I'm just getting started with TDD and am curious as to what approaches others take to run their tests. For reference, I am using the google testing framework, but I believe the question is applicable to most other testing frameworks and to languages other than C/C++.
My general approach so far has been to do one of three things:
Write the majority of the application in a static library, then create two executables. One executable is the application itself, while the other is the test runner with all of the tests. Both link to the static library.
Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and enable or disable the testing code using compiler flags. This is probably the best approach I've used so far, but clutters up the code a bit.
Embed the testing code directly into the application itself, and, given certain command-line switches either run the application itself or run the tests embedded in the application.
None of these solutions are particularly elegant...
How do you do it?
Your approach no. 1 is the way I've always done it in C/C++ and Java. Most of the application code is in the static library and I try to keep the amount of extra code needed for the application to a minimum.
The way I approach TDD in Python and other dynamic languages is slightly different in that I leave the source code for the application and tests lying around and a test runner finds the tests and runs them.
I tend to favour static libs over dlls so most of my C++ code ends up in static libs anyway and, as you've found, they're as easy to test as dlls.
For code that builds into an exe I either have a separate test project which simply includes the source files that are under test and that are usually built into the exe OR I build a new static lib that contains most of the exe and test that in the same way that I test all of my other static libs. I find that I usually take the 'most code in a library' approach with new projects and the 'pull the source files from the exe project into the test project' approach when I'm retro fitting tests to existing applications.
I don't like your options 2 and 3 at all. Managing the build configurations for 2 is probably harder than having a separate test project that simply pulls in the sources it needs and including all of the tests into the exe as you suggest in 3 is just wrong ;)
I use two approaches, for dlls I just link my unit tests with the dll, easy. For executables I include the source files that are being tested in both the executable project and the unit test project. This adds slightly to the build time but means I don't need to separate the executable in to a static lib and a main function.
I use boost.test for unit testing and cmake to generate my project files and I find this the easiest approach. Also I am slowly introducing unit-testing to a large legacy code base so I am trying to introduce the least amount of changes, in case I inconvenience other developers and discourage them from unit testing. I would worry that using a static library just for unit testing might be seen as an excuse not adopt it.
Having said this, I think the static library approach is a nice one especially if you are starting from scratch.
For C/C++ apps I try to have as much code as possible in one or more dlls, with the main application being the bare minimum to start-up and hand-off to the dll. Dlls are much easier to test because they can export as many entry points as I like for a test application to use.
I use a seperate test application that links to the Dll(s). I'm strongly in favour of keeping test code and "product" code in seperate modules.
I go with #1, some reasons are
It allows to check that each lib links correctly
You don't want extra code in the product
It's easier to debug individual small test programs
You may need multiple executables for some tests (like communication tests)
For C++ build and test, I like to use CMake which can run a selection of the target executables as tests and print a summary of the results.
Personnally, I use another approach that relies a bit on yours:
I keep the project-to-test intact. If it's an executable, it should stay an executable. You simply create a post build action in order to aggregate all obj files into a static library.
Then, you can create you test project, linking the test framework and your previously generated static library.
Here are some topics corresponding to your question:
Visual Studio C++: Unit test exe project with google test?
Linker error - linking two "application" type projects in order to use Google Test
I'm using a third-party test-runners with their framework and including testing in build script. Tests are outside of production code (external dll).
Related
I'm setting up project in C++ using CMake and Catch/gmock for unit testing (it's not very important, unit testing frameworks are working similarly) . I'm targeting Windows (MSVC compiler) and Linux platforms. I'd like to put all the tests in single executable as desribed in Catch's tutorial . For unit testing purposes I will probably make some fake implementations/mocks. I'm afraid when I will build everything into an one executable (files with test source, project sources, fake implementations) I will get linker multiple definition errors, since there will be multiple function definitions: true and fake ones. Possible solutions I see now:
Build multiple executables, every with right implementations - I see this worst solution, because I will end up with bunch of files, which I will have to execute to test program (probably via some script, but it's not convenient option).
Compile each test with it's dependencies to shared library which all will be linked with main test runner executable. I think it will be quite hard to achieve, especially I'm not familiar with Linux shared libraries. For Windows it should be doable with some dllexports, but not really easy.
How should are solve this problem? What are real world solutions for this? Maybe I don't see something really simple and I'm looking for a nonexistent problem? I'd like quite easy, multi platform solution.
I decided to add tests for my library.
The problem is that most (all?) of the test frameworks are using the same approach: build an executable file which contains code to be tested, tests and framework.
But what if I have a library which is heavy (a lot of code inside) but has only a few public functions / classes? In such situation I cannot test it well until:
I export all symbols from library
I build executable file with all library sources included
Ad. 1: it's not nice
Ad. 2: when I work with visual studio it would require me to synchronize library project with 'test' executrable project (adding/removing files etc). So it also doesn't look nice for me.
Are there any other approaches?
If you can do 2) so you should be able to reorganize your file/folder/project like;
1) a static library project containing all the internal function and object
2) a test project using any framework (there is a lot of framework with pro&con for each, my advice if you are beginner select the integrated solution or a simple framework). that test project must DEPEND (add dependcy in solution explorer menu) of the static lib. So you can add test on your internal implemtation
now the external api.
3) your old DLL project keep only the public API definition and implementation. And DEPEND of the static lib.
4) add a test project for your public api
No need to synchronize project and compile code twice, and with effort you could test more than just the external api without any internal code change.
Generally, test-driven programming works well with many and small "units". Having a few and bloated "units" makes the testing phase untolerable!
