Related
I am trying to learn TDD and unit testing concepts and I have seen the mantra: "red, green, refactor." I am curious about why should you refactor your code after the tests pass?
This makes no sense to me, because if the tests pass, then why are you messing with the code? I also see TDD mantras like "only write enough code to make the test pass."
The only reason I could come up with, is if to make the test pass with green, you just sloppily write any old code. You just hack together a solution to get a passing test. Then obviously the code is a mess, so you can clean it up.
EDIT:
I found this link on another stackoverflow post which I think confirms the only reason I came up with, that the original code to 'pass' the test can be very simple, even hardcoded: http://blog.extracheese.org/2009/11/how_i_started_tdd.html
Usually the first working version of the code - even if not a mess - still can be improved. So you improve it, making it cleaner, more readable, removing duplication, finding better variable/method names etc. This is refactoring. And since you have the tests, you can refactor safely, because the tests will show if you have inadvertently broken something.
Note that usually you are not writing code from scratch, but modifying/extending existing code to add/change functionality. And the existing code may not be ready to accommodate the new functionality seamlessly. So the first implementation of the new functionality may look awkward or inconvenient, or you may see that it is difficult to extend further. So you improve the design to incorporate all existing functionality in the simplest, cleanest possible way while still passing all the tests.
Your question is a rehash of the age old "if it works, don't fix it". However, as Martin Fowler explains in Refactoring, code can be broken in many different ways. Even if it passes all the tests, it can be hard to understand, thus hard to extend and maintain. Moreover, if it looks sloppy, future programmers will take even less care to keep it tidy, so it will deteriorate ever quicker, and eventually degrades into a complete unmaintainable mess. To prevent this, we refactor to always keep the code clean and tidy as much as possible. If we (or our predecessors) have already let it become messy, refactoring is a huge effort with no obvious immediate benefit for management and stakeholders; thus they can hardly be convinced to support a large scale refactoring in practice. Therefore we refactor in small, even trivial steps, after every code change.
I have seen the mantra: "red, green, refactor."
it's not a 'mantra', it's a routine.
I also see TDD mantras like "only write enough code to make the test pass."
That's a guideline.
now your question:
The only reason I could come up with, is if to make the test pass with green, you just sloppily write any old code. You just hack together a solution to get a passing test. Then obviously the code is a mess, so you can clean it up.
You're almost there. The key is in the 'Design' part of TDD. You're not only coding, you're still designing your solution. That means that the exact API might not be set in stone still, and your tests might not reflect the final design (because it's not done yet). While coding "only enough to pass the test", you will hit some issues that might change your mind and guide the design. Only after you have some working code you're able to improve it.
Also, the refactor step involves the whole code, not only what you've just written to pass the last test. As the coding advances, you have more and more complex interactions between all parts of your code, the best time to refactor it is as soon as it's working.
Precisely because of this very early refactoring step, you shouldn't worry about the quality of the first iteration. it's just a proof of concept that helps in the design.
It's hard to see how the OP's skepticism isn't justified. TDD's workflow is rooted in the avoidance of premature design decisions by imposing a significant cost, if not precluding, 'seat of the pants' coding that could quickly devolve into an ill-advised YAGNI safari.[1]
The mechanism for this deferral of premature design is the 'smallest possible test'/'smallest possible code' workflow that is designed to stave off the temptation to 'fix' a perceived shortcoming or requirement before it would ordinarily need to be addressed or even encountered, i.e, presumably the shortcoming would (ought?) to be addressed in some future test case mapped directly to an acceptance criteria that in turn captures a particular business objective.
Furthermore, tests in TDD are supposed to a) help clarify design requirements, b) surface problems with a design[2], and c) serve as project assets that capture and document the effort applied to a particular story, so substituting a self-directed refactoring effort for a properly composed test not only precludes any insight the test might provide but also denies management and project planners information on the true cost of implementing a particular feature.[3]
Accordingly, I would suggest that a new test case, purpose built for introducing an additional requirement into the design, is the proper way to address any perceived shortcoming beyond a stylistic change to the current code under test, and the 'Refactor' phase, however well-intentioned, flies in the face of this philosophy, and is in fact an invitation to do the very sort of premature, YAGNI design safaris that TDD is supposed to prevent. I believe that Robert Martin's version of the 3 rules is consistent with this interpretation. [4 - A blatant appeal to authority]
[1] The previously cited http://blog.extracheese.org/2009/11/how_i_started_tdd.html elegantly demonstrates the value of deferring design decisions until the last possible moment. (Although perhaps the Fibonacci sequence is a somewhat artificial example).
[2] See https://blog.thecodewhisperer.com/permalink/how-a-smell-in-the-tests-points-to-a-risk-in-the-design
[3] Adding a "tech" or "spike" story (smell or not) to the backlog would be the appropriate method for ensuring that formal processes are followed and development effort is documented and justified... and if you can't convince the Product Owner to add it, then you shouldn't be throwing time at it.
[4] http://www.butunclebob.com/ArticleS.UncleBob.TheThreeRulesOfTdd
Because you should never refactor non-working code. If you do, then you won't know whether the errors were originally in there or due to your refactoring. If they all pass before refactoring, then fail, then you know the change you did broke something.
They don't mean to write any sloppy old code to pass a test. There is a difference between minimal and sloppy. A zen garden is minimal, but not sloppy.
