Test]
public void GetReceipt_ReturnsNull_WhenReceiptDoesntExist()
{
ReceiptDoesNotExistInRepository("701")
receiptProvider.GetReceipt("701").IsNull();
}
[Test]
public void GetReceipt_ReturnsNull_WhenExistingReceiptHasInvalidDate()
{
ReceiptHasInvalidDate("701");
receiptProvider.GetReceipt("701").IsNull();
}
You'll end up with couple extra helper methods, but your tests will be much easier to read and understand. This is especially helpful when logic is more complicated than simple yes-no setup:
[Test]
public void GetReceipt_ThrowsException_WhenUncommittedReceiptHasInvalidDate()
{
ReceiptHasInvalidDate("701");
ReceiptIsUncommitted("701");
receiptProvider.GetReceipt("701").Throws<Exception>();
}
It's an option to group tests with the same preconditions in the same classes, this also helps avoiding test classes of over a thousand lines. You can also group the creation of the preconditions in seperate methods and let each test call the applicable method. You can do this when most of the methods have different preconditions, otherwise you could just use a setup method that is called before the test.
I like to use a Setup method that will get called before each test runs. In this method I instantiate the class I want to test, giving it any dependencies it needs to be created. Then I will set the specific details for the individual tests inside the test method. It moves any common initialization of the class out to the setup method and allows the test to be focused on what it needs to be evaluated.
You may find this link valuable, it discusses an approach to Test Setups:
In Defense of Test Setup Methods, by Erik Dietrich
We have a folder full of JSON text files that need to be set to a single URI. Currently it's all done with a single xUnit "[Fact]" as below
[Fact]
public void TestAllCases()
{
PileOfTests pot = new PileOfTests();
pot.RunAll();
}
pot.RunAll() then parses the folder, loads the JSON files (say 50 files). Each is then hammered against the URI to see is each returns HTTP 200 ("ok"). If any fail, we're currently printing it as a fail by using
System.Console.WriteLine("\n >> FAILED ! << " + testname + "\n");
This does ensure that failures catch our eye but xUnit thinks all tests failed (understandably). Most importantly, we can't specify to xunit "here, run only this specific test". It's all or nothing the way it's currently built.
How can I programmatically add test cases? I'd like to add them when I read the number and names of the *.json files.
The simple answer is:
No, not directly. But there exists an, albeit a bit hacky, workaround, which is presented below.
Current situation (as of xUnit 1.9.1)
By specifiying the [RunWith(typeof(CustomRunner))] on a class, one can instruct xUnit to use the CustomRunner class - which must implement Xunit.Sdk.ITestClassCommand - to enumerate the tests available on the test class decorated with this attribute.
But unfortunately, while the invocation of test methods has been decoupled from System.Reflection + the actual methods,
the way of passing the tests to run to the test runner haven't.
Somewhere down in the xUnit framework code for invoking a specific test method, there is a call to typeof(YourTestClass).GetMethod(testName).
This means that if the class implementing the test discovery returns a test name that doesn't refer to a real method on the test class, the test is shown in the xUnit GUI - but any attempts to run / invoke it end up with a TargetInvocationException.
Workaround
If one thinks about it, the workaround itself is relatively straightforward.
A working implementation of it can be found here.
The presented solution first reads in the names of the files which should appear as different tests in the xUnit GUI.
It then uses System.Reflection.Emit to dynamically generate an assembly with a test class containing a dedicated test method for each of the input files.
The only thing that each of the generated methods does is to invoke the RunTest(string fileName) method on the class that specified the [EnumerateFilesFixture(...)] attribute. See linked gist for further explanation.
Hope this helps; feel free to use the example implementation if you like.
I find it very odd that with such excellent Grails integration, Idea does not recognize standard JUnit assertion methods in Grails unit tests. I created a brand new project and made one domain class with corresponding test to make sure it wasn't something weird with my larger project. Even if I add a #Test annotation, the IDE does not see any assertion methods
#TestFor(SomeDomain)
class SomeDomainTests {
#Test //thought adding this, not needed for Grails tests, would help but it doesn't
void testSomething() {
assertEquals("something", 1, 1); //test runs fine, but IDE thinks this method and any similar ones don't exist
}
}
I have created an issue in IntelliJ bugtracker: http://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-82790. It will be fixed in IDEA 11.1.0
As workaround you can add "import static org.junit.Assert.*" to imports.