The only viable solution I see is to isolate specific parts of the code and then step into them with the debugger. Having many private functions usually leads to the aforementioned issue and since you can't access them directly during unit tests, you should really consider using the debugger for the non-obvious.
In unit-testing and test driven development, why is it better to build test code as a library rather than as an executable for testing a c++ program? I have heard arguments for both.
You can build a separate executable for your test code and run it as a post-build event of your main application. This way, if the tests fail, the build fails. Most C++ IDEs (e.g. Visual Studio, Eclipse, QtCreator) support this.
The arguments for library vs executable depend on how you want your developers to use the tests.
If you want to have the tests integrated into the build process, you probably want a command-line executable. If you want to have the tests runnable from some kind of standalone GUI app, you might want a window based executable. If you want the tests to be run by a metrics gathering server, they may need to be hosted in a service.
If you want more than one of these methods, you could choose to compile the tests into a library, then link them into each of the executable frameworks. But if you only ever have need of command-line execution, then there'd be no need for the GUI or service options, and no advantage gained from building a separate static library.
Neither approach is "better". Choose the approach you need based on your team's particular situation, and your team's standards. It's also probably not that important right now. If you start with just an executable test harness, you can always split the tests into a static library later.
It's far more important that you start writing and running automated testing now than to pause and quibble about the test implementation details.
I am tasked with managing a large code base written in vc++ 6.0, I need to start building unit test for portions of the code. I have set up CPPUnit and it works with my projects DLL's the problem I am facing is as follows. The legacy application is made up of 10 static libraries and one huge executable MFC application that contains 99% of the code. My unit test framework is running in another project within the same workspace and will test the 10 libraries no problem all include and references are ok, when I try to do the same for the large MFC application I get a linker error as I do not have a dll for the application. Is there any way to unit test the application without putting the test code directly inside the application.
You should carry on as you are:
You have one test application that references libraries.
You have one main application that also references those libraries.
Either move code from the main application into the existing libraries, or, preferably, move code into new libraries. Then your test application can access more code without ever referring to the application.
You know when you are done when the source for the application consists of one module which defines main() and everything else in in libraries which are tested by the test application.
My experience with unit testing is usually the opposite. Create a project for your test then import code from your other projects.
You can't link to the MFC application probably because your functions aren't exported. They exist, but have no mean to communicate with other applications unlike DLLs.
I know of no way to link against an executable file. Refactoring the code by moving the business logic to a DLL and leaving the application as a "Front-end" would be the most obvious solution. However, since it is legacy code it is likely more appropriate to simply duplicate the code for purposes of unit testing. This is not ideal, and since it is an MFC applicaiton may not be trivially easy.
To test your main application you can set up a test project which includes the source files you want to test - not sure how easy it is to achieve with VC6, do not have it at hand, but in VS2005 and later this is quite straightforward.
So in your solution you end up with a structure like this:
MyLegacySystem.sln
MyApplication.proj
Main.cpp
BusinessRules.cpp
MyApplicationUnitTests.proj
UnitTestsMain.cpp
BusinessRules.cpp
BusinessRulesTests.cpp
If for whatever reason you cannot include your source files in 2 projects, you can pull the sources into your test project by invoking the preprocessor magic:
BusinessRulesStub.cpp:
#include "..\src\BusinessRules.cpp"
However, this is essentially a temporary fix. As already suggested, in the end most of the code should be extracted into separate libraries.
If you can't refactor your project to move the business logic into a new static library, try linking your test project against your project's intermediate object files, which you can probably find in BigProject\debug or BigProject\debug\obj . You can't link to the .EXE as you've discovered.
This achieves the same results as the copy process that Chad suggested while avoiding the actual duplication of source code, which would be a really bad thing.
My question is quite relevant to something asked before but I need some practical advice.
I have "Working effectively with legacy code" in my hands and I 'm using advice from the book as I read it in the project I 'm working on. The project is a C++ application that consists of a few libraries but the major portion of the code is compiled to a single executable. I 'm using googletest for adding unit tests to existing code when I have to touch something.
My problem is how can I setup my build process so I can build my unit tests since there are two different executables that need to share code while I am not able to extract the code from my "under test" application to a library. Right now I have made my build process for the application that holds the unit tests link against the object files generated from the build process of the main application but I really dislike it. Are there any suggestions?
Working Effectively With Legacy Code is the best resource for how to start testing old code. There are really no short term solutions that won't result in things getting worse.
I'll sketch out a makefile structure you can use:
all: tests executables
run-tests: tests
<commands to run the test suite>
executables: <file list>
<commands to build the files>
tests: unit-test1 unit-test2 etc
unit-test1: ,files that are required for your unit-test1>
<commands to build unit-test1>
That is roughly what I do, as a sole developer on my project
If your test app is only linking the object files it needs to test then you are effectively already treating them as a library, it should be possible to group those object files into a separate library for the main and the test app. If you can't then I don't see that what you are doing is too bad an alternative.
If you are having to link other object files not under test then that is a sign of dependencies that need to be broken, for which you have the perfect book.
We have similar problems and use a system like the one suggested by Vlion
I personally would continue doing as you are doing or consider having a build script that makes the target application and the unit tests at the same time (two resulting binaries off the same codebase). Yes it smells fishy but it is very practical.
Kudos to you and good luck with your testing.
I prefer one test executable per test. This enables link-time seams and also helps allow TDD as you can work on one unit and not worry about the rest of your code.
I make the libraries depend on all of the tests. Hopefully this means your tests are only run when the code actually changes.
If you do get a failure the tests will interrupt the build process at the right place.