However, the minimal changes you made here and there, might, in retrospect, be better combined into some other procedure that is called by both of them. After getting both tests working separately is the time to refactor. It's easier to refactor than to try and guess an architecture that's going to minimally cover all the test cases.
You make the code behave correctly first, then factor it well. If you do it the other way around you run the risk of making a mess/duplication/code smells while fixing it.
It's usually easier to restructure working code into well factored code than it is to try and design well factored code upfront.
The reason for refactoring working code is for maintenance. You want to remove duplication for reasons such as only having to fix something in one place, and also knowing that when you fix something somewhere you haven't missed the same bug in the similar code elsewhere. You want to rename vars, methods, classes if their meaning has changed from what you originally intended.
Overall, writing working code is non-trivial, and writing well factored code is non-trivial. If you are trying to do both at once you may do neither to your full potential, so giving full attention to one first and then the other is useful.
Iterative, Evolutionary Refactoring is a good approach, but first...
Somethings that should not go unsaid...
To build on top of some high-level notes above, you should understand some important concepts from Complex Systems Theory. The key concepts to note circumvolve a system's environmental structure, how a systems grows, how it behaves, and how its components interact.
Sensitive Dependence Upon Initial Conditions (Chaos Theory):
A system's behavior will be amplified toward its most influential tendency -- meaning, if you've many Broken Windows which influence how a developer will write the next module or interact with an existing one, then this developer is more likely to break another window. Its even tempting to break a window just because its the only one not broken.
Entropy:
There are many, many definitions of entropy out there; one that I find becoming to Software Engineering is: The amount of energy in a system which cannot be used for additional work. This is why reusability is crucial. Entropy is found mostly in terms of duplicate logic and comprehensibility. Furthermore, this ties closely back to the Butterfly Effect (Sensitive Dependence Upon Initial Conditions) and Broken Windows -- the more duplicate logic, the more CopyPaste for additional implementations and it is more than 1X per implementation to maintain it all.
Variable Amplification and Dampening (Emergence Theory and Network Theory):
Breaking a bad design is a good implementation, though it seems all hell breaks loose when it happens the first few times. This is why it is sensible to have an Architecture which can support many adaptations. As your system heads toward entropy, you need a way for modules to interact with each other correctly -- this is where Interfaces come in. If each of your modules cannot interact unless they've agreed to a consistent contract. Without this, you'll see your system immediately start adapting to poor implementations -- and whichever wheel is the squeakiest will get the oil; the other modules will become a headache. So, not only do bad implementations cause more bad implementations, they also create undesirable behavior at the System's Scale -- causing your system, at large, to adapt to varying implementations and amplifying entropy at the highest scale. When this happens, all you can do is keep patching and hope that one change will not conflict with these adaptations -- causing emergent, unpredictable bugs.
The key to all this is to envelop your modules into their own, discrete subsystems, and provide a Defined Architecture which can allow them to communicate -- such as a Mediator. This brings a collection of (Decoupled) behavior into a Bottom-Up System which can then focus its complexity into a component designed exactly for it.
With this type of architectural approach, you shouldn't have significant pain on the 3rd term of "Red, Green, Refactor". The question is, how can your scrum master measure this in terms of benefit to the user & stakeholders?
You should not take the "only write enough code to make the test pass." mantra too literal.
Remember your application isn't ready just because all your tests passes. You clearly would like to refactor your code after tests passes to make sure the code is readable and well architechted. The tests are there to help you refactor so refactoring is a big part of TDD.
First, thanks for taking a look into Test Driven Development. It is an awesome technique that can be applied to many coding situations that can help you develop some great code while also giving you confidence in what the code can and can't do.
If you look at subtitle on the cover of Martin Fowler's book "Refactoring" it also answers your question - "Improving the Design Of Existing Code"
Refactorings are transformations to your code that should not alter the program's behavior.
By refactoring, you can make the program easier to maintain now, and 6 months from now, and it can also make the code easier for the next developer to understand.
I am very new to test-driven development (TDD), not yet started using it.
But I know that we have to write tests first and then the actual code to pass the test and refactor it till the design is good.
My concern over TDD is where it fits in our systems development life cycle (SDLC).
Suppose I get a requirement of making an order processing system.
Now, without having any model or design for this system, how can I start writing tests?
Shouldn't we require to define the entities and their attributes to proceed?
If not, is it possible to develop a big system without any design?
There is two levels of TDD, ATDD or acceptance test driven development, and normal TDD which is driven by unit tests.
I guess the relationship between TDD and design is influenced by the somewhat "agile" concept that source code IS the design of a software product. A lot of people reinforce this by translating TDD as Test Driven Design rather than development. This makes a lot of sense as TDD should be seen as having a lot more to do with driving the design than testing. Having acceptance and unit tests at the end of it is a nice side effect.
I cannot really say too much about where it fits into your SDLC without knowing more about it, but one nice workflow is:
For every user story:
Write acceptance tests using a tool like FitNesse or Cucumber, this would specify what the desired outputs are for the given inputs, from a perspective that the user understands. This level automates the specifications, or can even replace specification documentation in ideal situations.
Now you will probably have a vague idea of the sort of software design you might need as far as classes / behaviour etc goes.
For each behaviour:
Write a failing test that shows how calling code you would like to use the class.
Implement the behaviour that makes the test pass
Refactor both the test and actual code to reflect good design.
Go onto the next behaviour.
Go onto the next user story.
Of course the whole time you will be thinking of the evolving high level design of the system. Ideally TDD will lead to a flexible design at the lower levels that permits the appropriate high design to evolve as you go rather than trying to guess it at the beginning.