Note: using "assert 1 == 1 : 'message'" is preferable than "assertEquals('message', 1, 1)" in groovy code.
Idea has problems if you use 'def' to define a variable (so it's type is not known) and then you try to pass it to a Java method which is strongly typed. Because it can't infer the type.
So it will give a message with words to the effect of "there is no method assertEquals() that takes arguments with type String, null, null".
I wouldn't expect this message in the example you give (because you are using ints directly, not a dynamically-typed variable) but I thought you might have missed it when trying to create a simple example code snippet for the question.
With the #TestFor annotation an AST will add methods to you test class and IDEA does not catch these methods.
You have two options:
Make the test class extends GrailsUnitTestCase.
Add dynamic method to your test class.
Sorry for the long post...
While being introduced to a brown field project, I'm having doubts regarding certain sets of unit tests and what to think. Say you had a repostory class, wrapping a stored procedure and in the developer guide book, a certain set guidelines (rules), describe how this class should be constructured. The class could look like the following:
public class PersonRepository
{
public PersonCollection FindPersonsByNameAndCity(string personName, string cityName)
{
using (new SomeProfiler("someKey"))
{
var sp = Ioc.Resolve<IPersonStoredProcedure>();
sp.addNameArguement(personName);
sp.addCityArguement(cityName);
return sp.invoke();
}
} }
Now, I would of course write some integration tests, testing that the SP can be invoked, and that the behavior is as expected. However, would I write unit tests that assert that:
Constructor for SomeProfiler with the input parameter "someKey" is called
The Constructor of PersonStoredProcedure is called
The addNameArgument method on the stored procedure is called with parameter personName
The addCityArgument method on the stored procedure is called with parameter cityName
The invoke method is called on the stored procedure -
If so, I would potentially be testing the whole structure of a method, besides the behavior. My initial thought is that it is overkill. However, in regards to the coding practices enforced by the team, these test ensure a uniform and 'correct' structure and that the next layer is called correctly (from DAL to DB, BLL to DAL etc).
In my case these type of tests, are performed for each layer of the application.
Follow up question - the use of the SomeProfiler class smells a little like a convention to me - Instead creating explicit tests for this, could one create convention styled test by using static code analysis or unittest + reflection?
Thanks in advance.
I think that your initial thought was right - this is an overkill. Although you can use reflection to make sure that the class has the methods you expect I'm not sure you want to test it that way.
Perhaps instead of unit testing you should use some tool such as FxCop/StyleCop or nDepend to make sure all of the classes in a specific assembly/dll has these properties.
Having said that I'm a believer of "only code what you need" why test that a method exist, either you use it somewhere in your code and in that can you can test the specific case or you don't - and so it's irrelevant.
Unit tests should focus on behavior, not implementation. So writing a test to verify that certain arguments are set or passed in doesn't add much value to your testing strategy.
As the example provided appears to be communicating with your database, it can't truly be considered a "unit test" as it must communicate with physical dependencies that have additional setup and preconditions, such as availability of the environment, database schema, existing data, stored-procedures, etc. Any test you write is actually verifying these preconditions as well.
In it's present condition, your best bet for these types of tests is to test the behavior provided by the class -- invoke a method on your repository and then validate that the results are what you expected. However, you'll suddenly realize that there's a hidden cost here -- the database maintains state between test runs, and you'll need additional setup or tear-down logic to ensure that the database is in a well-known state.
While I realize the intent of the question was about the testing a "black box", it seems obvious that there's some hidden magic here in your API. My preference to solve the well-known state problem is to use an in-memory database that is scoped to the current test, which isolates me from environment considerations and enables me to parallelize my integration tests. I'd wager that under the current design, there is no "seam" to programmatically introduce a database configuration so you're "hemmed in". In my experience, magic hurts.