It should be called Test Driven Design, because that is what it is.
There is no practical reason to separate the design into a specific phase of the project. Design happens all the time. From the initial discussion with the stakeholder, through user story creation, estimation, and then of course during your TDD sessions.
If you want to formalize the design using UML or whatever, that is fine, just keep in mind that the code is the design. Everything else is just an approximation.
And remember that You Aren't Gonna Need It (YAGNI) applies to everything, including design documents.
Writing test first forces you to think first about the problem domain, and acts as a kind of specification. Then in a 2nd step you move to solution domain and implement the functionality.
TDD works well iteratively:
Define your initial problem domain (can be small, evolutionary prototype)
Implement it
Grow the problem domain (add features, grow the prototype)
Refactor and implement it
Repeat step 3.
Of course you need to have a vague architectural vision upfront (technologies, layers, non-functional requirement, etc.). But the features that bring added-value to your your application can be introduced nicely with TDD.
See related question TDD: good for a starter?
With TDD, you don't care much about design. The idea is that you must first learn what you need before you can start with a useful design. The tests make sure that you can easily and reliably change your application when the time comes that you need to decide on your design.
Without TDD, this happens: You make a design (which is probably too complex in some areas plus you forgot to take some important facts into account since you didn't knew about them). Then you start implementing the design. With time, you realize all the shortcomings of your design, so you change it. But changing the design doesn't change your program. Now, you try to change your code to fit the new design. Since the code wasn't written to be changed easily, this will eventually fail, leaving you with two designs (one broken and the other in an unknown state) and code which doesn't fit either.
To start with TDD, turn your requirements into test. To do this, ask "How would I know that this requirement is fulfilled?" When you can answer this question, write a test that implements the answer to this question. This gives you the API which your (to be written) code must adhere to. It's a very simple design but one that a) always works and b) which is flexible (because you can't test unflexible code).
Also starting with the test will turn you into your own customer. Since you try hard to make the test as simple as possible, you will create a simple API that makes the test work.
And over time, you'll learn enough about your problem domain to be able to make a real design. Since you have plenty of tests, you can then change your code to fit the design. Without terminally breaking anything on the way.
That's the theory :-) In practice, you will encounter a couple of problems but it works pretty well. Or rather, it works better than anything else I've encountered so far.
Well of course you need a solid functional analysis first, including a domain model, without knowing what you'll have to create in the first place it's impossible to write your unit tests.
I use a test-driven development to program and I can say from experience it helps create more robust, focussed and simpler code. My recipe for TDD goes something likes this:
Using a unit-test framework (I've written my own) write code as you wish to use it and tests to ensure return values etc. are correct. This ensures you only write the code you're actually going to use. I also add a few more tests to check for edge cases.
Compile - you will get compiler errors!!!
For each error add declarations until you get no compiler errors. This ensures you have the minimum declarations for your code.
Link - you will get linker errors!!!
Write enough implementation code to remove the linker errors.
Run - you unit tests will fail. Write enough code to make the test succeed.
You've finished at this point. You have written the minimum code you need to implement your feature, and you know it is robust because of your tests. You will also be able to detect if you break things in the future. If you find any bugs, add a unit test to test for that bug (you may not have thought of an edge case for example). And you know that if you add more features to your code you won't make it incompatible to existing code that uses your feature.
I love this method. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
TDD implies that there is some existing design (external interface) to start with. You have to have some kind of design in mind in order to start writing a test. Some people will say that TDD itself requires less detailed design, since the act of writing tests provides feedback to the design process, but these concepts are generally orthogonal.
You need some form of specification, rather than a form of design -- design is about how you go about implementing something, specification is about what you're going to implement.
Most common form of specs I've seen used with TDD (and other agile processes) are user stories -- an informal kind of "use case" which tends to be expressed in somewhat stereotyped English sentences like "As a , I can " (the form of user stories is more or less rigid depending on the exact style/process in use).
For example, "As a customer, I can start a new order", "As a customer, I can add an entry to an existing order of mine", and so forth, might be typical if that's what your "order entry" system is about (the user stories would be pretty different if the system wasn't "self-service" for users but rather intended to be used by sales reps entering orders on behalf of users, of course -- without knowing what kind of order-entry system is meant, it's impossible to proceed sensibly, which is why I say you do need some kind of specification about what the system's going to do, though typically not yet a complete idea about how it's going to do it).
Let me share my view:
If you want to build an application, along the way you need to test it e.g check the values of variables you create by code inspection, of quickly drop a button that you can click on and will execute a part of code and pop up a dialog to show the result of the operation etc. on the other hand TDD changes your mindset.
Commonly, you just rely on the development environment like visual studio to detect errors as you code and compile and somewhere in your head, you know the requirement and just coding and testing via button and pop ups or code inspection. this is a Syntax debugging driven development . but when you are doing TDD, is a "semantic debugging driven development " because you write down your thoughts/ goals of your application first by using tests (which and a more dynamic and repeatable version of a white board) which tests the logic (or "semantic") of your application and fails whenever you have a semantic error even if you application passes syntax error (upon compilation).
In practice you may not know or have all the information required to build the application , since TDD kind of forces you to write tests first, you are compelled to ask more questions about the functioning of the application at a very early stage of development rather than building a lot only to find out that a lot of what you have written is not required (or at lets not at the moment). you can really avoid wasting your precious time with TDD (even though it may not feel like that initially)
So - management is looking to do a push to move towards doing unit-testing in all the applications moving forward - and eventually get into full TDD/Continuous Integration/Automated build mode (I hope). At this point however we are just concerned about getting everyone developing apps moving forward using unit-testing. I'd like to just start with the basics.
I won't lie - I'm by far no expert by any means in unit-testing, but I do have a good enough understanding to start the initiative with the basics, and allow us to grow togeather as a team. I'd really love to get some comments & critisism from all you experts on my plan of attack on this thing. It's a team of about 10 developers in a small shop, which makes for a great opportunity to move forward with agile development methodologies and best practices.
First off - the team consists of mainly mid level developers with a couple of junior devs and one senior, all with minimal to no exposure to unit testing. The training will be a semi-monthly meeting for about 30-60 minutes each time (probably wind up running an hour long i'd guess, and maybe have them more often). We will continue these meetings until it makes sense to stop them to allow others to catch up with their own 'homework' and experience - but the push will always be on.
Anyway - here is my lesson plan I have come up with. Well, the first two at least. Any advice from your experts out there on the actual content or structure of the lessons, etc, would be great. Comments & Critisism greatly appreciated. Thanks very much.
I apologize if this is 'too much' to post in here or read through. I think this would be a great thread for SO users looking to get into unit testing in the first place as well. Perhaps you could just skip to the 'lesson plans' section - thanks again everyone.
CLIFF NOTES - I realize this post is incredibly long and ugly, so here is the cliff notes - Lesson 1 will be 'hello world unit tests' - Lesson 2 will be opening the solution to my most recent application, and showing how to apply each 'hello world' example in real life... Thanks so much everyone for the feedback you've given me so far.. just wantd to highlight the fact that lesson 2 is going to have real life production unit tests in it, since many suggested I do that when it was my plan from the begining =)
Unit Testing Lesson Plan
Overview
Why unit test? Seems like a bunch of extra work - so why do it?
• Become the master of your own destiny. Most of our users do not do true UATs, and unfortunately tend to do their testing once in production. With unit-tests, we greatly decrease risk associated with this, especially when we create enough test data and take into account as many top level inputs as we possibly can. While not being a ‘silver bullet’ that prevents all bugs – it is your first line of defense – a huge front line, comparable to that of the SB championship Giants.
• Unit-Testing enforces good design and architecture practices. It is ‘the violent psychopath who maintains your code and knows where you live’ so to say. You simply can’t write poor quality code that is well unit-tested
• How many times have you not refactored smelly code because you were too scared of breaking something? Automated testing remove this fear, makes refactoring much easier, in turn making code more readable and easier to maintain.
• Bottom line – maintenance becomes much easier and cheaper. The time spent writing unit tests might be costly now – but the time it saves you down the road has been proven time and time again to be far more valuable. This is the #1 reason to automate testing your code. It gives us confidence that allows us to take on more ambitious changes to systems that we might have otherwise had to reduce requirements on, or maybe even not take on at all.
Terminology Review
• Unit testing - testing the lowest level, single unit of work. E.G. – test all possible code paths that a single function can flow through.
• Integration testing - testing how your units work together. E.g. – run a ‘job’ (or series of function calls) that does a bunch of work, with known inputs - and then query the database at the end and assert the values are what you expect from those known inputs (instead of having to eye-ball a grid on a web page somewhere, e.g. doing a functional test).
• Fakes – a fake is a type of object whose purpose is to use for your testing. It allows you too easily not test code that you do not want to test. Instead of having to call code that you do not want – like a database call – you use a fake object to ‘fake’ that DB call and perhaps read the data from an XML/Excel file or a mocking framework.
o Mock – a type of fake to which you make assert statements against.
o Stub – a type of fake to which you use as placeholder code, so you can skip the database call, but do not make asserts against
Lessons
Lesson one – Hello Worlds
• Hello World unit test - I will create a ‘hello world’ console application that is unit tested. Will create this application on the fly during the meeting, showing the tools in Visual Studio 2008 (test-project, test tools toolbar, etc.) that we are going to use along the way while explaining what they do. This will have only a single unit-test. (OK, maybe I won’t create it ‘on the fly’ =), have to think about it more). Will also explain the Assert class and its purpose and the general flow of a unit-test.
• Hello World, a bit more complicated. Now our function has different paths/logical branches the code can flow through. We will have ~3 unit tests for this function. This will be a pre-written solution I make before the meeting.
• Hello World, dependency injection. (Not using any DI frameworks). A pre-written solution that builds off the previous one, this time using dependency injection. Will explain what DI is and show a sample of how it works.
• Hello World, Mock Objects. A pre-written solution that builds off the previous one, this time using our newly added DI code to inject a mock object into our class to show how mocking works. Will use NMock2.0 as this is the only one I have exposure to. Very simple example to just display the use of mock objects. (Perhaps put this one in a separate lesson?).
• Hello World, (non-automated) Integration Test. Building off the previous solution, we create an integration test so show how to test 2 functions together, or entire class together (perhaps put this one in a separate lesson?)
Lesson two – now we know the basics – how to apply this in real life?