However, a slight change to the existing design solves this problem and the "magic" goes away:
public class PersonRepository : IPersonRepository
{
private ConnectionManager _mgr;
public PersonRepository(ConnectionManager mgr)
{
_mgr = mgr;
}
public PersonCollection FindPersonsByNameAndCity(string personName, string cityName)
{
using (var p = _mgr.CreateProfiler("somekey"))
{
var sp = new PersonStoredProcedure(p);
sp.addArguement("name", personName);
sp.addArguement("city", cityName);
return sp.invoke();
}
}
}
I am writing a component that, given a ZIP file, needs to:
Unzip the file.
Find a specific dll among the unzipped files.
Load that dll through reflection and invoke a method on it.
I'd like to unit test this component.
I'm tempted to write code that deals directly with the file system:
void DoIt()
{
Zip.Unzip(theZipFile, "C:\\foo\\Unzipped");
System.IO.File myDll = File.Open("C:\\foo\\Unzipped\\SuperSecret.bar");
myDll.InvokeSomeSpecialMethod();
}
But folks often say, "Don't write unit tests that rely on the file system, database, network, etc."
If I were to write this in a unit-test friendly way, I suppose it would look like this:
void DoIt(IZipper zipper, IFileSystem fileSystem, IDllRunner runner)
{
string path = zipper.Unzip(theZipFile);
IFakeFile file = fileSystem.Open(path);
runner.Run(file);
}
Yay! Now it's testable; I can feed in test doubles (mocks) to the DoIt method. But at what cost? I've now had to define 3 new interfaces just to make this testable. And what, exactly, am I testing? I'm testing that my DoIt function properly interacts with its dependencies. It doesn't test that the zip file was unzipped properly, etc.
It doesn't feel like I'm testing functionality anymore. It feels like I'm just testing class interactions.
My question is this: what's the proper way to unit test something that is dependent on the file system?
edit I'm using .NET, but the concept could apply Java or native code too.
Yay! Now it's testable; I can feed in test doubles (mocks) to the DoIt method. But at what cost? I've now had to define 3 new interfaces just to make this testable. And what, exactly, am I testing? I'm testing that my DoIt function properly interacts with its dependencies. It doesn't test that the zip file was unzipped properly, etc.
You have hit the nail right on its head. What you want to test is the logic of your method, not necessarily whether a true file can be addressed. You don´t need to test (in this unit test) whether a file is correctly unzipped, your method takes that for granted. The interfaces are valuable by itself because they provide abstractions that you can program against, rather than implicitly or explicitly relying on one concrete implementation.
Your question exposes one of the hardest parts of testing for developers just getting into it:
"What the hell do I test?"
Your example isn't very interesting because it just glues some API calls together so if you were to write a unit test for it you would end up just asserting that methods were called. Tests like this tightly couple your implementation details to the test. This is bad because now you have to change the test every time you change the implementation details of your method because changing the implementation details breaks your test(s)!
Having bad tests is actually worse than having no tests at all.
In your example:
void DoIt(IZipper zipper, IFileSystem fileSystem, IDllRunner runner)
{
string path = zipper.Unzip(theZipFile);
IFakeFile file = fileSystem.Open(path);
runner.Run(file);
}
While you can pass in mocks, there's no logic in the method to test. If you were to attempt a unit test for this it might look something like this:
// Assuming that zipper, fileSystem, and runner are mocks
void testDoIt()
{
// mock behavior of the mock objects
when(zipper.Unzip(any(File.class)).thenReturn("some path");
when(fileSystem.Open("some path")).thenReturn(mock(IFakeFile.class));
// run the test
someObject.DoIt(zipper, fileSystem, runner);
// verify things were called
verify(zipper).Unzip(any(File.class));
verify(fileSystem).Open("some path"));
verify(runner).Run(file);
}
Congratulations, you basically copy-pasted the implementation details of your DoIt() method into a test. Happy maintaining.
When you write tests you want to test the WHAT and not the HOW.
See Black Box Testing for more.
The WHAT is the name of your method (or at least it should be). The HOW are all the little implementation details that live inside your method. Good tests allow you to swap out the HOW without breaking the WHAT.
Think about it this way, ask yourself:
"If I change the implementation details of this method (without altering the public contract) will it break my test(s)?"
If the answer is yes, you are testing the HOW and not the WHAT.