• General overview of best practices
o Rule #1- Single Responsibility Principal. Single Responsibility Principal. Single Responsibility Principal. Facetiously stating that this is the single most important thing to keep in mind while writing your code. A class should have only one purpose; a function should do only one thing. The key word here is ‘unit’ test – and the SRP will keep your classes & functions encapsulated into units.
o Dependency Injection is your second best friend. DI allows you to ‘plug’ behavior into classes you have, at run time. Among other things, this is how we use mocking frameworks to make our bigger classes more easily testable.
o Always think ‘how will I test this’ as you are writing code. If it seems ‘too hard to test’, it is likely that your code is too complicated. Re-factor until it into more logical units of classes/functions - take that one class that does 5 things and turn it into 5 classes, one which calls the other 4. Now your code will be much easier to test – and also easier to read and refactor as well.
o Test behavior, not implementation. In nutshell, this means that we can for the most part test only the Public functions on our classes. We don’t care about testing the private ones (implementation), because the public ones (behavior) are what our calling code uses. For example... I’m a millionaire software developer and go to the Aston Martin dealership to buy myself a brand new DB9. The sales guy tells me that it can do 0-60 in 3 seconds. How would you test this? Would you lift the engine out and perform diagnostics tests, etc..? No... You would take it onto the parkway and do 160 MPH =). This is testing behavior vs. implementation.
• Reviewing a real life unit-tested application. Here we will go over each of the above ‘hello world’ examples – but the real life versions, using my most recent project as an example. I'll open a simple unit test, a more complex one, one that uses DI, and one that uses Mocks (probably coupled to the DI one). This project is fairly small & simple so it is really a perfect fit. This will also include testing the DAL and how to setup a test database to run these tests against.
I like the commitment and thoroughness you're expressing here, but my feeling is your adoption plan is going to take longer this way than if you started straight in, paired up and wrote some actual production tests. You'll need infrastructure anyway -- why not bootstrap your actual production code with a CI server and a TDD framework? (A lot of times this is a bigger pain point than learning "asserts." Get this part out of the way sooner rather than later). Then sit down and solve an actual problem with a fellow coder. Pick a simple bug or small feature and try to identify what the failing tests would look like and try to write them.
I like Hello Worlds for a brown bag lunch or something. But I can't think of any reason not to just jump right in and solve some problems.
I helped design and run a Test Driven Development training in house at my company for Java developers. We ended up doing it as a full day training, and we broke it up similar to how you have here.
Why do testing?
Simple example.
More complex example.
One thing I must stress though, is people need to learn by doing.
For my training, we set up a lab environment where each student could start with the same snapshot of code, and develop and run the tests themselves, with instructors walking around the training room helping individuals who were confused or weren't getting it.
For the "Simple Example" we had a "cooking show" version of code that was on a projector and went through the TDD process step by step. Developers would have to go through the process of writing a test, then creating implementation that was just sufficient to pass the test, then repeat. At each phase, a prepared solution to the current phase was shown on the projector after the students had some time to try it on their own.
For the "Complex Example" we created a set of requirements, and then allowed the students to come up with their own solutions using TDD to do so. We even had an exercise where requirements surprise, surprise changed suddenly part way through the exercise.
I like your idea of doing it over a longer period of time with regular checkups. One downfall of our training was a lack of followup. Developers benefited by the training, I'm sure, but many I think, did not take the practice back to their ordinary work. Regular checkups would help instill unit testing as a matter of habit.
For more ideas, check out my answer to this question.
Getting people interested in unit testing on someone else's/sample code will not be as effective as having folks "start with the testcase" on some new code they have to write.
Cover the basics of starting with a test case and triangulating to a valid result (all the while emphasizing that a failing test is progress).
That said, my personal experience is that things like this are better done in a pair programming environment. It's extra work for you, but the combination of one-on-one, some ownership and a working example they can reference at the end of it will make adoption much easier.
Getting a coverage tool running at some point later on can, given the right environment, provide a fun, competitive and gratifying way of marking progress. Making this in any way part of compensation/bonuses is a real bad idea. Done correctly, folks will adopt it because it works.
I tried to introduce TDD in a small team (7-9 programmers). Lectures failed. People are skeptical, TDD sounds like snake oil. Plus, there's always the proverbial Willy.
In the end, instead of TDD, people on the team do occasional DDT (Development-Driven Tests): the write unit tests after the code to confirm that it does what they meant it to. Looks like utter failure until you realize that even this form of developer-driven QA is much better than what you had before because, even if it doesn't really improve the code for the future revisits, it cuts into deployed bugs.
There was, however, one key difference compared to your setting: the push didn't come from the management, they were just good enough to let the programmers decide for themselves.
The lectures failed, but I didn't put all the eggs in a single basket. I wrote a bunch of tests for many of the smaller, more focused functions and classes used across the project. Those little buggers you occasionally need to bend a bit to fit exactly in the next call site, hoping you didn't break any of the existing ones (you looked around the code, the change seemed safe). It was running the tests after every other svn up (not only by me), and the subsequent replies to the guilty commit emails "you broke it, pls fix ASAP!" that finally convinced them of at least partial utility of unit tests.
No matter what examples you come up with for the lectures, they'll tell you it only worked because the CUT was unrealistically (or unusually) isolated from the rest of the code. They'll ask you to write unit tests for a convoluted, buggy God Class (preferably a Singleton, everybody loves global variables, no?) because, to the best of their knowledge, that's what real-world code looks like, and they think it'll look like that with TDD as well.
Screw lectures. Have the management buy everybody a few books for the Christmas: at the very least TDD By Example (Beck) and Refactoring (Fowler). Speaking from experience, the books won't necessarily have any impact with most of them (more of the "that wasn't real-world enough" bullshit), but it's bound to stick to someone, and, no offense intended, I'd bet $1000 that Beck is the better evangelist of you two. ;) Practice TDD yourself in code you share with them. If it really works, they'll follow. Sss-looowww-lyyyy, but they will.
Then again, maybe you don't have that many Willies on your team, maybe your colleagues are eager, just in need of a leader, I don't really know, you didn't tell.
First commandment: don't be put off by slow and/or partial intake: every inch counts! (I'm preaching to myself here, ya know...)
I think it will be harder to start with test-after type of testing. A major difference compared to test-first is that test-after does not guide you in writing code which is easy to test. Unless you have first done TDD, it will be very hard to write code for which it's easy to write tests.
I recommend starting with TDD/BDD and after getting the hang of that, continue learning how to do test-after on legacy code (also PDF). IMO, doing test-after well is much harder than test-first.
In order to learn TDD, I recommend finishing this tutorial. That should get you started on what kind of tests to write.
I think it's a good outline for a session or two. But I'd strongly recommend standing up a testing infrastructure first and setting the developers up for early success, rather than shoving the developers head-first into the unit testing world and shouting "ready, set, GO!"
Assuming you develop in an IDE, a one-click test generator tool will really help with step one, test creation. You'll want to integrate a GUI-based test runner with your IDE, and you really need an automated test runner integrated with your CI builds. Having a code coverage tool integrated with the test runner tool will help developers increase their coverage. You need to provide developers with a complete framework for writing the tests, and that includes documenting how to organize the test source code (test naming standards, project settings, folder locations, etc.) Tools that automate any of the manual steps will go a long way. Provide a mock framework including mock objects for any in-house or third-party library APIs you depend on. If you're going to recommend a database full of fake data (instead of a suite of fake data access objects) create one with a few key tables and populate it with test data, and provide whatever it takes to reset it between testing runs. If not, provide a few fake DAOs of your own to serve as examples. You should have a small suite of tests already in your source control system testing production code to show as examples. And you need to have all this documented so you can hand it out in meeting #1. (Don't forget to test the document!)
One of our teams tried the ad hoc approach a couple years ago, but adoption was poor. Without the definitions or the organization of the tests, individual developers kind of did their own thing. Lack of a naming standard made it difficult to identify the right tests to run for which modules, and few people bothered. We had no IDE integration for any of it. Nobody wanted to write mocks, and we didn't provide mocks in advance for the framework we use. And it's really hard to add tests to legacy code that wasn't written with Dependency Injection in mind.
I'm now trying to get our infrastructure reorganized and ready for another shot at the task. Only after it's standing up will I work on trying to get the developers to use it again.
However, you have the one thing we were kind of lacking last time, and that's strong management support. Our previous managers were kind of lukewarm to the idea because they didn't want to delay coding by having to write all these tests. We now have new management and they are focusing on code quality -- automated unit tests are now in vogue, so it's a good time for us to try again.
Is a classroom style approach going to work well? That's a question that comes to my mind as what may happen here is so much of a separation between knowledge and application of the ideas that while they may know it, they don't quite get how to use it.
Just to give a different approach, one could jump into whatever projects are going on and start trying to apply some of this which may take a while to trickle down through everyone as the idea would be that you'd train one and then as a pair you'd train another pair and so on, to try to get everyone up to the same point. This way the theoretical stuff that isn't relevant gets taken out early.
Another idea would be to see if it makes sense to try to form teams within the group of 10, such as 2 groups of 3 and a group of 4 or 5 pairs, so that each person can present what they've done and how well do they use this.
I'd second the boundary testing, as well as showing why it can be useful to test with invalid input to see that this doesn't cause the system to roll over and die.
Lastly, it may make sense to have time devoted to handling questions and other 1:1 issues that people have as not everyone will want to ask questions in front of a large group.
EDIT: A caution on Lesson 2, which is a good idea but has a few hazards to note. First, be humble in doing this lesson so that you aren't coming across as a show-off wanting to slam everyone else. Second, I'd suggest leaving some tests incomplete when going over things so that there is an interactive aspect here that prevents the other developers from merely tuning out or rolling their eyes. Third, a follow-up lesson or two of others showing what they did or you going over what they did may be more useful to show that this is a team effort in some ways.
If management is serious about this, then they have to take the bull by the horns and take action themselves not just have a little training. Start having them ask to see the tests in code reviews. Once this is common and people know they willnot pass the code reveiw without a test, then have them refuse to deploy new code until there are tests written. It will only take a couple of iterations of this before people will know that they can't get away wihtout writing the tests and then they will do so fairly reliably. Yes the first time the manager refuses to deploy, something will probably be late. They have to take that into accound in their own planning. They also will need to start adding test writing time to their task estimating. No one wants to do this if they think they will be blamed because it takes longer to write tests and code than just to write code. Have a published schedule for how this will be implemented (you need to give them some time to learn how to do this before it is required for all new development) and on the drop dead date, nothing gets to prod without tests.
I like it. One comment I have is it's probably worth dropping in some guidelines/advice on how to go about testing threaded/asynchronous code.
Also, I'd make a comment about boundary testing i.e. using unit tests to state your assumptions on any 3rd party API you utilize.
Just because I have been doing something where TDD (and unit tests in general) has been invaluable and because it might make a good demo, I'd suggest an example using Regex, especially if you aren't a Regex expert, it's quite easy to make mistakes.