To answer your specific question about testing code with file system dependencies, let's say you had something a bit more interesting going on with a file and you wanted to save the Base64 encoded contents of a byte[] to a file. You can use streams for this to test that your code does the right thing without having to check how it does it. One example might be something like this (in Java):
interface StreamFactory {
OutputStream outStream();
InputStream inStream();
}
class Base64FileWriter {
public void write(byte[] contents, StreamFactory streamFactory) {
OutputStream outputStream = streamFactory.outStream();
outputStream.write(Base64.encodeBase64(contents));
}
}
#Test
public void save_shouldBase64EncodeContents() {
OutputStream outputStream = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
StreamFactory streamFactory = mock(StreamFactory.class);
when(streamFactory.outStream()).thenReturn(outputStream);
// Run the method under test
Base64FileWriter fileWriter = new Base64FileWriter();
fileWriter.write("Man".getBytes(), streamFactory);
// Assert we saved the base64 encoded contents
assertThat(outputStream.toString()).isEqualTo("TWFu");
}
The test uses a ByteArrayOutputStream but in the application (using dependency injection) the real StreamFactory (perhaps called FileStreamFactory) would return FileOutputStream from outputStream() and would write to a File.
What was interesting about the write method here is that it was writing the contents out Base64 encoded, so that's what we tested for. For your DoIt() method, this would be more appropriately tested with an integration test.
There's really nothing wrong with this, it's just a question of whether you call it a unit test or an integration test. You just have to make sure that if you do interact with the file system, there are no unintended side effects. Specifically, make sure that you clean up after youself -- delete any temporary files you created -- and that you don't accidentally overwrite an existing file that happened to have the same filename as a temporary file you were using. Always use relative paths and not absolute paths.
It would also be a good idea to chdir() into a temporary directory before running your test, and chdir() back afterwards.
I am reticent to pollute my code with types and concepts that exist only to facilitate unit testing. Sure, if it makes the design cleaner and better then great, but I think that is often not the case.
My take on this is that your unit tests would do as much as they can which may not be 100% coverage. In fact, it may only be 10%. The point is, your unit tests should be fast and have no external dependencies. They might test cases like "this method throws an ArgumentNullException when you pass in null for this parameter".
I would then add integration tests (also automated and probably using the same unit testing framework) that can have external dependencies and test end-to-end scenarios such as these.
When measuring code coverage, I measure both unit and integration tests.
There's nothing wrong with hitting the file system, just consider it an integration test rather than a unit test. I'd swap the hard coded path with a relative path and create a TestData subfolder to contain the zips for the unit tests.
If your integration tests take too long to run then separate them out so they aren't running as often as your quick unit tests.
I agree, sometimes I think interaction based testing can cause too much coupling and often ends up not providing enough value. You really want to test unzipping the file here not just verify you are calling the right methods.
One way would be to write the unzip method to take InputStreams. Then the unit test could construct such an InputStream from a byte array using ByteArrayInputStream. The contents of that byte array could be a constant in the unit test code.
This seems to be more of an integration test as you are depending on a specific detail (the file system) that could change, in theory.
I would abstract the code that deals with the OS into it's own module (class, assembly, jar, whatever). In your case you want to load a specific DLL if found, so make an IDllLoader interface and DllLoader class. Have your app acquire the DLL from the DllLoader using the interface and test that .. you're not responsible for the unzip code afterall right?
Assuming that "file system interactions" are well tested in the framework itself, create your method to work with streams, and test this. Opening a FileStream and passing it to the method can be left out of your tests, as FileStream.Open is well tested by the framework creators.
You should not test class interaction and function calling. instead you should consider integration testing. Test the required result and not the file loading operation.
As others have said, the first is fine as an integration test. The second tests only what the function is supposed to actually do, which is all a unit test should do.
As shown, the second example looks a little pointless, but it does give you the opportunity to test how the function responds to errors in any of the steps. You don't have any error checking in the example, but in the real system you may have, and the dependency injection would let you test all the responses to any errors. Then the cost will have been worth it.
For unit test I would suggest that you include the test file in your project(EAR file or equivalent) then use a relative path in the unit tests i.e. "../testdata/testfile".
As long as your project is correctly exported/imported than your unit test should work.