It'd also make for a good 'show, not tell' demo. If you just:
step 1: Tell them just to write some code with a Regex to match a certain pattern.
step 2: expand the pattern to something else.
step 3: show how unit tests immediately let them be sure that a) it matches the new pattern and b) it hasn't broken any of the previous matches or let through results that shouldn't be.
In general C&C of your review, it's hard to get an idea of exactly what sequence events will go in. Also, semi-month seems far too infrequently if there's just a void inbetween with no push to apply their knowledge. The last thing you want is it to become some meeting they go to and forget about as soon as they are out of the room!
Do you have sufficient downtime in your current workload to address technical debt and get the team to actually pair up and start looking at adding unit tests to some existing functionality and refactoring where necessary to allow mocking?
I would say that will prove far more effective than lectures and potted workshops, YMMV.
I know that TDD helps a lot and I like this method of development when you first create a test and then implement the functionality. It is very clear and correct way.
But due to some flavour of my projects it often happens that when I start to develop some module I know very little about what I want and how it will look at the end. The requirements appear as I develop, there may be 2 or 3 iterations when I delete all or part of the old code and write new.
I see two problems:
1. I want to see the result as soon as possible to understand are my ideas right or wrong. Unit tests slow down this process. So it often happens that I write unit tests after the code is finished what is known to be a bad pattern.
2. If I first write the tests I need to rewrite not only the code twice or more times but also the tests. It takes much time.
Could someone please tell me how can TDD be applied in such situation?
Thanks in advance!
I want to see the result as soon as possible to understand are my ideas right or wrong. Unit tests slow down this process.
I disagree. Unit tests and TDD can often speed up getting results because they force you to concentrate on the results rather than implementing tons of code that you might never need. It also allows you to run the different parts of your code as you write them so you can constantly see what results you are getting, rather than having to wait until your entire program is finished.
I find that TDD works particularly well in this kind of situation; in fact, I would say that having unclear and/or changing requirements is actually very common.
I find that the best uses of TDD is ensuring that your code is doing what you expect it to do. When you're writing any code, you should know what you want it to do, whether the requirements are clear or not. The strength of TDD here is that if there is a change in the requirements, you can simply change one or more of your unit tests to reflect the changed requirements, and then update your code while being sure that you're not breaking other (unchanged) functionality.
I think that one thing that trips up a lot of people with TDD is the assumption that all tests need to be written ahead of time. I think it's more effective to use the rule of thumb that you never write any implementation code while all of your tests are passing; this simply ensures that all code is covered, while also ensuring that you're checking that all code does what you want it to do without worrying about writing all your tests up front.
IMHO, your main problem is when you have to delete some code. This is waste and this is what shall be addressed first.
Perhaps you could prototype, or utilize "spike solutions" to validate the requirements and your ideas then apply TDD on the real code, once the requirements are stable.
The risk is to apply this and to have to ship the prototype.
Also you could test-drive the "sunny path" first and only implement the remaining such as error handling ... after the requirements have been pinned down. However the second phase of the implementation will be less motivating.
What development process are you using ? It sounds agile as you're having iterations, but not in an environment that fully supports it.
TDD will, for just about anybody, slow down initial development. So, if initial development speed is 10 on a 1-10 scale, with TDD you might get around an 8 if you're proficient.
It's the development after that point that gets interesting. As projects get larger, development efficiency typically drops - often to 3 on the same scale. With TDD, it's very possible to still stay in the 7-8 range.
Look up "technical debt" for a good read. As far as I'm concerned, any code without unit tests is effectively technical debt.
TDD helps you to express the intent of your code. This means that writing the test, you have to say what you expect from your code. How your expectations are fulfilled is then secondary (this is the implementation). Ask yourself the question: "What is more important, the implementation, or what the provided functionality is?" If it is the implementation, then you don't have to write the tests. If it is the functionality provided then writing the tests first will help you with this.
Another valuable thing is that by TDD, you will not implement functionality that will not be needed. You only write code that needs to satisfy the intent. This is also called YAGNI (You aint gonna need it).
There's no getting away from it - if you're measuring how long it takes to code just by how long it takes you to write classes, etc, then it'll take longer with TDD. If you're experienced it'll add about 15%, if you're new it'll take at least 60% longer if not more.
BUT, overall you'll be quicker. Why?
by writing a test first you're specifying what you want and delivering just that and nothing more - hence saving time writing unused code
without tests, you might think that the results are so obvious that what you've done is correct - when it isn't. Tests demonstrate that what you've done is correct.
you will get faster feedback from automated tests than by doing manual testing
with manual testing the time taken to test everything as your application grows increases rapidly - which means you'll stop doing it
with manual tests it's easy to make mistakes and 'see' something passing when it isn't, this is especially true if you're running them again and again and again
(good) unit tests give you a second client to your code which often highlights design problems that you might miss otherwise
Add all this up and if you measure from inception to delivery and TDD is much, much faster - you get fewer defects, you're taking fewer risks, you progress at a steady rate (which makes estimation easier) and the list goes on.
TDD will make you faster, no question, but it isn't easy and you should allow yourself some space to learn and not get disheartened if initially it seems slower.
Finally you should look at some techniques from BDD to enhance what you're doing with TDD. Begin with the feature you want to implement and drive down into the code from there by pulling out stories and then scenarios. Concentrate on implementing your solution scenario by scenario in thin vertical slices. Doing this will help clarify the requirements.
Using TDD could actually make you write code faster - not being able to write a test for a specific scenario could mean that there is an issue in the requirements.
When you TDD you should find these problematic places faster instead of after writing 80% of your code.
There are a few things you can do to make your tests more resistant to change:
You should try to reuse code inside
your tests in a form of factory
methods that creates your test
objects along with verify methods
that checks the test result. This
way if some major behavior change
occurs in your code you have less
code to change in your test.
Use IoC container instead of passing
arguments to your main classes -
again if the method signature
changes you do not need to change
all of your tests.
Make your unit tests short and Isolated - each test should check only one aspect of your code and use Mocking/Isolation framework to make the test independent of external objects.
Test and write code for only the required feature (YAGNI). Try to ask yourself what value my customer will receive from the code I'm writing. Don't create overcomplicated architecture instead create the needed functionality piece by piece while refactoring your code as you go.
Here's a blog post I found potent in explaining the use of TDD on a very iterative design process scale: http://blog.extracheese.org/2009/11/how_i_started_tdd.html.
Joshua Block commented on something similar in the book "Coders at work". His advice was to write examples of how the API would be used (about a page in length). Then think about the examples and the API a lot and refactor the API. Then write the specification and the unit tests. Be prepared, however, to refactor the API and rewrite the spec as you implement the API.
When I deal with unclear requirements, I know that my code will need to change. Having solid tests helps me feel more comfortable changing my code. Practising TDD helps me write solid tests, and so that's why I do it.
Although TDD is primarily a design technique, it has one great benefit in your situation: it encourages the programmer to consider details and concrete scenarios. When I do this, I notice that I find gaps or misunderstandings or lack of clarity in requirements quite quickly. The act of trying to write tests forces me to deal with the lack of clarity in the requirements, rather than trying to sweep those difficulties under the rug.
So when I have unclear requirements, I practise TDD both because it helps me identify the specific requirements issues that I need to address, but also because it encourages me to write code that I find easier to change as I understand more about what I need to build.
In this early prototype-phase I find it to be enough to write testable code. That is, when you write your code, think of how to make it possible to test, but for now, focus on the code itself and not the tests.
You should have the tests in place when you commit something though.
I feel the need to refactor my old CF5 based code into CFC's. We already have some code in ColdSpring and Transfer but feel a large rewrite to ColdSpring and Transfer is pointless.
What tips, approaches and gotchas will I hit.
How can I make this easy?
I don't mind keeping ColdSpring in the mix but Transfer is the bit I'm scared of with the size of the project.
edit: my code base has been going for 7-8 years and is vast. To describe it would be difficult, however I'm looking for generic suggestions on approaches
Changing the whole code base just for the sake of it if it basically works would be introducing a lot of potential bugs into your system. I don’t think there is an easy way to do it.
If you look at the areas of your site which are 1: most likely to change and 2: executed the most you may be able to target some areas which could benefit from change and see how easily they would fit into a CFC based framework, and what benefits. But for most of the code if it is working OK, there may be no pressing need to change.
However whenever you need to do a major alteration to part of the system it may be worth looking at that from an OO perspective and moving the existing code over, where applicable.
In one of my ongoing projects (almost same situation, even more -- most of code is really bad) I am using technique I'd called "wave-style". General ideas I use are following:
Splitting processing from output. I can not implement true MVC here, but at least I can move view into separate templates (sometimes re-use them) and prepare all data in basic (model) templates.
Move all repeating code into components -- this is one of most important tips.
Group related functions into components. Say, all customer-related info grouped into CustomerManager.cfc, invoices into InvoiceManager.cfc etc.
Why "wave"? In a big project I can't just sit and rewrite all customer-related code. So I have make it step by step. For example, I have to work on customer signup, extend it with few attributes. I've created basic component, moved there methods to validate form (check login, email etc.) and add customer - so this page works in new style. Lated I will need to improve invoice page, where I need to get invoice owner details: I just add method into customer manager and get rid of direct queries. Later edit customer page... Also it can be called "on demand refactoring" or smth.
There can be additional stuff relying on your current project state. But it helped me a lot. Hope you'll find these tips useful.
Before you change anything: create a full set of regression tests!
When refactoring, the goal has to be preserve functionality first, so that you don't directly affect your clients.
I agree with Sergii's wave-style refactoring also - this allows you to break things into manageable chunks rather than doing everything in one go.
But whatever method you have, the more regression tests you can create, the better - it's really the only way you can confirm you haven't unintentionally changed something.
This is extremely hard (bordering on impossible) to answer without knowing any of your code.
The question is a bit like "I want to disassemble my old Volkswagen and build a new one from the parts, what should I consider?" :-)
My advice would be to start off by encapsulating your business logic into CFCs instead of worrying about the whole presentation layer of your site.
By just concentrating on the business logic, you'll be able to get the most important functionality into CFCs and ease the maintenance nightmare. It also won't be too hard to just "drop-in" these CFCs into your existing site.
After getting as much business logic into the CFCs as you can, you'll notice that the enormous monster has been cut down to size. At that point you can now decide on what you want to do with the presentation layer of your site. You're now free to pick from a multitude of frameworks available to use (CFWheels, FuseBox, ColdBox, Mode-Glue) to port over the presentation layer.
Or you could just say "the heck with it" and rewrite the whole thing in CFWheels from the start :)
If you are not using version control get that set up before you do anything else. Being able to back out of broken refactoring is a serious life saver. After that I agree with what has been posted. You will want to take on small chunks at a time - divide and conquer.